Dataset Information

Exploring Anti-Fungal, Anti-Microbial and Anti-Inflammatory Properties of a Topical Non-Steroidal Barrier Cream in Face and Chest Seborrheic Dermatitis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The pathogenesis of seborrheic dermatitis (SD) is multifactorial and traditional treatments may not target all aspects of it. The aim of this study was to evaluate short-term anti-fungal, anti-microbial, anti-inflammatory and anti-pruritus properties of a novel non-steroidal cream (NSC) containing piroctone olamine, zinc salt of L-pyrrolidone carboxylate (PCA), hydroxyphenyl propamidobenzoic acid, biosaccharide gum-2 and stearyl glycyrrhetinate in patients with face and chest SD.

Methods

Twelve male subjects affected by SD, presenting face and chest manifestations, were enrolled. Patients were instructed to apply NSC twice a day, performing regular visits at baseline (W0), after 7 (W1) and 14 (W2) days of treatment. A limitation of the study was that no control group treated with the vehicle without active ingredients was enrolled. To evaluate the efficacy of the NSC, investigator's assessments were represented by scoring index (SI) and investigator's global assessment score (IGA). In order to assess NSC anti-fungal and anti-microbial effects, skin scale scrapings were collected and used for Malassezia furfur (MF) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (SE) cultures. In parallel, in order to assess NSC anti-inflammatory effects, gene expression of IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8, and TNF-α was assessed. In addition, anti-pruritus effects were also evaluated through gene expression of cathepsin S and L-histidine decarboxylase.

Results

SI mean scores significantly decreased at W1 and, to a greater extent, at W2 compared with W0. The IGA score registered an important improvement efficacy both for face and chest, from W1 to W2. MF and SE growth was already inhibited at W1, with a more pronounced decrease at W2. Gene expression of all analyzed mediators was significantly reduced at W1 compared to W0.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our assessment is that NSC is an effective and well tolerated treatment option for SD with anti-fungal, anti-microbial and anti-inflammatory properties.

Trial registration

ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN77871064 (retrospectively registered October 17, 2019). EudraCT number, 2019-003813-32.

Funding

ISDIN.

SUBMITTER: Balato A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6994561 | 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.