Urea is a hygroscopic molecule (capable of absorbing water) present in the epidermis as a component of the natural moisturizing factor (NMF) and is essential for the adequate hydration and integrity of the stratum corneum. Urea improves skin barrier function including antimicrobial defense by regulating gene expression in keratinocytes relevant for their differentiation and antimicrobial peptide production. It also plays a fundamental role in regulating keratinocyte proliferation. One of the first uses of urea in modern medicine was the topical treatment of wounds due to its proteolytic and antibacterial properties. At present, urea is widely used in dermatology to improve skin barrier function and as one of the most common moisturizers and keratolytic agents. Urea-containing formulations are available in diverse formulations and concentrations. Multiple clinical trials on the use of ureacontaining formulations have shown significant clinical improvement in many of the dermatosis presenting with scaly and dry skin such as atopic dermatitis, ichthyosis, xerosis, seborrheic dermatitis and psoriasis, among others. Furthermore, urea can increase skin penetration and optimize the action of topical drugs. Ureabased products are well tolerated; their side effects are mild and are more frequent at high concentration. Here, we present a review of the use of urea in dermatology, discussing its mechanism of action, safety profile and frequent indications.

The use of sunscreens is an important and essential component of photoprotection. Since their introduction during the first half of the last century, sunscreens have benefited enormously from major technological advances such as the development of novel UV filters; as a result, their efficacy in preventing UV‐induced erythema is unequivocal. More recently, however, new challenges have appeared, which have prompted a robust discussion about the safety of sunscreens. These include topics directly related to photoprotection of human skin such as improved/alternative methods for standardization of assessment of the efficacy of sunscreens, but also many others such as photoprotection beyond UV, concerns about human toxicity and ecological safety, the potential of oral photoprotective measures, consequences of innovative galenic formulations. On a first glance, some of these might raise questions and doubts among dermatologists, physicians and the general public about the use sunscreens as a means of photoprotection. This situation has prompted us to critically review such challenges, but also opportunities, based on existing scientific evidence. We conclude by providing our vision about how such challenges can be met best in the future in an attempt to create the ideal sunscreen, which should provide adequate and balanced protection and be easy and safe to use.

PurposeThis study evaluated the human factors affecting the ease of use of a disposable autoinjector developed for subcutaneous self-injections performed by patients with chronic diseases.Materials and methodsThis was a randomized, single-center study conducted with 65 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Patients performed six simulated injections. Assessments of patient device acceptance and device usability were made by patient reports and independent observations of compliance with the device instruction for use (IFU) following single injections and repeated injections.ResultsA total of 390 simulated injections were performed. Patient device acceptance was high; more than 90% of patients found each of the tested criteria to be acceptable (>80% was required for statistical significance; P<0.016). Perceived ease of use and simplicity of the three-step process resulted in high acceptance scores: mean scores (± standard deviation) were 8.71 (±1.18) and 8.05 (±0.37), respectively, on a 0–10-point scale. Patients also expressed their acceptance with the ease and usefulness of the detection of the remaining drug in the autoinjector. In addition, 80% of patients declared that they would recommend the device to someone else. Globally, the human factors tested (age, sex, hand disability [Cochin score], extent of previous experience with self-injection [ie, expert or naïve]) had no impact on IFU device compliance. In particular, the lack of a Cochin score interaction indicated that the degree of hand disability is not a predictive factor of poor self-injection capability with this autoinjector.ConclusionThis study demonstrated a high level of patient acceptance for self-injection with this autoinjector among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. In particular, patients with severe hand disability were able to successfully comply with device IFU.

AimThe primary objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of fluid injection viscosity in combination with different injection volumes and flow rates on subcutaneous (SC) injection pain tolerance.MethodsThe study was a single-center, comparative, randomized, crossover, Phase I study in 24 healthy adults. Each participant received six injections in the abdomen area of either a 2 or 3 mL placebo solution, with three different fluid viscosities (1, 8–10, and 15–20 cP) combined with two different injection flow rates (0.02 and 0.3 mL/s). All injections were performed with 50 mL syringes and 27G, 6 mm needles. Perceived injection pain was assessed using a 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS) (0 mm/no pain, 100 mm/extreme pain). The location and depth of the injected fluid was assessed through 2D ultrasound echography images.ResultsViscosity levels had significant impact on perceived injection pain (P=0.0003). Specifically, less pain was associated with high viscosity (VAS =12.6 mm) than medium (VAS =16.6 mm) or low (VAS =22.1 mm) viscosities, with a significant difference between high and low viscosities (P=0.0002). Target injection volume of 2 or 3 mL was demonstrated to have no significant impact on perceived injection pain (P=0.89). Slow (0.02 mL/s) or fast (0.30 mL/s) injection rates also showed no significant impact on perceived pain during SC injection (P=0.79). In 92% of injections, the injected fluid was located exclusively in SC tissue whereas the remaining injected fluids were found located in SC and/or intradermal layers.ConclusionThe results of this study suggest that solutions of up to 3 mL and up to 15–20 cP injected into the abdomen within 10 seconds are well tolerated without pain. High viscosity injections were shown to be the most tolerated, whereas injection volume and flow rates did not impact perceived pain.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.