Abstract
Introduction
The skin of patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) is characterised by elevated pH. As a central homeostatic regulator, an increased pH accelerates desquamation and suppresses lipid processing, resulting in diminished skin barrier function. The aim of this study was to determine whether a novel zinc lactobionate emollient cream can strengthen the skin barrier by lowering skin surface pH.
Methods
A double-blind, forearm-controlled cohort study was undertaken in patients with AD. Participants applied the test cream to one forearm and a vehicle cream to the other (randomised allocation) twice daily for 56 days. Skin surface pH and barrier function (primary outcomes) were assessed at baseline and after 28 days and 56 days of treatment, amongst other tests.
Results
A total of 23 adults with AD completed the study. During and after treatment, a sustained difference in skin surface pH was observed between areas treated with the test cream and vehicle (4.50 ± 0.38 versus 5.25 ± 0.54, respectively, p < 0.0001). This was associated with significantly reduced transepidermal water loss (TEWL) on the test cream treated areas compared with control (9.71 ± 2.47 versus 11.20 ± 3.62 g/m2/h, p = 0.0005). Improvements in skin barrier integrity, skin sensitivity to sodium lauryl sulphate, skin hydration, and chymotrypsin-like protease activity were all observed at sites treated with the test cream compared with the control.
Conclusion
Maintenance of an acidic skin surface pH and delivery of physiologic lipids are beneficial for skin health and may help improve AD control by reducing sensitivity to irritants and allergens.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
The barrier function of the skin, which prevents the entry of irritants and allergens, is impaired in atopic dermatitis. |
Skin pH, which regulates the biochemical and functional properties of the skin, is elevated in atopic dermatitis. |
This study aimed to assess whether pH changes in the skin induced by emollient use affect skin barrier function. |
Following treatment with emollients at differing pH, skin barrier function is improved and skin sensitivity reduced at sites with a lower pH. |
The pH of formulations used for eczema treatment could have an important role in determining the efficacy of treatment. |
Introduction
Skin surface pH (pHSS) varies between individuals and is influenced by skin pathology, age, gender and exposure to environmental factors such as washing regimes and treatment usage [1]. In healthy individuals, pHSS is acidic, ranging from 4.1 to 5.8 [1]. Maintenance of an acidic stratum corneum (SC) pH (pHSC) is crucial to skin homeostasis. Experimental modification of pHSC has revealed significant impacts on lipid metabolism [2,3,4,5] and the activity of extracellular proteases involved in desquamation (the normal shedding of the uppermost mature corneocytes from the skin surface) [3,4,5,6]. Lipids released into the extracellular space from lamellar bodies produced by developing keratinocytes are incorporated into lamellar bilayer structures. Embedded within this lipid matrix are the terminally differentiated corneocytes; attached to one another through intercellular junctions called corneodesmosomes. This highly interconnected arrangement of flattened and cornified cells surrounded by structural lipids forms a barrier to water loss and to the entry of exogenous irritants and pathogens. pHSC regulates the formation of this barrier, its protective function and its interaction with the microbiome [7,8,9].
Changes to pHSS have been implicated in a number of inflammatory skin conditions, including atopic dermatitis (AD) [10,11,12]. AD is a multifactorial skin disease with both inherited and environmental components. It is likely that an underlying dysfunction of the skin barrier combined with heterogeneous environmental triggers, microbial dysbiosis and a dysregulated immune response all contribute to development of the clinical phenotype [13]. AD has a significant prevalence in many populations worldwide [14]. The chronic nature of the disorder and the prominent characteristics of skin lesion, persistent itch and sleep disturbance have a significant impact on psycho-social wellbeing and patient reported quality of life [15,16,17,18]. Increased pHSS is observed in areas affected by dermatitis compared with unaffected skin in the same individuals [19]. Lowering pHSS is therefore expected to alleviate barrier impairment and improve symptoms. Acidification of murine pHSC improves skin barrier integrity, cohesion and barrier recovery following disruption [5]. Further evidence in mice also suggests that skin acidification could prevent primary AD development [20].
Emollients are widely used to treat skin dryness and to improve barrier function. However, many skincare products are formulated with a pH greater than 5.5. In a survey of commonly used emollient products, Shi et al. [21] found that more than half of the products had a pH greater than 5.5 and nearly a third had a pH greater than 6, outside the normal range for skin. Furthermore, unless treatment is formulated with sufficient buffering capacity, effects on pHSS will be transient. To support optimal barrier function, alleviate dryness and maintain skin health, there is a requirement for skincare products to effectively moisturise the skin at a more favourable pH. The aim of this study was to determine whether acidification of the skin with a novel zinc lactobionate emollient preparation (pH 4.0) results in improved barrier function.
Methods
Study Design
The work presented here comprises a preliminary interventional study involving a single application of the test cream and a “Main study” involving repeated use of the test cream over a longer timescale.
Main Study
An interventional, within-participant (bilateral forearm) controlled, double-blind cohort study in patients with AD compared the effect of 8 weeks of skin treatment with the test cream compared with a vehicle cream. The study was conducted at the Sheffield Dermatology Research Skin Barrier Facility, The University of Sheffield Medical School, Sheffield, UK. The University of Sheffield Research Ethics Committee approved the study, under the project reference 019255. It was performed in accordance with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments, and all subjects provided informed consent to participate.
The study period for each participant lasted approximately 65 days, made up of a 7-day washout period (for non-medicated, topical, leave-on products on the treatment areas) and a 58-day testing period. Participants were instructed in treatment application technique and completed the majority of applications within their own homes. Skin condition was assessed at baseline, 4 weeks and 8 weeks.
A sample size of 22 participants was targeted to give 80% power to detect a difference in transepidermal water loss (TEWL) of 2 g/m2/h assuming a within-subject standard deviation of 3.2 g/m2/h. Volunteers were invited to participate in the study by open recruitment from the local community. Eligible participants had a self-reported history of eczema according to the ‘UK working party diagnostic criteria’ (current signs assessed by trained investigators under the supervision of a dermatologist); occurrence of an itchy skin condition within the past 12 months; pHSS on the forearms above 4.75; were not receiving ‘active’ drug treatment for AD at the point of screening (emollient use considered inactive for the purposes of this study); treatment sites clear of lesional skin, tattoos, hyperpigmentation, obstructing the site; no use of systemic eczema treatment within 3 months, including biologics, cyclosporin, azathioprine, methotrexate, oral corticosteroids and mycophenolate; and no use of topical medication on the treatment areas within 1 month including topical corticosteroids and topical calcineurin inhibitors.
The Intervention
The products, composed of an unmedicated test cream and a vehicle cream, were supplied by Hyphens Pharma in identical plain packaging (Table 1). The test cream (LCP) was composed of an emollient base with a zinc lactobionate buffering system, glycerin and physiologic lipids (ceramide, free fatty acid and cholesterol) at pH 4.0. The vehicle was made up of the same base emollient with a pH adjusted to 7.0. Participants were trained to accurately measure a finger-tip unit (FTU) of treatment and instructed to apply 2 FTU twice daily to the whole volar surface of the forearm from the elbow crease to the wrist (the treatment area). The test cream was applied to one forearm and the vehicle to the other. Participants recorded treatment use in a diary. During visits participants were observed in the use of treatments and provided with additional training and guidance where necessary. Participants were instructed to apply treatments 12 h before the skin assessment visits and to avoid applying treatments before washing.
As commonly used wash products can affect the pH of the skin, we asked participants to use a standardised wash product (Simple bar soap, Unilever, London, UK) on their arms for 7 days before baseline assessments and throughout the study period.
Single Application Test
A cohort of 10 volunteers with AD was recruited in January 2019 (same eligibility criteria as described above without the minimum pHSS criterion). The forearms (volar face) were divided into three test sites of 4 × 5 cm each. Each test site received a 100 µl application of a single product (Table 1), or no treatment (control). Randomised site allocation was utilised to minimise site-dependent effects using a randomisation list generated at www.randomization.com. Product identities were concealed from the investigator and participant by assigning each a letter code. The pHSS of the test sites was determined before and at set timepoints after treatment application. Participants were asked to refrain from washing the test sites until completion of the study.
Biophysical Measurements and Visual Assessments
Skin assessment procedures were performed in a room maintained at 21 ± 2 °C and 35–55% relative humidity. All test sites were acclimatised to room conditions for 20 min before assessment. Test sites were assigned visual scores for dryness (5-point scale from 0 to 4) and redness (4-point scale from 0 to 3). Hydration was measured using a Corneometer CM825 (CK electronic GmbH, Cologne, Germany). TEWL was measured using an AquaFlux AF200 condensing chamber probe (Biox Systems Ltd, London, UK). pHSS was determined using a Skin-pH-Meter 905 (CK electronic GmbH, Cologne, Germany).
To determine skin barrier integrity, TEWL measurements were collected after skin tape stripping (STS). This process involved application to the skin of 20 D-Squame discs (Clinical & Derm, Dallas, USA). Each disc was applied to the test site and an even pressure applied to the disc for 5 s using a D-Squame pressure instrument (Clinical & Derm, Dallas, USA). After application, D-Squame discs were collected and the quantity of protein adhering to the disc was measured by assessing light transmission through the disc using a D-Squame scan 850A (Clinical & Derm, Dallas, USA). The total amount of protein collected was used to assess skin cohesion and to normalise protease activity.
Skin Sensitivity Testing
Skin sensitivity was assessed by exposure of the skin to 1% sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) under occlusion. Participants were instructed to remove SLS patches after 24 ± 2 h, rinse the sites briefly in water and then avoid washing before the skin sensitivity assessments at 48 ± 2 h after initial application. Erythema was assessed by visual redness scoring at the patch site, collection of absorbance measurements with the Mexameter MK18 (CK electronic GmbH, Cologne, Germany) and by image capture with a colour-calibrated CCube dermoscope (Pixience, Toulouse, France). Skin barrier disruption was assessed by measuring TEWL.
Caseinolytic and Chymotrypsin-Like Protease Activity
Caseinolytic and chymotrypsin-like protease activities were evaluated at three depths within the SC (discs 1–3, 4–6 and 7–9). For the caseinolytic assay, each sample was incubated for 2 h with 10 µg/ml of the quenched, fluorescent, protease substrate, Bodipy FL casein (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) in 0.5% Triton-X 100. A wide range of metallo-, serine, acid and sulfhydryl proteases are capable of digesting this substrate, releasing highly fluorescent BODIPY FL peptides. Samples for the chymotrypsin-like activity assay were incubated for 2 h in a 50 µM solution of the fluorogenic peptide MeO-Succ-Arg-Pro-Tyr-AMC (Peptide Protein Research Ltd, Southampton, UK). Reactions were stopped with 10% acetic acid and fluorescence measured at 535 nm (BODIPY FL) and 460 nm (AMC) using the Hidex Sense fluorimeter (LabLogic Systems, Sheffield, UK).
Statistical Analysis
The primary outcomes were pHSS and TEWL (skin barrier function). All statistical tests were performed using Graphpad Prism v9.3.1 (Graphpad Software Inc.; La Jolla, CA, USA). Population means were compared using a paired t-test for continuous data; a Wilcoxon signed rank test for ordinal data (visual scores); and a two-way ANOVA with Šídák’s post-test to evaluate the modulation of treatment and SC depth on protease activity. The significance threshold was set at p = 0.05.
Results
A preliminary single-application test was performed to verify the capability of the experimental formulation to reduce pHSS compared with a panel of widely used reference products. Two variants were included: CP, an emollient cream formulation with a novel zinc lactobionate buffering system (pH 3.2), and LCP cream, based on CP and including skin humectants (glycerin) and lipids (free fatty acids, ceramide and cholesterol) buffered to pH 4.0. Both test formulations markedly reduced pHSS, bringing it down from an average of 4.49 ± 0.38 to 4.03 ± 0.09 and 3.58 ± 0.14 pH units for LCP and CP, respectively, 3 h post-application (Fig. 1). This was a significant reduction in pHSS compared with the untreated site of −0.41 (p = 0.019) and −0.86 (p = 0.0007) for LCP and CP. In contrast, the reference emollient creams either had no effect (Product B, 0.13, p = 0.59) or significantly increased pHSS (Product A, 0.72, p < 0.0001; Product C, 0.76, p < 0.0001) 3 h post-application. This trend was observed at both 6 h and 12 h after product application, highlighting the profound and contrasting effects of topical treatments on pHSS. Although CP showed a greater decrease in pH, LCP was taken forward for further testing in a human interventional study to avoid excessive acidification of the SC.
For the main study, recruitment was open from October 2019 to March 2022, and 25 eligible participants were randomised and commenced treatment, of which 23 participants completed all study procedures and 21 were included in the analysis following blind review (Supplementary Materials Figure S1 and Table 2 for demographics).
Over the 56-day treatment period, average daily use of the test cream (LCP) was 2.11 ± 0.53 g (range 1.51–2.75 g) compared with 2.03 ± 0.53 g (range 1.42–2.76 g) of vehicle. Both treatments were well tolerated. There were eight adverse reactions of mild intensity possibly related to the interventions (four assigned to both treatments and four to the vehicle only, Supplementary Materials Table S1). Visual signs of erythema at baseline were assessed as mild/slight or less and were either unchanged or improved at the end of treatment at 93% of all sites, so no statistical analysis was undertaken (Supplementary Materials Table S2). Prior to treatment application there was no significant difference in pHSS of the forearms randomised to treatment with either the test cream or vehicle (4.83 ± 0.35 versus 4.79 ± 0.37, respectively, p = 0.75, Fig. 2a). After 4 weeks of treatment (12 h after the last application of product) the pHSS at sites treated with the test cream had decreased to 4.47 ± 0.31, whereas those treated with the vehicle increased to 5.26 ± 0.45 (p < 0.0001). Very similar results were reported after 8 weeks of treatment (Fig. 2a).
To assess the effects of the study treatments on skin barrier function, TEWL measurements were made at the same timepoints. At baseline there was no difference in TEWL between the two treatment areas (10.44 ± 3.18 versus 10.39 ± 2.74 g/m2/h, p = 0.99, Fig. 2c). TEWL was correlated with pHSS (r = 0.46 p < 0.0001, Fig. 2d). After 4 weeks of treatment with the test cream, TEWL decreased slightly (10.11 ± 2.56 g/m2/h), whereas TEWL increased (11.61 ± 3.62 g/m2/h) at sites treated with the vehicle (treatment comparison, p = 0.008). This difference in TEWL between treatment areas widened after a further 4 weeks of treatment (9.71 ± 2.47 versus 11.2 ± 3.62 g/m2/h, p = 0.0005).
A corneometer was used to assess SC hydration. At baseline there were no differences in SC hydration between the treatment areas (34.09 ± 5.85 versus 35.25 ± 5.34 AU, respectively, p = 0.29, Fig. 2e). After 4 weeks of treatment, SC hydration had increased to 40.39 ± 6.38 AU on test-cream-treated sites and to 38.23 ± 6.97 AU on vehicle-treated sites (treatment comparison, p = 0.25). Following 8 weeks of treatment, SC hydration was higher at sites treated with the test cream compared with sites treated with vehicle (40.97 ± 7.59 versus 38.01 ± 6.85 AU, respectively, p = 0.024).
To characterise the response to chemical irritants, the pre-treated test sites were exposed to SLS under occlusion for 24 h. Twenty four hours after patch removal, there was an increase in TEWL at all sites exposed to SLS (Fig. 3a). TEWL was lower at sites treated with the test cream compared with those treated with vehicle (35.39 ± 14.09 versus 40.82 ± 12.43 g/m2/h, respectively, p = 0.0057), suggesting a protective effect of the test cream. Furthermore, erythema was greater on the vehicle-treated sites (25/42 participants with median score of 2, moderate erythema) compared with the test cream (30/42, median score of 1, mild erythema, p = 0.0094, Fig. 3b). Objective measures of erythema (Erythema Index and Mexameter redness) confirmed this difference in SLS response (Fig. 3c).
To investigate the structural integrity and cohesiveness of the SC after 8 weeks of treatment, STS was combined with TEWL and quantification of protein removed, respectively. After the removal of 20 discs, TEWL was lower at sites treated with the test cream compared with sites treated with vehicle (31.55 ± 18.34 versus 36.9 ± 18.24 g/m2/h, respectively, p = 0.014, Fig. 3d). The amount of protein removed was also lower at sites treated with the test cream compared with vehicle (343.6 ± 67.23 versus 359.3 ± 63.02 ug/cm2, respectively, p = 0.045, Fig. 3e). Higher SC integrity and cohesion suggest an increased resistance to physical damage at sites treated with the test cream.
The activity of proteases at the skin surface contributes to desquamation and turnover of the healthy skin barrier. We sought to characterise the effect of treatment on caseinolytic and chymotrypsin-like protease activity at increasing depths within the SC. After 8 weeks of treatment, there was no difference in the caseinolytic activity of samples from the different treatment areas (Fig. 4a). Chymotrypsin-like protease activity was lower at sites treated with the test cream compared with vehicle (p = 0.031, Fig. 4b). A significant pairwise difference between the treatments was present in the most superficial sample (STS discs 1–3: test cream, 1.75 ± 1.58 versus vehicle, 2.66 ± 1.92 nU/µg, p = 0.017).
A subset of participants were asked to complete a supervised treatment application at the end of the 4-week assessment visit and invited to return for a repeat of the measurements after 6 h. At 6 h post-application, the pHSS of the skin treated with the test cream was 4.18 ± 0.40, significantly lower than the vehicle-treated sites (5.65 ± 0.20, p < 0.0001, Fig. 2b). Hydration was significantly greater at sites treated with the test cream (44.14 ± 8.15 versus 37.09 ± 8.12 AU, p = 0.0084, Fig. 2f).
Discussion
pHSC is an important regulator of skin barrier function. Here we show that a new zinc lactobionate formulation (pH 4.0) containing skin lipids helps maintain an optimum pH and strengthen the skin barrier compared with a vehicle control (pH 7.0). Treatment with the new formulation also resulted in a more hydrated SC and a reduced sensitivity to irritation.
Topical Acidification of the Skin Barrier
Average pHSS for the cohorts presented here, comprising participants with a recent history of AD (uninvolved areas), was below 5.0. A number of studies have reported pHSS substantially above 5.0 in similar cohorts [10, 11, 19, 22]. Nevertheless, our observations, undertaken in accordance with published methodology [23], are consistent with our earlier work [24] and may reflect differences in cohort demographics and/or regional differences such as tap water pH or washing practices. Despite the relatively low pHSS at baseline, treatment with the test cream and vehicle induced a significant and sustained difference in pHSS between the treatment sites. The vehicle was formulated to match the pH of many widely available emollients used for eczema treatment [21] and exhibited similar effects on pHSS to the reference products included here in the single application test. Importantly, the average pHSS of vehicle-treated skin after 8 weeks (pH 5.25) was within the expected range for patients with AD. Relative to the vehicle, the test cream maintained a significantly reduced pHSS (after 4 weeks of treatment we observed a 1.47 unit reduction 6 h post-application reducing to a 0.75 unit difference 12 h post-application, whereupon the next application was due). The difference of 0.75 represents > fivefold increase in the concentration of H+ ions, which is expected to have a significant impact on the biochemical activity and functional performance of the SC [1, 25]. The scale of change in pH was greater than previously reported for topical preparations with a low pH [26,27,28,29,30] and the final pH reached was substantially lower (with a much greater decrease relative to the reported pH for AD-affected skin), suggesting a greater potential to normalise skin barrier function.
Maintenance of an Acidic SC Improves Skin Barrier Function
TEWL reflects the ability of the permeability barrier formed by the intact SC to prevent excessive water loss from the skin and correlates with the severity of AD [31, 32]. Remarkably, we observed a significant difference in TEWL of 1.49 g/m2/h between skin treated with the test cream and vehicle. A difference in basal TEWL was not observed under similar usage conditions with previously reported ‘acidic’ topical emollient creams [26, 28, 30], most likely reflecting the greater capacity for the formulation tested here to maintain a lower pHSC. The scale of change in TEWL is comparable to previously reported differences (1.5–3.92 gm2h) observed between patients with AD and controls [11, 32,33,34,35]. Although basal TEWL is a useful biomarker of skin health, challenge to the barrier by physical or chemical disruption is required to fully characterise its integrity and function.
Differences in barrier integrity measured with tape stripping have been identified in comparisons of patients with AD with and without filaggrin mutations [35] and between patients with AD with co-morbid food allergy and those without food allergy [36]. In response to tape stripping, the increased barrier integrity and greater cohesion of the skin barrier observed in this study at the more acidic sites is consistent with other studies in which pHSS has been manipulated [4, 5]. A reported difference of 0.4 pH units in lightly pigmented skin compared with darkly pigmented skin correlated with improved skin structure and function in the group with a lower pH [37]. Similarly, a 0.35 pH unit difference between groups of elderly care home residents induced by 7 weeks of treatment with skincare products adjusted to either pH 4 or pH 6 resulted in significantly greater barrier integrity, cohesion and recovery following STS in participants in the low pH treatment group compared with the high pH treatment group [28]. These findings were confirmed in a similar healthy, aged cohort using a different formulation, yet neither preparation reached a pHSS below 5.0 despite a formulation pH of 4 [26]. A lower buffering capacity of these formulations would explain why we see a stronger response to the test formulation under investigation here [38]. Consistent with improved barrier function, these interventions to reduce skin surface pH also improve the hydration status of the skin [28, 29] in agreement with the increase in hydration observed in this study.
The composition and structural integrity of the lipid lamellae is a critical factor determining permeability barrier function [4, 39, 40]. Kilic et al. [30] reported that a 0.5-unit decrease in pH between skin sites treated for 4 weeks with water-in-oil emulsions was sufficient to increase the abundance of ceramides and enhance intercellular lipid organisation. We see a greater pH change here, suggesting significant changes to lipid structure within the SC. Improved barrier function (reduction in TEWL) seen here with the test formulation supports improved lipid lamellae structure. To support optimum lipid metabolism, the test product also contains a range of skin lipids to contribute to improved skin barrier function.
pH-Mediated Suppression of Protease Activity
Consistent with the changes in structural integrity, cohesion between corneocytes in the SC appears to weaken as pH becomes more neutral, resulting in larger amounts of protein being removed by tape stripping. Analysis of corneodesmosome density by electron microscopy and quantification of corneodesmesomal protein DSG-1 suggests a decrease in these structures at higher pH [4]. These cell-to-cell junctions are degraded by proteases – such as the desquamatory serine proteases of the kallikrein (KLK) family – which exhibit optimal activity at neutral pH [6, 41, 42]. Accordingly, superbases have been used experimentally to neutralise the skin surface in mice, achieving a pHSC of 7 [3] and resulting in robust protease activation. pHSC affects both the enzymatic protease activity and the abundance of catalytically active protease [5]. The ex vivo assay used here reflects catalytically active protease abundance and revealed a significant difference in the chymotrypsin-like activity, attributed to KLK7, of the most superficial layers of the SC dependent on treatment, despite relatively low activity overall. This suggests that SC acidification brought about by the test cream suppresses desquamatory activity, leading to the retention of corneocytes and greater structural integrity of the SC. Suppression of KLK7 activity and abundance is therefore likely to contribute to the positive effects of skin acidification on the skin barrier.
Protection from Irritation
Beyond water permeability, a key function of the healthy skin barrier is to prevent the entry of exogenous allergens, irritants and pathogens into the skin. We used exposure to the known irritant SLS to test this function of the skin barrier. Treatment areas pre-treated with the test cream showed less visible signs of inflammation and reduced barrier perturbation compared with areas treated with the vehicle. These findings are commensurate with earlier work showing that topically applied alpha-hydroxy acids (AHA) can reduce skin sensitivity to SLS [43]. Unfortunately, the application of AHA such as lactic acid can cause stinging, an adverse effect that we did not observe here using polyhydroxy acid lactobionic acid [44]. This further supports the conclusion that the permeability barrier is strengthened by the test cream at reduced pH. Contact with irritants is a well-known trigger for dermatitis, suggesting that prophylactic use of a low pH barrier strengthening treatment could be a useful strategy for preventing flares.
Limitations and Future Work
The participant cohort completing this study is relatively small in number, which impacts upon the generalisability of the study conclusions. However, the study cohort reflects the demographic range of the wider UK population well; with a significant age range (20–69 years), near equal proportions of male and female participants and representation from a range of ethnic groups. None of the participants were receiving clinical care for AD at the time of the study and were not using ‘active’ drug treatments. Non-medical investigators confirmed that assessment sites were clear of visible inflammation and skin breakdown during screening. Further work should address the use of skin acidification in individuals with more severe eczema, particularly at lesional sites where baseline skin pH is likely to be higher. Given the impact of skin pH on the resident microbiome, it would be useful to examine whether use of this treatment in a high pH perilesional site can reduce the load of pathogenic bacterial species and normalise the broader microbiome, compared with a product used to treat AD with a higher pH.
The choice of comparator treatment for any study of a topical preparation is inherently affected by trade-offs, as it is rarely possible to study the effects of individual ingredients in isolation and the outcomes are dependent on the complete formulation. We chose to use a vehicle without key ingredients to show that delivery of these components at an acidic pH leads to improved skin properties. The observations we made are therefore consistent with an effect of barrier modification driven by a change in pH. However, we cannot quantify the contribution of other ingredients individually, such as the physiologic lipids, to the changes in barrier performance. Whilst evidence clearly supports a role for pHSS in skin hydration, it is important to note that the test cream contains the humectant glycerin, which is a well-established skin moisturiser, in addition to other moisturisers (i.e. ceramide). Both the vehicle and test cream contain the moisturiser and penetration enhancer propylene glycol, and so moisturisation is achieved here by multiple mechanisms.
Conclusion
The majority of clinical studies which have manipulated skin pH using an emollient have targeted a cohort of older participants [26,27,28,29,30] to address the increase in pH and xerosis that occurs in aged populations [45]. This study offers insight into the use of an acidifying emollient in patients with AD.
The regular application of the test cream used in this study brought about a physiologically relevant reduction in pH and improved skin barrier function compared with a vehicle. Improved hydration and decreased protease activity suggest that use of a skincare product containing humectants and physiologically relevant lipids at pH 4 can contribute positively to skin health and potentially help improve disease control for patients with AD. The pH and buffering capacity of a topical preparation are likely to have a significant impact on the biophysical effects of that treatment. Therefore, consideration should be given to the pH of a preparation when formulating and prescribing treatments to address skin conditions with a known barrier impairment. Recent evidence has linked KLK7 with chronic itch in a murine model of AD [46]. Reducing the activity of this protease through modification of skin pH is an attractive possibility for reducing the burden of pruritus in patients with AD.
Data Availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Proksch E. pH in nature, humans and skin. J Dermatol. 2018;45(9):1044–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/1346-8138.14489. (Epub 2018 Jun 4 PMID: 29863755).
Schmid-Wendtner MH, Korting HC. The pH of the skin surface and its impact on the barrier function. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2006;19(6):296–302. https://doi.org/10.1159/000094670. (Epub 2006 Jul 19 PMID: 16864974).
Hachem JP, Crumrine D, Fluhr J, Brown BE, Feingold KR, Elias PM. pH directly regulates epidermal permeability barrier homeostasis, and stratum corneum integrity/cohesion. J Invest Dermatol. 2003;121(2):345–53. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1747.2003.12365.x. (PMID: 12880427).
Hachem JP, Man MQ, Crumrine D, Uchida Y, Brown BE, Rogiers V, Roseeuw D, Feingold KR, Elias PM. Sustained serine proteases activity by prolonged increase in pH leads to degradation of lipid processing enzymes and profound alterations of barrier function and stratum corneum integrity. J Invest Dermatol. 2005;125(3):510–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-202X.2005.23838.x. (PMID: 16117792).
Hachem JP, Roelandt T, Schürer N, Pu X, Fluhr J, Giddelo C, Man MQ, Crumrine D, Roseeuw D, Feingold KR, Mauro T, Elias PM. Acute acidification of stratum corneum membrane domains using polyhydroxyl acids improves lipid processing and inhibits degradation of corneodesmosomes. J Invest Dermatol. 2010;130(2):500–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2009.249. (Epub 2009 Sep 10 PMID: 19741713; PMCID: PMC2844116).
Caubet C, Jonca N, Brattsand M, Guerrin M, Bernard D, Schmidt R, Egelrud T, Simon M, Serre G. Degradation of corneodesmosome proteins by two serine proteases of the kallikrein family, SCTE/KLK5/hK5 and SCCE/KLK7/hK7. J Invest Dermatol. 2004;122(5):1235–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-202X.2004.22512.x. (PMID: 15140227).
Proksch E, Soeberdt M, Neumann C, Kilic A, Reich H, Abels C. Influence of buffers of different ph and composition on the murine skin barrier, epidermal proliferation, differentiation, and inflammation. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2019;32(6):328–36. https://doi.org/10.1159/000501976. (Epub 2019 Sep 18 PMID: 31533120).
Rippke F, Schreiner V, Doering T, Maibach HI. Stratum corneum pH in atopic dermatitis: impact on skin barrier function and colonization with Staphylococcus Aureus. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2004;5(4):217–23. https://doi.org/10.2165/00128071-200405040-00002. (PMID: 15301569).
Lambers H, Piessens S, Bloem A, Pronk H, Finkel P. Natural skin surface pH is on average below 5, which is beneficial for its resident flora. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2006;28(5):359–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2494.2006.00344.x. (PMID: 18489300).
Eberlein-König B, Schäfer T, Huss-Marp J, Darsow U, Möhrenschlager M, Herbert O, Abeck D, Krämer U, Behrendt H, Ring J. Skin surface pH, stratum corneum hydration, trans-epidermal water loss and skin roughness related to atopic eczema and skin dryness in a population of primary school children. Acta Derm Venereol. 2000;80(3):188–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/000155500750042943. (PMID: 10954209).
Seidenari S, Giusti G. Objective assessment of the skin of children affected by atopic dermatitis: a study of pH, capacitance and TEWL in eczematous and clinically uninvolved skin. Acta Derm Venereol. 1995;75(6):429–33. https://doi.org/10.2340/0001555575429433. (PMID: 8651017).
Danby SG, Cork MJ. pH in atopic dermatitis. Curr Probl Dermatol. 2018;54:95–107. https://doi.org/10.1159/000489523. (Epub 2018 Aug 21 PMID: 30130778).
Langan SM, Irvine AD, Weidinger S. Atopic dermatitis. Lancet. 2020;396(10247):345–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31286-1.
Hadi HA, Tarmizi AI, Khalid KA, Gajdács M, Aslam A, Jamshed S. The epidemiology and global burden of atopic dermatitis: a narrative review. Life (Basel). 2021;11(9):936. https://doi.org/10.3390/life11090936.PMID:34575085;PMCID:PMC8470589.
Eyerich K, Gooderham MJ, Silvestre JF, Shumack SP, Mendes-Bastos P, Aoki V, Ortoncelli M, Silverberg JI, Teixeira HD, Chen SH, Calimlim BM, Takemoto S, Sancho C, Fritz B, Irvine AD. Real-world clinical, psychosocial and economic burden of atopic dermatitis: results from a multicountry study. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.19500. (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37669868).
Chiricozzi A, Esposito M, Gisondi P, Valenti M, Gori N, Giovanardi G, Bellinato F, De Simone C, Costanzo A, Fargnoli MC, Peris K. Disease severity is associated with alexithymia in patients with atopic dermatitis. Dermatology. 2020;236(4):329–35. https://doi.org/10.1159/000507246. (Epub 2020 May 5 PMID: 32369808).
Silverberg JI, Lai JS, Patel KR, Singam V, Vakharia PP, Chopra R, Sacotte R, Kantor R, Hsu DY, Cella D. Measurement properties of the patient-reported outcomes information system (PROMIS®) Itch Questionnaire: itch severity assessments in adults with atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2020;183(5):891–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.18978. (Epub 2020 May 10 PMID: 32107772).
Silverberg JI, Lei D, Yousaf M, Janmohamed SR, Vakharia PP, Chopra R, Chavda R, Gabriel S, Patel KR, Singam V, Kantor R, Hsu DY. Comparison of patient-oriented eczema measure and patient-oriented scoring atopic dermatitis vs eczema area and severity index and other measures of atopic dermatitis: a validation study. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2020;125(1):78–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anai.2020.03.006. (Epub 2020 Mar 18 PMID: 32199977).
Sparavigna A, Setaro M, Gualandri V. Cutaneous pH in children affected by atopic dermatitis and in healthy children: a multicenter study. Skin Res Technol. 1999;5(4):221–7.
Hatano Y, Man MQ, Uchida Y, Crumrine D, Scharschmidt TC, Kim EG, Mauro TM, Feingold KR, Elias PM, Holleran WM. Maintenance of an acidic stratum corneum prevents emergence of murine atopic dermatitis. J Invest Dermatol. 2009;129(7):1824–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2008.444. (Epub 2009 Jan 29. PMID: 19177139; PMCID: PMC2695850).
Shi VY, Tran K, Lio PA. A comparison of physicochemical properties of a selection of modern moisturizers: hydrophilic index and pH. J Drugs Dermatol. 2012;11(5):633–6 (PMID: 22527433).
Lee CH, Chuang HY, Shih CC, Jong SB, Chang CH, Yu HS. Transepidermal water loss, serum IgE and beta-endorphin as important and independent biological markers for development of itch intensity in atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2006;154(6):1100–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07191.x. (PMID: 16704640).
Parra JL, Paye M, EEMCO Group. EEMCO guidance for the in vivo assessment of skin surface pH. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol. 2003;16(3):188–202. https://doi.org/10.1159/000069756. (PMID: 12677099).
Danby SG, Chalmers J, Brown K, Williams HC, Cork MJ. A functional mechanistic study of the effect of emollients on the structure and function of the skin barrier. Br J Dermatol. 2016;175(5):1011–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.14684. (Epub 2016 Aug 23 PMID: 27097823).
Elias PM. The how, why and clinical importance of stratum corneum acidification. Exp Dermatol. 2017;26(11):999–1003. https://doi.org/10.1111/exd.13329. (Epub 2017 May 12 PMID: 28266738).
Angelova-Fischer I, Fischer TW, Abels C, Zillikens D. Accelerated barrier recovery and enhancement of the barrier integrity and properties by topical application of a pH 4 vs. a pH 5·8 water-in-oil emulsion in aged skin. Br J Dermatol. 2018;179(2):471–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.16591. (Epub 2018 May 28. PMID: 29577247).
Behm B, Kemper M, Babilas P, Abels C, Schreml S. Impact of a glycolic acid-containing pH 4 water-in-oil emulsion on skin pH. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2015;28(6):290–5. https://doi.org/10.1159/000439030. (Epub 2015 Sep 1 PMID: 26329480).
Blaak J, Kaup O, Hoppe W, Baron-Ruppert G, Langheim H, Staib P, Wohlfart R, Lüttje D, Schürer N. A long-term study to evaluate acidic skin care treatment in nursing home residents: impact on epidermal barrier function and microflora in aged skin. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2015;28(5):269–79. https://doi.org/10.1159/000437212. (Epub ahead of print PMID: 26277854).
Blaak J, Dähnhardt D, Dähnhardt-Pfeiffer S, Bielfeldt S, Wilhelm KP, Wohlfart R, Staib P. A plant oil-containing pH 4 emulsion improves epidermal barrier structure and enhances ceramide levels in aged skin. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2017;39(3):284–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/ics.12374. (Epub 2016 Nov 9 PMID: 27731889).
Kilic A, Masur C, Reich H, Knie U, Dähnhardt D, Dähnhardt-Pfeiffer S, Abels C. Skin acidification with a water-in-oil emulsion (pH 4) restores disrupted epidermal barrier and improves structure of lipid lamellae in the elderly. J Dermatol. 2019;46(6):457–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/1346-8138.14891. (Epub 2019 May 20 PMID: 31106905; PMCID: PMC6593431).
Flohr C, England K, Radulovic S, McLean WH, Campbel LE, Barker J, Perkin M, Lack G. Filaggrin loss-of-function mutations are associated with early-onset eczema, eczema severity and transepidermal water loss at 3 months of age. Br J Dermatol. 2010;163(6):1333–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2010.10068.x. (PMID: 21137118).
Gupta J, Grube E, Ericksen MB, Stevenson MD, Lucky AW, Sheth AP, Assa’ad AH, Khurana Hershey GK. Intrinsically defective skin barrier function in children with atopic dermatitis correlates with disease severity. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008;121(3):725-730.e2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2007.12.1161. (Epub 2008 Feb 4 PMID: 18249438).
Jungersted JM, Scheer H, Mempel M, Baurecht H, Cifuentes L, Høgh JK, Hellgren LI, Jemec GB, Agner T, Weidinger S. Stratum corneum lipids, skin barrier function and filaggrin mutations in patients with atopic eczema. Allergy. 2010;65(7):911–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2010.02326.x. (Epub 2010 Feb 4 PMID: 20132155).
Danby SG, Chittock J, Brown K, Albenali LH, Cork MJ. The effect of tacrolimus compared with betamethasone valerate on the skin barrier in volunteers with quiescent atopic dermatitis. Br J Dermatol. 2014;170(4):914–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.12778. (PMID: 24328907).
Angelova-Fischer I, Mannheimer AC, Hinder A, Ruether A, Franke A, Neubert RH, Fischer TW, Zillikens D. Distinct barrier integrity phenotypes in filaggrin-related atopic eczema following sequential tape stripping and lipid profiling. Exp Dermatol. 2011;20(4):351–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0625.2011.01259.x. (PMID: 21410766).
Leung DYM, Calatroni A, Zaramela LS, LeBeau PK, Dyjack N, Brar K, David G, Johnson K, Leung S, Ramirez-Gama M, Liang B, Rios C, Montgomery MT, Richers BN, Hall CF, Norquest KA, Jung J, Bronova I, Kreimer S, Talbot CC Jr, Crumrine D, Cole RN, Elias P, Zengler K, Seibold MA, Berdyshev E, Goleva E. The nonlesional skin surface distinguishes atopic dermatitis with food allergy as a unique endotype. Sci Transl Med. 2019;11(480):2685. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aav2685. (PMID: 30787169; PMCID: PMC7676854).
Gunathilake R, Schurer NY, Shoo BA, Celli A, Hachem JP, Crumrine D, Sirimanna G, Feingold KR, Mauro TM, Elias PM. pH-regulated mechanisms account for pigment-type differences in epidermal barrier function. J Invest Dermatol. 2009;129(7):1719–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/jid.2008.442. (Epub 2009 Jan 29 PMID: 19177137; PMCID: PMC2695842).
Levin J, Maibach H. Human skin buffering capacity: an overview. Skin Res Technol. 2008;14(2):121–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0846.2007.00271.x. (PMID: 18412552).
Nováčková A, Sagrafena I, Pullmannová P, Paraskevopoulos G, Dwivedi A, Mazumder A, Růžičková K, Slepička P, Zbytovská J, Vávrová K. Acidic pH is required for the multilamellar assembly of skin barrier lipids in vitro. J Invest Dermatol. 2021;141(8):1915-1921.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2021.02.014. (Epub 2021 Mar 3 PMID: 33675786).
van Smeden J, Janssens M, Gooris GS, Bouwstra JA. The important role of stratum corneum lipids for the cutaneous barrier function. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2014;1841(3):295–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbalip.2013.11.006. (Epub 2013 Nov 16 PMID: 24252189).
Komatsu N, Saijoh K, Kuk C, Liu AC, Khan S, Shirasaki F, Takehara K, Diamandis EP. Human tissue kallikrein expression in the stratum corneum and serum of atopic dermatitis patients. Exp Dermatol. 2007;16(6):513–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0625.2007.00562.x. (PMID: 17518992).
Rawlings AV, Voegeli R. Stratum corneum proteases and dry skin conditions. Cell Tissue Res. 2013;351(2):217–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00441-012-1501-x. (Epub 2012 Oct 9 PMID: 23053051).
Berardesca E, Distante F, Vignoli GP, Oresajo C, Green B. Alpha hydroxyacids modulate stratum corneum barrier function. Br J Dermatol. 1997;137(6):934–8 (PMID: 9470910).
Marriott M, Holmes J, Peters L, Cooper K, Rowson M, Basketter DA. The complex problem of sensitive skin. Contact Dermatitis. 2005;53(2):93–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0105-1873.2005.00653.x. (PMID: 16033403).
Choi EH, Man MQ, Xu P, Xin S, Liu Z, Crumrine DA, Jiang YJ, Fluhr JW, Feingold KR, Elias PM, Mauro TM. Stratum corneum acidification is impaired in moderately aged human and murine skin. J Invest Dermatol. 2007;127(12):2847–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jid.5700913. (Epub 2007 Jun 7 PMID: 17554364).
Guo CJ, Mack MR, Oetjen LK, Trier AM, Council ML, Pavel AB, Guttman-Yassky E, Kim BS, Liu Q. Kallikrein 7 promotes atopic dermatitis-associated itch independently of skin inflammation. J Invest Dermatol. 2020;140(6):1244-1252.e4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2019.10.022. (Epub 2019 Dec 26 PMID: 31883963; PMCID: PMC7247952).
Acknowledgements
Thank you to all of our volunteers who have given up their time to take part in this study.
Funding
We are very grateful to Hyphens Pharma, Singapore, for providing the funding to undertake and publish this investigator-led study, including the journal’s Rapid Service Fee.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: Michael J Cork, Simon G Danby; Formal analysis and investigation: Paul V Andrew, Abigail Pinnock, Anna Poyner, Κirsty Βrown, John Chittock, Linda J K Kay, Michael J Cork, Simon G Danby; Writing – original draft preparation: Paul V Andrew; Writing – review and editing: Paul V Andrew, Abigail Pinnock, Anna Poyner, Κirsty Βrown, John Chittock, Linda J K Kay, Michael J Cork, Simon G Danby; Funding acquisition: Michael J Cork, Simon G Danby; Supervision: Michael J Cork, Simon G Danby.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
Simon G Danby, has received fees for giving lectures and/or attending advisory boards and research funding from Almirall, Astellas Pharma, Bayer Dermatology, Hyphens, Leo Pharma, L’Oreal, MSD, Pfizer, Rohto Pharma, Sanofi and Stiefel-GSK. Michael J Cork, has been/is a Clinical Trial Investigator for the following organisations: Atopix, Galapagos, Hyphens, Johnson & Johnson, Kymab, Leo, L’Oreal/La Roche Possay, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Genzyme. He is an Advisory Board member, Consultant &/or invited lecturer for the following organisations: Abbvie, Amlar, Astellas, Atopix, Boots, Dermavant, Galapagos, Galderma, Hyphens, Johnson & Johnson, Kymab, Leo, L’Oreal/La Roche Possay, Menlo, Novartis, Oxagen, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Reckitt Benckiser, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme. Paul V Andrew, Abigail Pinnock, Anna Poyner, Κirsty Βrown, John Chittock, Linda J K Kay declare that they have no competing interests.
Ethical Approval
The University of Sheffield Research Ethics Committee approved the study, under the project reference 019255. It was performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964, and its later amendments, and all subjects provided informed consent to participate.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Andrew, P.V., Pinnock, A., Poyner, A. et al. Maintenance of an Acidic Skin Surface with a Novel Zinc Lactobionate Emollient Preparation Improves Skin Barrier Function in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) 14, 391–408 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-023-01084-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13555-023-01084-x