Dataset Information

Effect of Sunscreen Application on Plasma Concentration of Sunscreen Active Ingredients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

A prior pilot study demonstrated the systemic absorption of 4 sunscreen active ingredients; additional studies are needed to determine the systemic absorption of additional active ingredients and how quickly systemic exposure exceeds 0.5 ng/mL as recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Objective

To assess the systemic absorption and pharmacokinetics of the 6 active ingredients (avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, and octinoxate) in 4 sunscreen products under single- and maximal-use conditions.

Design, setting, and participants

Randomized clinical trial at a clinical pharmacology unit (West Bend, Wisconsin) was conducted in 48 healthy participants. The study was conducted between January and February 2019.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to 1 of 4 sunscreen products, formulated as lotion (n = 12), aerosol spray (n = 12), nonaerosol spray (n = 12), and pump spray (n = 12). Sunscreen product was applied at 2 mg/cm2 to 75% of body surface area at 0 hours on day 1 and 4 times on day 2 through day 4 at 2-hour intervals, and 34 blood samples were collected over 21 days from each participant.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was the maximum plasma concentration of avobenzone over days 1 through 21. Secondary outcomes were the maximum plasma concentrations of oxybenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, octisalate, and octinoxate over days 1 through 21.

Results

Among 48 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 38.7 [13.2] years; 24 women [50%]; 23 white [48%], 23 African American [48%], 1 Asian [2%], and 1 of unknown race/ethnicity [2%]), 44 (92%) completed the trial. Geometric mean maximum plasma concentrations of all 6 active ingredients were greater than 0.5 ng/mL, and this threshold was surpassed on day 1 after a single application for all active ingredients. For avobenzone, the overall maximum plasma concentrations were 7.1 ng/mL (coefficient of variation [CV], 73.9%) for lotion, 3.5 ng/mL (CV, 70.9%) for aerosol spray, 3.5 ng/mL (CV, 73.0%) for nonaerosol spray, and 3.3 ng/mL (CV, 47.8%) for pump spray. For oxybenzone, the concentrations were 258.1 ng/mL (CV, 53.0%) for lotion and 180.1 ng/mL (CV, 57.3%) for aerosol spray. For octocrylene, the concentrations were 7.8 ng/mL (CV, 87.1%) for lotion, 6.6 ng/mL (CV, 78.1%) for aerosol spray, and 6.6 ng/mL (CV, 103.9%) for nonaerosol spray. For homosalate, concentrations were 23.1 ng/mL (CV, 68.0%) for aerosol spray, 17.9 ng/mL (CV, 61.7%) for nonaerosol spray, and 13.9 ng/mL (CV, 70.2%) for pump spray. For octisalate, concentrations were 5.1 ng/mL (CV, 81.6%) for aerosol spray, 5.8 ng/mL (CV, 77.4%) for nonaerosol spray, and 4.6 ng/mL (CV, 97.6%) for pump spray. For octinoxate, concentrations were 7.9 ng/mL (CV, 86.5%) for nonaerosol spray and 5.2 ng/mL (CV, 68.2%) for pump spray. The most common adverse event was rash, which developed in 14 participants.

Conclusions and relevance

In this study conducted in a clinical pharmacology unit and examining sunscreen application among healthy participants, all 6 of the tested active ingredients administered in 4 different sunscreen formulations were systemically absorbed and had plasma concentrations that surpassed the FDA threshold for potentially waiving some of the additional safety studies for sunscreens. These findings do not indicate that individuals should refrain from the use of sunscreen.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03582215.

SUBMITTER: Matta MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6990686 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has provided guidance that sunscreen active ingredients with systemic absorption greater than 0.5 ng/mL or with safety concerns should undergo nonclinical toxicology assessment including systemic carcinogenicity and additional developmental and reproductive studies.ObjectiveTo determine whether the active ingredients (avobenzone, oxybenzone, octocrylene, and ecamsule) of 4 commercially available sunscreens are absorbed into systemic circulation.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized clinical trial conducted at a phase 1 clinical pharmacology unit in the United States and enrolling 24 healthy volunteers. Enrollment started in July 2018 and ended in August 2018.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to 1 of 4 sunscreens: spray 1 (n = 6 participants), spray 2 (n = 6), a lotion (n = 6), and a cream (n = 6). Two milligrams of sunscreen per 1 cm2 was applied to 75% of body surface area 4 times per day for 4 days, and 30 blood samples were collected over 7 days from each participant.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the maximum plasma concentration of avobenzone. Secondary outcomes were the maximum plasma concentrations of oxybenzone, octocrylene, and ecamsule.ResultsAmong 24 participants randomized (mean age, 35.5 [SD, 1.5] years; 12 (50%] women; 14 [58%] black or African American; 14 [58%]), 23 (96%) completed the trial. For avobenzone, geometric mean maximum plasma concentrations were 4.0 ng/mL (coefficient of variation, 6.9%) for spray 1; 3.4 ng/mL (coefficient of variation, 77.3%) for spray 2; 4.3 ng/mL (coefficient of variation, 46.1%) for lotion; and 1.8 ng/mL (coefficient of variation, 32.1%). For oxybenzone, the corresponding values were 209.6 ng/mL (66.8%) for spray 1, 194.9 ng/mL (52.4%) for spray 2, and 169.3 ng/mL (44.5%) for lotion; for octocrylene, 2.9 ng/mL (102%) for spray 1, 7.8 ng/mL (113.3%) for spray 2, 5.7 ng/mL (66.3%) for lotion, and 5.7 ng/mL (47.1%) for cream; and for ecamsule, 1.5 ng/mL (166.1%) for cream. Systemic concentrations greater than 0.5 ng/mL were reached for all 4 products after 4 applications on day 1. The most common adverse event was rash, which developed in 1 participant with each sunscreen.Conclusions and relevanceIn this preliminary study involving healthy volunteers, application of 4 commercially available sunscreens under maximal use conditions resulted in plasma concentrations that exceeded the threshold established by the FDA for potentially waiving some nonclinical toxicology studies for sunscreens. The systemic absorption of sunscreen ingredients supports the need for further studies to determine the clinical significance of these findings. These results do not indicate that individuals should refrain from the use of sunscreen.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03582215.

Project description:ImportanceColonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are considered top-tier tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Behavioral economic insights about "choice architecture" suggest that participation could be influenced by how people are presented test options.ObjectiveTo investigate response rates for offering colonoscopy only compared with sequential choice (colonoscopy and then FIT) or active choice (colonoscopy or FIT) through mailed outreach.Design, setting, and participantsThree-arm pragmatic randomized clinical trial conducted between November 14, 2017, and May 14, 2018. The setting was primary care practices at an academic health system. Patients aged 50 to 74 years with at least 2 primary care visits in the 2-year preenrollment period were included if they were eligible but not up to date on CRC screening.InterventionsEligible patients received mailed outreach about CRC screening. Equal numbers of eligible patients were randomly assigned to 3 outreach groups to receive mailings about CRC screening with the following options: (1) direct phone number to call for scheduling colonoscopy (colonoscopy only), (2) direct phone number to call for colonoscopy and a mailed FIT kit if no response within 4 weeks (sequential choice), or (3) direct phone number to call for colonoscopy and a mailed FIT kit offered at the same time (active choice).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was CRC screening completion (FIT or colonoscopy) within 4 months of initial outreach. The secondary outcomes were CRC screening completion within 6 months of outreach and the choice of colonoscopy as a screening test.ResultsIn total, 438 patients were included in the intent-to-treat analysis, with a median age of 56 years (interquartile range, 52-63 years); 55.0% were women. At 4 months, the CRC screening completion rates were 14.4% (95% CI, 8.7%-20.1%) in the colonoscopy-only arm, 17.1% (95% CI, 11.0%-23.2%) in the sequential choice arm, and 19.9% (95% CI, 13.4%-26.4%) in the active choice arm. Neither choice arm achieved a screening rate statistically greater than that in the colonoscopy-alone arm. Among those who completed CRC screening at 4 months, 90.5% (95% CI, 78.0%-103.0%) chose colonoscopy in the colonoscopy-only arm, which was significantly higher than the 52.0% (95% CI, 32.4%-71.6%; P = .005) and 37.9% (95% CI, 20.2%-55.6%; P < .001) in the sequential choice and active choice arms, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThere was no significant increase in CRC screening when offering sequential or active choice, but there was a lower rate of colonoscopy in the choice arms than in the colonoscopy-only arm. Subtle changes in sequencing or defaults can alter patient decision making related to preventive health.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03246438.

Project description:ImportanceEarly onset of myopia is associated with high myopia later in life, and myopia is irreversible once developed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of low-concentration atropine eyedrops at 0.05% and 0.01% concentration for delaying the onset of myopia.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked trial conducted at the Chinese University of Hong Kong Eye Centre enrolled 474 nonmyopic children aged 4 through 9 years with cycloplegic spherical equivalent between +1.00 D to 0.00 D and astigmatism less than -1.00 D. The first recruited participant started treatment on July 11, 2017, and the last participant was enrolled on June 4, 2020; the date of the final follow-up session was June 4, 2022.InterventionsParticipants were assigned at random to the 0.05% atropine (n = 160), 0.01% atropine (n = 159), and placebo (n = 155) groups and had eyedrops applied once nightly in both eyes over 2 years.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were the 2-year cumulative incidence rate of myopia (cycloplegic spherical equivalent of at least -0.50 D in either eye) and the percentage of participants with fast myopic shift (spherical equivalent myopic shift of at least 1.00 D).ResultsOf the 474 randomized patients (mean age, 6.8 years; 50% female), 353 (74.5%) completed the trial. The 2-year cumulative incidence of myopia in the 0.05% atropine, 0.01% atropine, and placebo groups were 28.4% (33/116), 45.9% (56/122), and 53.0% (61/115), respectively, and the percentages of participants with fast myopic shift at 2 years were 25.0%, 45.1%, and 53.9%. Compared with the placebo group, the 0.05% atropine group had significantly lower 2-year cumulative myopia incidence (difference, 24.6% [95% CI, 12.0%-36.4%]) and percentage of patients with fast myopic shift (difference, 28.9% [95% CI, 16.5%-40.5%]). Compared with the 0.01% atropine group, the 0.05% atropine group had significantly lower 2-year cumulative myopia incidence (difference, 17.5% [95% CI, 5.2%-29.2%]) and percentage of patients with fast myopic shift (difference, 20.1% [95% CI, 8.0%-31.6%]). The 0.01% atropine and placebo groups were not significantly different in 2-year cumulative myopia incidence or percentage of patients with fast myopic shift. Photophobia was the most common adverse event and was reported by 12.9% of participants in the 0.05% atropine group, 18.9% in the 0.01% atropine group, and 12.2% in the placebo group in the second year.Conclusions and relevanceAmong children aged 4 to 9 years without myopia, nightly use of 0.05% atropine eyedrops compared with placebo resulted in a significantly lower incidence of myopia and lower percentage of participants with fast myopic shift at 2 years. There was no significant difference between 0.01% atropine and placebo. Further research is needed to replicate the findings, to understand whether this represents a delay or prevention of myopia, and to assess longer-term safety.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR-IPR-15006883.

Project description:ImportanceThere remains little experimental evidence and no randomized clinical trial to date to confirm the benefit of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for facial rejuvenation.ObjectiveTo investigate whether PRP injection improves the visual appearance, including texture and color, of photodamaged facial skin.Design, setting, and participantsIn this randomized clinical trial, participants and raters were masked to groupings. The setting was an academic-based, urban outpatient dermatology practice in Chicago, Illinois. Participants were adults aged 18 to 70 years with bilateral cheek rhytids of Glogau class II or greater. The duration of the study was August 21, 2012, to February 16, 2016.InterventionsEach participant received 3 mL intradermal injections of PRP to one cheek and sterile normal saline to the contralateral cheek.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were photoaging scores (with subscores for fine lines, mottled pigmentation, roughness, and sallowness) as rated by 2 masked dermatologists. Secondary outcomes included participant self-assessment scores of improvement on a 5-point scale (worsening, no change, mild improvement, moderate improvement, or significant improvement), participant overall satisfaction scores on a 4-point scale (not satisfied, slightly satisfied, moderately satisfied, or very satisfied), and participant-reported or investigator-observed adverse events.ResultsOf 27 enrolled participants, 19 (mean [SD] age, 46.37 [10.88] years; 17 female) were analyzed. Reported adverse events, which were not associated with the study agent, included redness (n = 18), swelling (n = 16), bruising (n = 14), pruritus (n = 1), skin scaling (n = 1), and dryness of skin (n = 1). No participants reported any adverse events at 12 months. Mean (SD) photoaging scores rated by 2 dermatologists showed no significant difference between PRP and normal saline for fine lines (baseline, 1.00 [0.75] vs 1.05 [0.78]; 2 weeks, 0.95 [0.71] vs 0.95 [0.71]; 3 months, 0.95 [0.71] vs 0.95 [0.71]; 6 months, 0.95 [0.71] vs 0.95 [0.71]), mottled pigmentation (baseline, 1.21 [0.53] vs 1.21 [0.54]; 2 weeks, 1.16 [0.60] vs 1.16 [0.60]; 3 months, 1.00 [0.47] vs 1.11 [0.46]; 6 months, 1.16 [0.69] vs 1.16 [0.69]), skin roughness (baseline, 0.47 [0.61] vs 0.47 [0.61]; 2 weeks, 0.47 [0.61] vs 0.47 [0.61]; 3 months, 0.47 [0.61] vs 0.47 [0.61]; 6 months, 0.37 [0.60] vs 0.37 [0.68]), and skin sallowness (baseline, 1.11 [0.88] vs 1.11 [0.88]; 2 weeks, 0.95 [0.85] vs 0.95 [0.85]; 3 months, 0.58 [0.61] vs 0.58 [0.61]; 6 months, 0.37 [0.68] vs 0.37 [0.68]). At 6 months after a single treatment, participants rated the PRP-treated side as significantly more improved compared with normal saline for texture (mean [SD] self-assessment score, 2.00 [1.20] vs 1.21 [0.54]; P = .02) and wrinkles (mean [SD] self-assessment score, 1.74 [0.99] vs 1.21 [0.54]; P = .03).Conclusions and relevanceMasked participants noted that both fine and coarse texture improved significantly more with a single treatment of PRP than with normal saline. Both participants and raters found PRP to be nominally but not significantly superior to normal saline.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01372566.