The efficacy of a protective cream in a real-world apprentice hairdresser environment

• Published in: Contact dermatitis Vol. 45; no. 3; pp. 134 - 138
• Main Authors: Perrenoud, D., Gallezot, D., Van Melle, G.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Copenhagen Munksgaard International Publishers 01-09-2001; Blackwell
• Subjects: (MeSH terms): dermatitis; (MeSH terms): dermatitis, occupational/prevention and control; Allergic diseases; aluminum hydroxide/therapeutic use; Biological and medical sciences; biomedical engineering; Cross-Over Studies; dermatitis; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - etiology; Dermatitis, Allergic Contact - prevention & control; dermatitis, irritant/prevention and control; Dermatitis, Occupational - etiology; Dermatitis, Occupational - prevention & control; Dermatologic Agents - therapeutic use; Double-Blind Method; Emollients - therapeutic use; hair preparations; Hair Preparations - adverse effects; hand dermatoses; Humans; Immunopathology; insensible/drug effects; irritant/prevention and control; Medical sciences; occupational/prevention and control; patient compliance; Pharmacology. Drug treatments; protective agents/therapeutic use; Skin - drug effects; Skin - pathology; Skin allergic diseases. Stinging insect allergies; skin care; Skin, nail, hair, dermoskeleton; Treatment Outcome; water loss; Cosmetic; Human; Allergy; Immunopathology; Skin disease; Toxicity; Cream; Shampoo; Occupational exposure; Apprentice; Atopy; Prevention; Contact dermatitis; Hairdresser; Hair product; Occupational medicine; Irritation
• ISSN: 0105-1873; 1600-0536
• DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0536.2001.045003134.x

The object of this study was to compare the protective action of a new barrier cream (Excipial Protect®, Spirig Pharma AG, Egerkingen, Switzerland) to its vehicle in the context of hand irritation of apprentice hairdressers caused by repeated shampooing and exposure to hair‐care products. This was a double‐blind cross‐over comparing Excipial Protect® (containing aluminium chlorohydrate 5% as active ingredient) against its vehicle alone. The efficacy of the creams was evaluated taking into account: (1) clinical scores by researchers, (2) biometric measurements, (3) subjective opinions of the subjects. An analysis of variance was performed considering order of application, degree of atopy, and reported number of shampoos. We observed very little difference in efficacy between the protective cream and its vehicle. The presence, however, of aluminium chlorhydrate in the protective cream was shown to have a positive effect against work‐related irritation. The cosmetic qualities of the creams seemed, to the participants, to be as important as their real protective and hydrating properties, an important factor in compliance issues.