Comparing the Potential for Irritation of a Ceramide-Based Moisturizer with a Urea-Based Moisturizer for Pediatric Atopic Dermatitis

Ho, Victor W.; Ma, Eric; Liew, Hui Min; Ng, Michelle Si Ying; Koh, Mark Jean Aan

doi:10.1007/s13555-020-00388-6

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Variable amounts of humectants (such as urea or glycerol), physiological lipids, and occlusives are used to make moisturizers [ 13 ]. Glycerine-stimulated enzymes reduce itching, while dimethicone (emollient) softens and moisturizes skin and lessens itchiness and flaking while offering a barrier of defense against irritants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and In-Use Tolerance of Venusia Baby Moisturizer for Skin Hydration in Babies With Dry and/or Normal Skin

Joshi,

Bhave

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Skin hydration is important for maintaining adequate skin barrier function. After delivery, the baby's skin faces the most difficult challenge as they are exposed to the exterior world's environmental changes, friction, and microorganisms. The management is further complicated by the availability of a large range of infant skin-care products with varying claims. The first-ever Indian study on babies was done to analyze the test product (Venusia baby moisturizer; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., Hyderabad, India) in order to bring scientific clarity to consumers. This product is devoid of parabens, alcohol, and animal origin (Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., Hyderabad, India) and is designed for skin hydration and in-use tolerance in babies with dry and/or normal skin. The endpoints were hydration and clinical evaluation of the skin, evaluated using a moisture meter scale (MMSC; Delfin Technologies Ltd., Kuopio, Finland) and parent self-assessment questionnaire, respectively. Material and methods A total of 136 healthy babies aged between six months to two years were enrolled in a four-group, monocentric, non-randomized, evaluator-blinded study: Group 1 (Venusia baby cream for dry skin), Group 2 (Venusia baby lotion for Dry Skin), Group 3 (Venusia baby cream for normal skin), and Group 4 (Venusia baby lotion for normal skin). The endpoints were hydration and clinical evaluation of the skin, evaluated using an MMSC and parent self-assessment questionnaire, respectively. Results In babies with dry skin, skin hydration was improved with Venusia baby cream (37.50%) and Venusia baby lotion (66.40%). Additionally, 66.66% of participants strongly agreed that the baby’s skin became softer and smoother after the application of Venusia baby cream; 76.47% of participants strongly agreed that the baby’s skin became softer and smoother after the application of Venusia baby lotion. In babies with normal skin, skin hydration was improved with Venusia baby cream (12.20%) and Venusia baby lotion (7.20%); 59.37% of participants strongly agreed that the baby’s skin became softer and smoother after the application of Venusia baby cream; and 84.84% of participants strongly agreed that the baby’s skin became softer and smoother after the application of Venusia baby lotion. Conclusion Significant improvement was seen in skin hydration using Venusia baby cream and Venusia baby lotion in babies with dry skin and normal skin. No skin intolerances and product-related adverse or serious adverse events were clinically observed or reported during the study duration. Venusia baby lotion had the highest effect (66.4%) on skin hydration in babies with dry skin, where there was a significant shift from dry skin to normal skin range.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and In-Use Tolerance of Venusia Baby Moisturizer for Skin Hydration in Babies With Dry and/or Normal Skin

Joshi,

Bhave

et al. 2023

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…• 'first line' with 'second line' emollients that contain urea 94 or antimicrobials 95 • 'natural' 68,96 (plant-based) with paraffin-based emollients • 'conventional' with 'novel' emollients, which claim to have superior skin barrier enhancement properties or which contain ingredients or live bacteria to help restore the skin microbiome and thus skin barrier function. 97,98 Participants evaluated their allocated type in parallel to each other, often drawing on their prior experience of emollients, which was most commonly creams.…”

Section: Recommendations For Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of lotions, creams, gels and ointments for the treatment of childhood eczema: the BEE RCT

Ridd,

Wells,

MacNeill

et al. 2023

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Emollients are recommended for children with eczema (atopic eczema/dermatitis). A lack of head-to-head comparisons of the effectiveness and acceptability of the different types of emollients has resulted in a ‘trial and error’ approach to prescribing. Objective To compare the effectiveness and acceptability of four commonly used types of emollients for the treatment of childhood eczema. Design Four group, parallel, individually randomised, superiority randomised clinical trials with a nested qualitative study, completed in 2021. A purposeful sample of parents/children was interviewed at ≈ 4 and ≈ 16 weeks. Setting Primary care (78 general practitioner surgeries) in England. Participants Children aged between 6 months and 12 years with eczema, of at least mild severity, and with no known sensitivity to the study emollients or their constituents. Interventions Study emollients sharing the same characteristics in the four types of lotion, cream, gel or ointment, alongside usual care, and allocated using a web-based randomisation system. Participants were unmasked and the researcher assessing the Eczema Area Severity Index scores was masked. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 16 weeks. The secondary outcomes were Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over 52 weeks, Eczema Area Severity Index score at 16 weeks, quality of life (Atopic Dermatitis Quality of Life, Child Health Utility-9 Dimensions and EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version, scores), Dermatitis Family Impact and satisfaction levels at 16 weeks. Results A total of 550 children were randomised to receive lotion (analysed for primary outcome 131/allocated 137), cream (137/140), gel (130/135) or ointment (126/138). At baseline, 86.0% of participants were white and 46.4% were female. The median (interquartile range) age was 4 (2–8) years and the median Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure score was 9.3 (SD 5.5). There was no evidence of a difference in mean Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure scores over the first 16 weeks between emollient types (global p = 0.765): adjusted Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure pairwise differences – cream–lotion 0.42 (95% confidence interval –0.48 to 1.32), gel–lotion 0.17 (95% confidence interval –0.75 to 1.09), ointment–lotion –0.01 (95% confidence interval –0.93 to 0.91), gel–cream –0.25 (95% confidence interval –1.15 to 0.65), ointment–cream –0.43 (95% confidence interval –1.34 to 0.48) and ointment–gel –0.18 (95% confidence interval –1.11 to 0.75). There was no effect modification by parent expectation, age, disease severity or the application of UK diagnostic criteria, and no differences between groups in any of the secondary outcomes. Median weekly use of allocated emollient, non-allocated emollient and topical corticosteroids was similar across groups. Overall satisfaction was highest for lotions and gels. There was no difference in the number of adverse reactions and there were no significant adverse events. In the nested qualitative study (n = 44 parents, n = 25 children), opinions about the acceptability of creams and ointments varied most, yet problems with all types were reported. Effectiveness may be favoured over acceptability. Parents preferred pumps and bottles over tubs and reported improved knowledge about, and use of, emollients as a result of taking part in the trial. Limitations Parents and clinicians were unmasked to allocation. The findings may not apply to non-study emollients of the same type or to children from more ethnically diverse backgrounds. Conclusions The four emollient types were equally effective. Satisfaction with the same emollient types varies, with different parents/children favouring different ones. Users need to be able to choose from a range of emollient types to find one that suits them. Future work Future work could focus on how best to support shared decision-making of different emollient types and evaluations of other paraffin-based, non-paraffin and ‘novel’ emollients. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN84540529 and EudraCT 2017-000688-34. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (HTA 15/130/07) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Efficacy of Over-the-Counter Moisturizers in Pediatric Atopic Dermatitis: An Update to a Systematic Review

Osher,

Madkins,

Lio

2024

Curr Derm Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparing the Potential for Irritation of a Ceramide-Based Moisturizer with a Urea-Based Moisturizer for Pediatric Atopic Dermatitis

Cited by 7 publications

References 12 publications

Efficacy and In-Use Tolerance of Venusia Baby Moisturizer for Skin Hydration in Babies With Dry and/or Normal Skin

Efficacy and In-Use Tolerance of Venusia Baby Moisturizer for Skin Hydration in Babies With Dry and/or Normal Skin

Comparison of lotions, creams, gels and ointments for the treatment of childhood eczema: the BEE RCT

Efficacy of Over-the-Counter Moisturizers in Pediatric Atopic Dermatitis: An Update to a Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About