Objective: We compared the irritancy potential of sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)-free aqueous cream to SLS-containing aqueous cream and other moisturizers. Design: This was a double-blind, intraindividual occlusive study. SLS-containing aqueous cream; SLS-free aqueous cream; white soft paraffin; urea cream; Physiogel® (Stiefel Laboratories, Brentford, United Kingdom); QV cream (Ego Pharmaceuticals Pty. Ltd., Braeside, Australia); Cetaphil RestoraDerm® (Galderma Laboratories, Fort Worth, Texas); Ceradan® (Hyphens Pharma International Ltd., Singapore); normal saline; and SLS 1% aqueous were applied with Finn chamber occlusion to different sites on each participant's back for 72 hours. Skin assessments were carried out on Day 0 preapplication and Day 3 and Day 7 postapplication. Participants: Twelve healthy adult volunteers were included in this study. Measurements: Study subjects were clinically evaluated by an experienced dermatologist using a four-point severity scale to assess the severity of erythema, dryness, desquamation, stinging or burning, and pruritus. Corneometer® and transepidermal water loss (TEWL) readings were taken to assess skin hydration and skin barrier integrity, respectively. All measurements were performed on Days 0, 3, and 7. Results: Application of the SLS-free aqueous cream resulted in no significant changes in TEWL or Corneometer® readings throughout the study period. The SLS-containing aqueous cream resulted in a significant increase in TEWL from Day 0 to Days 3 and 7. All test moisturizer creams showed no significant changes in their clinical assessment scores. Conclusion: The results of our study indicate that SLS-free aqueous cream has a lower irritancy potential than SLS-containing aqueous cream, with the same level of maintenance of skin barrier integrity and hydration. SLS-free aqueous cream also appears to be less irritating to the skin than other non-SLS generic and commercial moisturizers tested.
Objective: We compared the irritancy potential of sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)-free aqueous cream to SLS-containing aqueous cream and other moisturizers. Design: This was a double-blind, intraindividual occlusive study. SLS-containing aqueous cream; SLS-free aqueous cream; white soft paraffin; urea cream; Physiogel® (Stiefel Laboratories, Brentford, United Kingdom); QV cream (Ego Pharmaceuticals Pty. Ltd., Braeside, Australia); Cetaphil RestoraDerm® (Galderma Laboratories, Fort Worth, Texas); Ceradan® (Hyphens Pharma International Ltd., Singapore); normal saline; and SLS 1% aqueous were applied with Finn chamber occlusion to different sites on each participant's back for 72 hours. Skin assessments were carried out on Day 0 preapplication and Day 3 and Day 7 postapplication. Participants: Twelve healthy adult volunteers were included in this study. Measurements: Study subjects were clinically evaluated by an experienced dermatologist using a four-point severity scale to assess the severity of erythema, dryness, desquamation, stinging or burning, and pruritus. Corneometer® and transepidermal water loss (TEWL) readings were taken to assess skin hydration and skin barrier integrity, respectively. All measurements were performed on Days 0, 3, and 7. Results: Application of the SLS-free aqueous cream resulted in no significant changes in TEWL or Corneometer® readings throughout the study period. The SLS-containing aqueous cream resulted in a significant increase in TEWL from Day 0 to Days 3 and 7. All test moisturizer creams showed no significant changes in their clinical assessment scores. Conclusion: The results of our study indicate that SLS-free aqueous cream has a lower irritancy potential than SLS-containing aqueous cream, with the same level of maintenance of skin barrier integrity and hydration. SLS-free aqueous cream also appears to be less irritating to the skin than other non-SLS generic and commercial moisturizers tested.