OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a physiologically compatible pH moisturizer in atopic dermatitis.
METHODS: A randomized half body, double blind, controlled trial involving patients with stable atopic dermatitis was performed. pH-modified moisturizer and standard moisturizer were applied to half body for 6 weeks.
RESULTS: A total of 6 (16.7%) males and 30 (83.3%) females participated. Skin pH reductions from week 0, week 2 and 6 were significant at the forearms (5.315 [0.98] to 4.85 [0.54] to 5.04 [0.78], p=0.02) and abdomen (5.25 [1.01], 4.82 [0.64], 5.01 [0.59], p=0.00) but not at the shins (5.01 [0.80], 4.76 [0.49], 4.85 [0.79], p=0.09) with pH-modified moisturizer. Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) at the forearms decreased (4.60 [2.55] to 3.70 [3.10] to 3.00 [3.55], p=0.00), abdomen (3.90 [2.90] to 2.40 [3.45] to 2.70 [2.25], p=0.046). SCORAD improved from 14.1±12.75 to 10.5±13.25 to 7±12.25, p=0.00. In standard moisturizer group, pH reductions were significant at the forearms (5.29 [0.94] to 4.84 [0.55] to 5.02 [0.70], p=0.00) and abdomen (5.25 [1.09], 4.91 [0.63], 5.12 [0.66], p=0.00). TEWL at the forearm were (4.80 [2.95], 4.10 [2.15], 4.60 [3.40], p=0.67), shins (3.80 [1.40], 3.50 [2.35], 4.00 [2.50], p=0.91) and abdomen (3.70 [2.45], 4.10 [3.60], 3.40 [2.95], p=0.80). SCORAD improved from 14.2±9.1 to 10.9±10.65 to 10.5±11, p=0.00. Reduction in pH was observed with both moisturizers while TEWL significantly improved with pH-modified moisturizer. pH-modified moisturizer resulted in greater pH, TEWL and SCORAD improvements however the differences were not significant from standard moisturizer.
STUDY LIMITATION: Skin hydration was not evaluated.
CONCLUSION: Moisturization is beneficial for atopic dermatitis; use of physiologically compatible pH moisturizer is promising.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-centre, evaluatorblinded, split-face, randomised study investigating the effects of thermal spring water (TSW) in improving efficacy and tolerability of standard acne therapy. Total of 31 participants with mild-to-moderate acne were recruited and subjected to TSW spray to one side of the face 4 times daily for 6 weeks in addition to standard therapy. The other side received standard therapy only.
RESULTS: Six (19.4%) males and 25 (80.6%) female with mean age 25.1±6.13 participated, 15 (48.4%) had mild acne while 16 (51.6%) had moderate acne. Seven (22.6%) were on oral antibiotics, 25 (80.6%) used adapalene, 6 (19.4%) tretinoin and 21 (67.7%) benzoyl peroxide. Skin hydration improved and better on spring water treated side with mean difference12.41±30.31, p = 0.04 at the forehead, 39.52±65.14, p < 0.01 at the cheek and 42.172±71.71, p < 0.01 at the jaw at week 6. Participants also report significant reduction in dryness at the treated side at week 6, mean difference 0.93±0.10, p < 0.001. TEWL, sebum and pH were comparable on both sides with no significant differences. Tolerability towards standard therapy improved as early week 2 with reduction of stinging following application of topical therapy (mean difference 0.62±1.43, p = 0.03), increase in skin feeling good (-1.79±1.70, p < 0.001) and skin suppleness (0.62±1.43, p < 0.001). These improvements were significantly maintained till week 6. Cardiff acne disability index significantly improved at week 6 (p<0.001) despite no significant changes in Comprehensive Acne Severity Scale score before and after treatment.
CONCLUSION: TSW may have a role as an adjunct to standard acne therapy by improving hydration, acne disability index and tolerability towards standard topical treatment.
CASE REPORT: In this literature work, we reported on a particular case of MCC, as exhibited by an 84-year-old Chinese woman, and discussed the clinical features and management of MCC.
DISCUSSION: We highlighted that MCC cases have a link to the polyomavirus 5. Patients who were identified with the Polyomavirus 5, and underwent immunotherapy, were seen to depict much better prognosis.