Emollient efficacy and acceptability in the treatment of eczematous dry skin: A double-blind, randomised comparison of two UK-marketed products

Figures & data

Table 1. Part 1 – 24 h AUC change from baseline corneometer reading.

	DELP (n = 34 for both cohorts)	DIPC (n = 34 for both cohorts)	Treatment difference DELP minus DIPC
Adjusted mean	382.1	76.4	305.7
For 1st cohort (n = 19)	329.2	37.1	292.1
For 2nd cohort (n = 15)	442.0	112.4	329.5
95% confidence interval (CI) for adjusted mean	350 to 414	44 to 109	273 to 338
For 1st cohort (n = 19)	280 to 379	−12 to 87	243 to 341
For 2nd cohort (n = 15)	396 to 488	67 to 158	285 to 375
p Values for testing whether effect = 0	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
For 1st cohort (n = 19)	<0.0001	0.13	<0.0001
For 2nd cohort (n = 15)	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
p Values for effect of cohort	N/A	N/A	0.0026
p Values for effect of arm (R/L)	N/A	N/A	0.0075
p Values for effect of allocation	N/A	N/A	0.078

Figure 1. Part 1 – mean corneometer readings for the treatment difference (DELP arm minus DIPC arm) vs. untreated arm by cohort.

Table 2. Part 2 – 5-day AUC change from baseline corneometer reading.

	DELP (n = 36)	DIPC (n = 36)	Treatment effect DELP minus DIPC
Adjusted mean AUC	1748	349	1399
95% confidence interval (CI) for adjusted mean AUC	1573 to 1923	174 to 524	1180 to 1618
p Values for testing whether effect = 0	<0.0001	0.0002	<0.0001

Figure 2. Part 2 – mean corneometer readings with 95% confidence interval.

Table 3. Acceptability of DELP and DIPC.

Overall product acceptability of…	No. of subjects^a selecting Like Slightly or Like Strongly	% of subjects^a selecting Like Slightly or Like Strongly
DELP	25	69%
DIPC	12	33%
p Values for DELP vs. DIPC^b	p =0.025

^aFrom total of 36 subjects who were randomised.

^bUsing Prescott’s test taking into account effect of leg.

Table 4. Willingness to use DELP and DIPC again.

Willingness to use the product again…	No. of subjects^a selecting	% of subjects^a selecting
	Yes	Yes
DELP	26	72%
DIPC	12	33%
p Values for DELP vs. DIPC^b	p = 0.033

^aFrom total of 36 subjects who were randomised.

^bUsing Prescott’s test to take into account effect of leg.

Table 5. Preferred treatment option.

Preferred leg with…	No. of subjects^a	% of subjects^a
DELP	27	75%
DIPC	6	17%
No preference^b	3	8%
p Values for DELP vs. DIPC^c	p = 0.0004

^aFrom total of 36 subjects who were randomised.

^bIncludes one subject who did not answer despite answering the rest of the questionnaire.

^cUsing Prescott’s test of preference.

Table 6. Percentage of subjects ticking “Agree Slightly” or “Agree Strongly” for 10 product attributes.

Product attribute	Number and % of subjects^a ticking “Agree Slightly” or “Agree Strongly”
The test product…	DELP		DIPC
	N	%	N	%
… made my skin feel softer	34	94%	25	69%
… made my skin feel smoother	34	94%	23	64%
… made my skin feel moisturised	33	92%	24	67%
… was easy to apply	32	89%	12	33%
… was easily absorbed into the skin	30	83%	7	19%
… was acceptable cosmetically	28	78%	15	42%
… had a pleasant consistency	27	75%	11	31%
… had an acceptable smell	26	72%	15	42%
… was soothing	24	67%	20	56%
… reduced the itching on my leg (if applicable)^b	16	52%	11	37%

^an and % = number and percentage of subjects who ticked this response, from total of 36 subjects randomised.

^bFor this attribute, denominator for percentages exclude subjects who ticked “not applicable”.

Table 7. Doublebase Dayleve gel and Diprobase cream composition.

Doublebase Dayleve gel (%w/w)	Diprobase cream (%w/w)
Isopropyl myristate 15%	White soft paraffin 15%
Liquid paraffin 15%	Liquid paraffin 6%
Glycerol	Macrogol cetostearyl ether
Povidone	Chlorocresol
Carbomer	Cetostearyl alcohol
Sorbitan laurate	Phosphoric acid
Triethanoloamine	Sodium dihydrogen phosphate
Phenoxyethanol	Sodium hydroxide
Purified water	Purified water