Dataset Information

Efficacy and Tolerability of a Medical Device Repairing Emollient Cream Associated with a Topical Corticosteroid in Adults with Atopic Dermatitis: An Open-label, Intra-individual Randomized Controlled Study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Medical device repairing emollient creams (MDRECs) are designed to repair and protect the skin barrier. In this study, we examined the added clinical benefit and tolerability of a MDREC when used in association with a moderately potent topical corticosteroid (TCS) for adults with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Methods

This was an intra-individual randomized controlled trial in adults with moderate to severe AD (EudraCT no. 2014-002,194-10). Symmetrical lesions on each arm of the subjects were randomized to treatment for 10 days with twice-daily TCS (desonide) cream alone or with combined TCS + MDREC. Subjects were then included in a following 2-week maintenance phase if the AD on at least one test area had sufficiently improved so that the treatment was no longer needed. During the maintenance phase, treatment with the TCS cream was stopped, but twice-daily application of the MDREC was continued on the same test area previously assigned to receive it. The primary outcome measure was the change in local Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) index between day 1 and 3 based on investigators' assessment. Secondary measures of lesion severity included changes in the local patient-oriented SCORAD index, pruritus intensity according to subjects' assessments, and global assessments by subjects and investigators.

Results

The study included 54 subjects. The change in investigator-observed local SCORAD index between day 1 and 3 was - 14.4% with TCS alone and - 24.5% for TCS + MDREC (p = 0.0005). Between baseline and the end of the treatment phase, all secondary measures of lesion severity decreased more with the combined TCS + MDREC treatment than with the TCS cream alone. The MDREC also reduced the relapse of AD lesions during the maintenance phase. Tolerability was very good, and the product was well accepted by subjects.

Conclusion

These results support using the MDREC in association with TCS during AD flares and as a maintenance therapy after treatment with TCS has stopped.

Funding

Laboratoires Dermatologiques Ducray, Pierre Fabre.

SUBMITTER: Rossi AB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6002316 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEczema (atopic dermatitis; AD) is a very common itchy skin condition affecting 1 in 5 children and up to 1 in 10 adults worldwide. The skin of eczema sufferers is prone to redness, irritation and dryness because it does not form an effective barrier, i.e. the ability of the skin to stop irritants, allergens and microorganisms getting into the body. Skin barrier dysfunction is a hallmark of AD. The regular and liberal (600 g/week for an adult) use of emollients is recommended for all patients with eczema), even between episodes of itching and redness, to soften and soothe the skin. In England alone, almost 9 million prescriptions for emollient creams were issued in 2018, at a cost of over £50 million. Despite this widespread use, relatively little is known about how commonly prescribed emollient creams affect the skin's barrier, and thus the role of moisturizers in AD development and progression remains unclear. We set out to compare three different types of emollient cream and a no-treatment control.AimTo compare the barrier-strengthening properties of a new moisturizer containing urea and glycerol (urea-glycerol cream; UGC), with those of a glycerol-containing moisturizer (glycerol cream; GC), a simple paraffin cream (PC) with no humectant, and a no-treatment control (NTC).MethodsThis was an observer-blinded prospective Phase 2 within-subject multilateral single-centre randomized controlled trial in adults with AD (Clinical Trials #NCT03901144). The intervention involved 4 weeks of treatment, twice daily, with the three products applied to one of four areas on the forearms the (the fourth area was the untreated control, randomized allocation). Skin properties [dryness, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), hydration and natural moisturizing factor (NMF) levels] were assessed before, during and after treatment to see what happened to the skin's barrier. The primary outcome was skin sensitivity to the irritant sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) after treatment. We performed tests on the skin before and after treatment to see what happened to the skin's barrier.ResultsIn total, 49 patients were randomized, completed treatment and included in the analysis. UGC significantly reduced the response to SLS as indicated by a reduction in TEWL compared with NTC (-9.0 g/m2 /h; 95% CI -12.56 to -5.49), with PC (-9.0 g/m2 /h; 95% CI -12.60 to -5.44) and with GC -4.2 g/m2 /h; 95% CI 7.76 to -0.63). Skin moisturization improved at sites treated with UGC compared with NTC and PC, and this was accompanied by concordant changes in dryness and NMF levels. Subgroup analysis suggested FLG-dependent enhancement of treatment effects.ConclusionThe study showed that not all emollient creams for eczema are equal. The simple paraffin-based emollient, which represents the most widely prescribed type of emollient cream in England, had no effect on the skin's barrier and reduced the skin's NMF. UGC markedly improved the skin's barrier and protected against irritation. GC performed better than PC, but not as well as UGC. UGC strengthened the skin barrier through a mechanism involving increased NMF levels in the skin, and imparted protection from SLS-induced irritation. By helping correct a major pathophysiological process, UGC has the potential to improve the long-term control of AD. The results show that different emollient creams have different effects on our skin, and only certain types have the ability to improve the skin's barrier and protect against irritants that trigger eczema.

Project description:OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and tolerability of topical pimecrolimus and tacrolimus compared with other treatments for atopic dermatitis. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Library, Medline, and Embase. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials of topical pimecrolimus or tacrolimus reporting efficacy outcomes or tolerability. DATA EXTRACTION: EFFICACY: investigators' global assessment of response; patients' global assessment of response; proportions of patients with flares of atopic dermatitis; and improvements in quality of life. Tolerability: overall rates of withdrawal; withdrawal due to adverse events; and proportions of patients with burning of the skin and skin infections. DATA SYNTHESIS: 4186 of 6897 participants in 25 randomised controlled trials received pimecrolimus or tacrolimus. Both drugs were significantly more effective than a vehicle control. Tacrolimus 0.1% was as effective as potent topical corticosteroids at three weeks and more effective than combined treatment with hydrocortisone butyrate 0.1% (potent used on trunk) plus hydrocortisone acetate 1% (weak used on face) at 12 weeks (number needed to treat (NNT) = 6). Tacrolimus 0.1% was also more effective than hydrocortisone acetate 1% (NNT = 4). In comparison, tacrolimus 0.03% was more effective than hydrocortisone acetate 1% (NNT = 5) but less effective than hydrocortisone butyrate 0.1% (NNT = -8). Direct comparisons of tacrolimus 0.03% and tacrolimus 0.1% consistently favoured the higher strength formulation, but efficacy differed significantly between the two strengths only after 12 weeks' treatment (rate ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.99). Pimecrolimus was far less effective than betamethasone valerate 0.1% (NNT = -3 at three weeks). Pimecrolimus and tacrolimus caused significantly more skin burning than topical corticosteroids. Rates of skin infections in any of the comparisons did not differ. CONCLUSIONS: Both topical pimecrolimus and topical tacrolimus are more effective than placebo treatments for atopic dermatitis, but in the absence of studies that show long term safety gains, any advantage over topical corticosteroids is unclear. Topical tacrolimus is similar to potent topical corticosteroids and may have a place for long term use in patients with resistant atopic dermatitis on sites where side effects from topical corticosteroids might develop quickly. In the absence of key comparisons with mild corticosteroids, the clinical need for topical pimecrolimus is unclear. The usefulness of either treatment in patients who have failed to respond adequately to topical corticosteroids is also unclear.