Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Dermatology and Therapy 3/2019

Open Access 01-09-2019 | Erythema | Original Research

New Methodology to Evaluate Sunscreens Under Outdoor Conditions: A Double-Blind, Randomized Intra-Individual Clinical Study of a Water-Based Broad-Spectrum SPF50+ Versus SPF15 (P3) and SPF50+

Authors: Corinne Granger, Jean Krutmann, Javier Bustos, Yolanda Sola, Muzzammil Hosenally, Carles Trullàs, Philippe Andres, Thierry Passeron

Published in: Dermatology and Therapy | Issue 3/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Introduction

This study explored a new method to test sunscreens in outdoor conditions (very high to extreme ultraviolet [UV] radiation) approximating real-life solar exposure while maintaining scientific standards and acceptable conditions, and assessed the efficacy of a water-based sun-protection factor (SPF) 50+ versus a reference SPF15 and two comparator SPF50+ products.

Methods

Thirty-five subjects underwent testing in summertime Mauritius. In each subject, five test areas were marked on the back. One area was left unprotected, and four sunscreens were applied to the others: investigational product (IP), SPF15 (ISO 24444:2010 reference standard P3), and two marketed SPF50+ controls. Subjects spent 1–2 h (depending on skin type) in the sun. After 24 h, erythema was assessed by clinical scoring (0–5) and colorimetry (a*, L*, and ITA). Secondary endpoints were correlation between clinical and colorimetry assessment, product tolerability, and total UV radiation received.

Results

All subjects were exposed to a very high UV index (≥ 8) and 30/35 were exposed to an extreme UV index (≥ 11). The IP showed statistically significant differences in clinical erythema scoring compared with unprotected skin and SPF15, but not with SPF50+ controls. On colorimetry, differences in a* (redness) and L* (lightness) reached statistical significance for the IP vs SPF15 but not vs SPF50+ controls. Clinical and instrumental erythema assessment correlated strongly (Spearman’s rho 0.663). No tolerability issues were reported.

Conclusion

This exploratory study confirmed the ability of this outdoor model to discriminate sunscreens with different SPF using clinical evaluation as an objective measure. The water-based sunscreen maintained its efficacy in outdoor conditions of very high to extreme UV radiation: it was superior to SPF15 and comparable to SPF50+ controls in preventing erythema. The method used represents an option for sunscreen efficacy comparison outside of the laboratory.

Funding

Isdin.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Sklar LR, Almutawa F, Lim HW, Hamzavi I. Effects of ultraviolet radiation, visible light, and infrared radiation on erythema and pigmentation: a review. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2013;12(1):54–64.CrossRefPubMed Sklar LR, Almutawa F, Lim HW, Hamzavi I. Effects of ultraviolet radiation, visible light, and infrared radiation on erythema and pigmentation: a review. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2013;12(1):54–64.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Azurdia RM, Pagliaro JA, Diffey BL, Rhodes LE. Sunscreen application by photosensitive patients is inadequate for protection. Br J Dermatol. 1999;140(2):255–8.CrossRefPubMed Azurdia RM, Pagliaro JA, Diffey BL, Rhodes LE. Sunscreen application by photosensitive patients is inadequate for protection. Br J Dermatol. 1999;140(2):255–8.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Granger C, Sola Y, Gilaberte Y, Trullas C. Outdoor testing of the photoprotection provided by a new water-based broad-spectrum SPF50+ sunscreen product: two double-blind, split-face, randomised controlled studies in healthy adults. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2019;12:461–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Granger C, Sola Y, Gilaberte Y, Trullas C. Outdoor testing of the photoprotection provided by a new water-based broad-spectrum SPF50+ sunscreen product: two double-blind, split-face, randomised controlled studies in healthy adults. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2019;12:461–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
go back to reference Lowe NJ, Dromgoole SH, Sefton J, Bourget T, Weingarten D. Indoor and outdoor efficacy testing of a broad-spectrum sunscreen against ultraviolet A radiation in psoralen-sensitized subjects. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1987;17(2 Pt 1):224–30.CrossRefPubMed Lowe NJ, Dromgoole SH, Sefton J, Bourget T, Weingarten D. Indoor and outdoor efficacy testing of a broad-spectrum sunscreen against ultraviolet A radiation in psoralen-sensitized subjects. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1987;17(2 Pt 1):224–30.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Wright CY, Wilkes M, du Plessis JL, Reeder AI, Albers PN. In multiple situational light settings, visual observation for skin colour assessment is comparable with colorimeter measurement. Skin Res Technol. 2016;22(3):305–10.CrossRefPubMed Wright CY, Wilkes M, du Plessis JL, Reeder AI, Albers PN. In multiple situational light settings, visual observation for skin colour assessment is comparable with colorimeter measurement. Skin Res Technol. 2016;22(3):305–10.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Basketter D, Reynolds F, Rowson M, Talbot C, Whittle E. Visual assessment of human skin irritation: a sensitive and reproducible tool. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37(5):218–20.CrossRefPubMed Basketter D, Reynolds F, Rowson M, Talbot C, Whittle E. Visual assessment of human skin irritation: a sensitive and reproducible tool. Contact Dermatitis. 1997;37(5):218–20.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Williams JD, Maitra P, Atillasoy E, Wu MM, Farberg AS, Rigel DS. SPF 100+ sunscreen is more protective against sunburn than SPF 50+ in actual use: results of a randomized, double-blind, split-face, natural sunlight exposure clinical trial. Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(5):902–910.e2.CrossRef Williams JD, Maitra P, Atillasoy E, Wu MM, Farberg AS, Rigel DS. SPF 100+ sunscreen is more protective against sunburn than SPF 50+ in actual use: results of a randomized, double-blind, split-face, natural sunlight exposure clinical trial. Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(5):902–910.e2.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Ou-Yang H, Jiang LI, Meyer K, Wang SQ, Farberg AS, Rigel DS. Sun protection by beach umbrella vs sunscreen with a high sun protection factor: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153(3):304–8.CrossRefPubMed Ou-Yang H, Jiang LI, Meyer K, Wang SQ, Farberg AS, Rigel DS. Sun protection by beach umbrella vs sunscreen with a high sun protection factor: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153(3):304–8.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Russak JE, Chen T, Appa Y, Rigel DS. A comparison of sunburn protection of high-sun protection factor (SPF) sunscreens: SPF 85 sunscreen is significantly more protective than SPF 50. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62(2):348–9.CrossRefPubMed Russak JE, Chen T, Appa Y, Rigel DS. A comparison of sunburn protection of high-sun protection factor (SPF) sunscreens: SPF 85 sunscreen is significantly more protective than SPF 50. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010;62(2):348–9.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Lott D. Testing SPF 15–100, indoor vs. outdoor. Cosmet Toiletries Mag. 2013;128(9):638–647. Lott D. Testing SPF 15–100, indoor vs. outdoor. Cosmet Toiletries Mag. 2013;128(9):638–647.
18.
go back to reference Dumas KJ, Scholtz JR. The psoriasis bio-assay for topical corticosteroid activity. Acta Derm Venereol. 1972;52(1):43–8.CrossRefPubMed Dumas KJ, Scholtz JR. The psoriasis bio-assay for topical corticosteroid activity. Acta Derm Venereol. 1972;52(1):43–8.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Queille-Roussel C, Hoffmann V, Ganslandt C, Hansen KK. Comparison of the antipsoriatic effect and tolerability of calcipotriol-containing products in the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris using a modified psoriasis plaque test. Clin Drug Investig. 2012;32(9):613–9.PubMed Queille-Roussel C, Hoffmann V, Ganslandt C, Hansen KK. Comparison of the antipsoriatic effect and tolerability of calcipotriol-containing products in the treatment of psoriasis vulgaris using a modified psoriasis plaque test. Clin Drug Investig. 2012;32(9):613–9.PubMed
20.
go back to reference Lee CS, Koo J. The efficacy of three class I topical synthetic corticosteroids, fluocinonide 0.1% cream, clobetasol 0.05% cream and halobetasol 0.05% cream: a Scholtz–Dumas bioassay comparison. J Drugs Dermatol. 2009;8(8):751–5.PubMed Lee CS, Koo J. The efficacy of three class I topical synthetic corticosteroids, fluocinonide 0.1% cream, clobetasol 0.05% cream and halobetasol 0.05% cream: a Scholtz–Dumas bioassay comparison. J Drugs Dermatol. 2009;8(8):751–5.PubMed
Metadata
Title
New Methodology to Evaluate Sunscreens Under Outdoor Conditions: A Double-Blind, Randomized Intra-Individual Clinical Study of a Water-Based Broad-Spectrum SPF50+ Versus SPF15 (P3) and SPF50+
Authors
Corinne Granger
Jean Krutmann
Javier Bustos
Yolanda Sola
Muzzammil Hosenally
Carles Trullàs
Philippe Andres
Thierry Passeron
Publication date
01-09-2019
Publisher
Springer Healthcare
Keyword
Erythema
Published in
Dermatology and Therapy / Issue 3/2019
Print ISSN: 2193-8210
Electronic ISSN: 2190-9172
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-019-00315-4

Other articles of this Issue 3/2019

Dermatology and Therapy 3/2019 Go to the issue