Determination of relevant endpoints to evaluate the in vivo barrier function in cutaneous health
This work aims to identify endpoints to evaluate the in vivo barrier function of the skin by noninvasive methods in healthy and atopic individuals, thus contributing to the consolidation of methodologies that can be employed in later studies of the action on skin health of different health products and food supplements. In this context, the cutaneous aggression induction model using sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) was used, followed by evaluation of transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and vascular blood flow of the dermis by colorimetry and laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF), in a group of healthy volunteers (n = 15) and in a group with atopic dermatitis (n = 5). The healthy individuals presented a basal TEWL slightly superior to the atopic group. In skin without intervention, baseline values did not change, 24 hours after induction of irritation, in both groups (p <0.05). In the aggressed skin, in the same period, values presented a higher variation than that of the control zone (p <0.05), being greater in the atopic than in the healthy group. Results confirm that measurement of TEWL after SLS aggression allows a good assessement of skin barrier function in both healthy and atopic subjects and suggest that erythema may be a measure of support for the robustness of the results.
Este estudo pretende identificar endpoints para avaliar in vivo a função de barreira da pele, por métodos não invasivos, em indivíduos com atopia e em saudáveis, contribuindo assim para a consolidação de metodologias de estudo que possam ser depois aplicadas na avaliação da ação na saúde da pele de diferentes produtos de saúde e suplementos alimentares. Neste contexto, usou-se o modelo de indução de agressão cutânea com lauril sufato de sódio (LSS) seguido de avaliação da perda transepidérmica de água (PTEA) e do fluxo sanguíneo vascular da derme, por colorimetria e por fluxometria de laser Doppler (FLD), num grupo de voluntários saudáveis (n=15) e num grupo de atópicos (n=5). Os voluntários saudáveis apresentaram uma PTEA basal ligeiramente superior aos atópicos. Na pele sem intervenção, os valores basais não sofreram alteração, 24h após indução da irritação, em ambos os grupos (p <0,05). Na pele tratada com LSS, no mesmo período, os valores apresentaram uma variação maior do que na zona controle (p <0,05), sendo maior no grupo atópico do que no grupo saudável. Os resultados confirmam que a avaliação das alterações cutâneas após agressão com LSS, por medição da PTEA permite uma boa apreciação da função de barreira da pele, quer em voluntários saudáveis quer em atópicos, e sugerem que a medição do eritema por colorimetria pode ser uma avaliação de suporte à robustez deses resultados.
Bibliographic data
Translated title: | Determinação de "endpoints" relevantes para a avaliação in vivo da função "barreira" na saúde cutânea |
---|---|
Journal Title: | Jornal de Investigação Biomédica e Biofarmacêutica |
First author: | Emília Alves |
Other Authors: | Patrícia Rijo; Luís Monteiro Rodrigues; Catarina Rosado |
Palabras clave: | |
Traslated Keywords: | |
Language: | English Portuguese |
Get full text: | http://www.alies.pt/BBR%20Editions/Vol-16-1-2019/art9.pdf |
Resource type: | Journal Article |
Source: | Jornal de Investigação Biomédica e Biofarmacêutica; Vol 16, No 1 (Year 2019). |
DOI: | http://dx.doi.org/10.19277/bbr.16.1.201 |
Publisher: | Associação Lusófona para o Desenvolvimento da Investigação e Ensino em Ciências da Saúde |
Usage rights: | Reconocimiento - NoComercial (by-nc) |
Knowledge areas / Categories: | Life Sciences --> Biochemistry --AMP-- Molecular Biology Health Sciences --> Pharmacology --AMP-- Pharmacy Health Sciences, Life Sciences --> Physiology |
Statistical data
- Views
- Consultations
- Citation style
- Share
- Export record
- Favourites
Bibliometric data
WOS
Bibliography: | [1] Ritcher T, Peuckert C, Sattler M, et al. Dead but highly dynamic - the Stratum corneum is divided into three hydration zones, Skin Pharmacol Physiol 2004;17: 246-257. [2] Proksch E, Fölster-Holst R, Bräutigam M, et al. Role of the epidermal barrier in atopic dermatitis. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges 2009; 10: 899-910. [3] Chilcott, RP, Dalton, CH, Emmanuel, AJ, et al..Transepidermal water loss does not correlate with skin barrier function in vitro, J Invest Dermatol 2002; 118: 871-875. [4] Polańska A, Dańczak-Pazdrowska A, Silny W, et al. Evaluation of selected skin barrier functions in atopic dermatitis in relation to the disease severity and pruritus. Postep Derm Alergol 2012; 29: 373-377. [5] Polańska A, Dańczak-Pazdrowska A, Silny W, et al. Nonlesional skin in atopic dermatitis is seemingly healthy skin - observations using noninvasive methods. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne 2013; 8(3):192–199. [6] Kim BE, Leung DYM. Significance of Skin Barrier Dysfunction in Atopic Dermatitis. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2018; 10(3): 207-215. [7] Frosch PJ, Wissing C. Cutaneous sensitivity to ultraviolet light and chemical irritants. Arch Dermatol Res 1982;272(3-4):269-278. [8] Rosado C, Ferreira J, Pinto PC, Rodrigues LM. Skin Barrier Function Evaluation by Bi-compartmental Analisys of TEWL Dynamical Measurements: Validation of New Analytical Conditions. Biomed Biopharm Res 2012; (9) 2: 183-189 [9] Kim DW, Park JY, Na GY, Lee SJ, Lee WJ. Correlation of clinical features and skin barrier function in adolescent and adult patients with atopic dermatitis. Int J Dermatology 2006: 45, 698–701. [10] Belsito, DV. Occupational contact dermatitis: etiology, prevalence, and resultant impairment/disability. J Am Acad Dermatol 2005; 53: 303-313. [11] Wahlberg JE, Maibach HI. Nonanoic acid irritation – a positive control at routine patch testing. Contact Dermatitis 1980; 6:128-130. [12] Held E, Agner T. Comparison between 2 test models in evaluating the effect of a moisturizer on irritated human skin. Contact Dermatitis 1999; 40: 261–268. [13] Rogiers V. EEMCO guidance for the Assessment of the Transepidermal Water Loss (TEWL) in Cosmetic Sciences. Skin Pharmacol Physiol 2001; 14:117-128. [14] Gloor M, Senger B, Langenauer M, et al.. On the course of the irritant reaction after irritation with sodium lauryl sulphate. Skin Res Technol 2004; 10: 144-148. [15] Bircher AJ, de Boer EM, Agner T, Wahlberg JE, et al. Guidelines for the measurement of cutaneous blood flow by laser Doppler flowmetry. Contact Dermatitis 1994; 30:65-72. [16] Fullerton AQ, Fisher T, Lahti, AQ, et al. Guidelines for the measurement of skin color and erythema, Contact Dermatitis 1996; 35:1-10. [17] de Oliveira CA, Peres DD, Rugno CM, Kojima M, de Oliveira Pinto C.S, Consiglieri VO, Kaneko TM, Rosado C, Mota J, Velasco MVR, Baby AR. Functional photostability and cutaneous compatibility of bioactive UVA sun care products. J Photochem Photobiol B Biol 2015;148:154-159. [18] Pinnagoda J, Tupker R A, Agner T, Serup J. Guidelines for transepidermal water loss (TEWL) measurements. Contact Dermatitis 1990; 22: 164–178. [19] Thomas CL, Fernández-Peñas P. The microbiome and atopic eczema: More than skin deep. Australas. J Dermatol 2017; 58:18–24. [20] Makrgeorgou A, Leonardi-Bee J, Bath-Hextall FJ, Murrell DF, Tang ML, Roberts A, Boyle RJ. Probiotics for treating eczema. Cochrane database Syst. Rev. 2018. 11, CD006135. [21] Aramaki J, Effendy I, Happle R, et al. Which bioengineering assay is appropriate for irritant patch testing with sodium lauryl sulfate? Contact Dermatitis 2001; 45:286-290. [22] Jakasa I, de Jongh CM, Verberk MM, Bos JD, Kezic S. Percutaneous penetration of sodium lauryl sulphate is increased in uninvolved skin of atopic dermatitis patients compared to control subjects. Br J Dermatol 2006; 155:104–109. [23] Bandier J, Carlsen BC, Rasmussen MA, Petersen LJ, Johansen JD. Skin reaction and regeneration after single sodium lauryl sulfate exposure stratified by filaggrin genotype and atopic dermatitis phenotype. Br J Dermatol 2015; 172: 1519–1529. [24] Angelova-Fischer I, Dapic I, Hoek AK, Jakasa I, Fischer TW, Zillikens D, Kezic S. Skin barrier integrity and natural moisturising factor levels after cumulative dermal exposure to alkaline agents in atopic dermatitis. Acta Derm Venereol 2014; 94: 640–644. |
---|