Granger Corinne, Petkar Gitanjali, Hosenally Muzzammil, Bustos Javier, Trullàs Carles, Passeron Thierry, Krutmann Jean
Stella Polaris Europe, Paris, France.
Centre International de Développement Pharmaceutique, Phoenix, Mauritius.
Dermatol Ther (Heidelb). 2022 Nov;12(11):2531-2546. doi: 10.1007/s13555-022-00815-w. Epub 2022 Sep 29.
The shortcomings of standardized sunscreen testing have been discussed in recent years, noting differences between how sunscreens perform in indoor clinical (in vivo) laboratory testing compared with real-life conditions. We previously developed an outdoor clinical method for ranking sunscreens by performance level. We used this method to test the performance of a new broad-spectrum sunscreen against International Organization for Standardization (ISO) reference products P3, P5 and P8.
Sixty-five healthy volunteers with individual typology angle (ITA) ≥ 28° (light to intermediate skin colour) participated in an outdoor study in Mauritius. Test areas were marked on their backs, which were treated with the different products: one commercially available broad-spectrum sun protection factor (SPF) 50 sunscreen [investigational product (IP)] and the three reference products P3 (SPF 15), P5 (SPF 30) and P8 (SPF 50+) from ISO norm 24444:2019 for SPF testing. The test areas were exposed for 2-3 h, depending on the baseline skin colour. They were also compared with an unprotected positive control area and a non-exposed negative control area. Clinical and colorimetry assessment of erythema and pigmentation were performed at 24 h and 8 days, respectively.
Overall, according to this outdoor clinical testing method, the sunscreens' efficacy was ranked in an appropriate order given their established SPF levels, with higher SPFs giving greater protection against erythema and pigmentation. Between the different levels of SPF, the differences were statistically significant, for both clinical and colorimetry assessments. The new broad-spectrum SPF 50 IP performed similarly to the SPF 50+ (P8) reference product. Even the highest SPF products, SPF 50 and SPF 50+, had some instances of photoprotection failure.
These findings confirm the feasibility of this outdoor clinical testing method in ranking sunscreens and provide further evidence, in addition to standardized SPF and UVA protection factor (UVAPF) testing, on how this new broad-spectrum SPF 50 sunscreen performs in extreme outdoor solar exposure: in line with reference product P8 (SPF 50+).
ISRCTN95394014.
近年来,标准化防晒测试的缺点已被讨论,指出了防晒霜在室内临床(体内)实验室测试中的表现与实际生活条件之间的差异。我们之前开发了一种通过性能水平对防晒霜进行排名的户外临床方法。我们使用这种方法测试了一种新型广谱防晒霜相对于国际标准化组织(ISO)参考产品P3、P5和P8的性能。
65名个体类型角度(ITA)≥28°(浅至中度肤色)的健康志愿者参加了在毛里求斯进行的一项户外研究。在他们的背部标记测试区域,用不同的产品进行处理:一种市售的广谱防晒系数(SPF)50防晒霜[研究产品(IP)]以及来自ISO标准24444:2019用于SPF测试的三种参考产品P3(SPF 15)、P5(SPF 30)和P8(SPF 50+)。根据基线肤色,测试区域暴露2 - 3小时。还将它们与未受保护的阳性对照区域和未暴露的阴性对照区域进行比较。分别在24小时和8天时对红斑和色素沉着进行临床和比色法评估。
总体而言,根据这种户外临床测试方法,鉴于防晒霜既定的SPF水平,其功效按适当顺序排列,SPF越高,对红斑和色素沉着的防护作用越大。在不同SPF水平之间,临床和比色法评估的差异均具有统计学意义。新型广谱SPF 50 IP的表现与SPF 50+(P8)参考产品相似。即使是最高SPF产品,SPF 50和SPF 50+,也有一些光保护失败的情况。
这些发现证实了这种户外临床测试方法在对防晒霜进行排名方面的可行性,并除了标准化的SPF和UVA防护系数(UVAPF)测试之外,还提供了进一步的证据,证明这种新型广谱SPF 50防晒霜在极端户外阳光照射下的表现:与参考产品P8(SPF 50+)一致。
ISRCTN95394014。