Comparison of Urea-Based Compounding Moisturizers and Similar Commercial Products on Skin Barrier Function: A Randomized Biometric Study

• Published in: Journal of cosmetic science 2021-03, Vol.72 (2), p.201-213
• Main Authors: Samadi, Aniseh, Naeimifar, Atefeh, Ahmad Nasrollahi, Saman, Firooz, Alireza
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Biometry; Emollients - pharmacology; Humans; Middle Aged; Skin; Urea - pharmacology; Water Loss, Insensible; Young Adult
• ISSN: 1525-7886

Although several commercial moisturizers are available in the market, the continued role of pharmaceutical compounding has been still felt in dry skin management. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of a ureabased compounded moisturizer on barrier function, compared with a similar commercial product. Thirty volunteers with a mean age of 36.15 ± 9.55 years (range 21-56 years) and dry skin were recruited in two groups, one group to apply 5% urea containing hydrophilic petrolatum and the other 10% urea containing hydrophilic petrolatum. In each cohort, the upper parts of right and left forearms were randomly assigned for twice a day application of commercial or compounded products. Whereas the right lower forearm was assigned for application of a cream-based formulation, the left lower one served as the control site and with application of no topical product. Biophysical assessments [transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin hydration, friction coeffi cient, pH, and surface lipids], were performed before intervention, at 1 and 4 h after single application, and at 24 h and 1 week twice daily application. In both groups, commercial and compounded moisturizers showed an appropriate and comparable effect on skin barrier function compared with creambased formulation and no treatment area. However, commercial products led to better improvement in TEWL, 4 h after single application in both groups ( -value = 0.04). In case of 10% urea base formulation, the rate of increase in skin hydration was also signifi cantly higher for a commercial emollient than a compounding product (57.48 ± 11.23 vs. 50.59 ± 11.42, -value = 0.02). Commercial formulation led to higher acceptability and better improvement in the skin barrier function after single application, probably because of the influence of excipients. The present study did not find sufficient added value for cream-based pharmacy product relative to commercial one and suggests to be replaced in a similar condition.