Search

Uvod: Ljudski in vivo modeli oštećenja kože se koriste za ispitivanje djelotvornosti topikalnih terapija kožnih bolesti i oštećenja, među kojima se ističe model iritativnog dermatitisa induciranog natrijevim laurilsulfatom (SLS). Provođenje modela se uvelike razlikuje između različitih istraživačkih skupina, s različitim anatomskim lokacija na kojima su se istraživanja provodila. Osim navedenog modela koji predstavlja kemijsku iritaciju, često su korišteni modeli mehaničke iritacije tape-stripping postupkom te fizikalno oštećenje kože ultraljubičastim zračenjem. Cilj: Ispitati postojanje razlika u odgovoru kože na iritaciju i cijeljenje u akutnom modelu iritativnog dermatitisa izazvanog SLS-om na podlakticama i leđima te usporediti razlike u odgovoru kože na tri različita modela oštećenja kože u istim uvjetima, na istim ispitanicima te na istoj anatomskoj lokaciji. Materijali i metode: Provedena su dva randomizirana klinička pokusa. U pokusu 1 je na podlakticama i leđima inducirana iritacija SLS-om, uz kontrolnu iritaciju vodom. U pokusu 2 su na podlakticama inducirana oštećenja kože u tri različita modela oštećenja kože. U oba pokusa su praćene nastale promjene kožnih parametara neinvazivnim mjerenjima i oporavak kože, uz primjenu i bez primjene topikalne terapije. Rezultati: U pokusu 1, koža gornjeg dijela leđa je pokazala snažniju reakciju na iritanse, ali i brži oporavak kože. U pokusu 2, u modelu iritacije SLS-om je došlo do najsnažnijeg oštećenje kože i odgođene reakcije na iritans. Tape-stripping je doveo do najsnažnijeg početnog oštećenja kožne barijere, ali koža je nakon te nokse pokazala najbrži oporavak. Ultraljubičasto zračenje nije imalo učinka na funkciju kožne barijere, ali je dovelo do nastanka eritema i promjene razine melanina. Topikalne terapije u dva pokusa nisu dovele do poboljšanja mjerenih parametara kože. Zaključak: Osjetljivost kože na iritans i stopa oporavka kože nakon iritacije su ovisne o anatomskoj lokaciji. Tri ispitivana modela oštećenja kože su imala značajno različite učinke na parametre kože te različit oporavak nakon noksi., Introduction: Human in vivo models of skin damage are often used to test the effects of different topical treatments. Commonly used model is irritant contact dermatitis induced by chemical irritant, sodium laurylsulphate (SLS). There is no uniform approach to SLS testing, as different research groups use significantly different variations of the model, especially in regards to anatomical location where testing was conducted. Other commonly used skin damage models include tape-stripping as mechanical and ultraviolet radiation as physical skin damage model. Objective: The aim was to investigate differences in skin response to acute irritation induced by SLS and skin recovery between forearms and upper back, as well as to compare skin parameters in three different skin damage models on the same participants and anatomical location, in the same research conditions. Materials and Methods: Two randomized, controlled trials were conducted. In the trial 1, the skin irritation was induced using SLS on the forearms and upper back of the participants, with sham irritation, using water instead of SLS, as control. In the trial 2, the three skin damage models were induced on test sites on participants’ forearms. Changes in skin parameters and skin recovery in both trials were assessed using non-invasive bioengineering methods, with and without topical treatment. Results: In the trial 1, the skin of the upper back had significantly stronger reaction to irritant, as well as higher skin recovery rates. In trial 2, three tested skin damage models led to different changes of the skin parameters. Irritation by SLS induced the strongest skin damage and also showed delayed reaction to the irritant. The strongest initial barrier disruption was noted after tape-stripping. Also, tape-stripped skin had the highest recovery rates. Ultraviolet radiation did not have any effect on skin barrier function and only changed skin erythema and melanin values. Measured parameters were not improved by topical treatments in neither trial. Conclusion: The skin’s reaction to irritant and recovery was dependent on anatomical location. Three tested models had distinctive responses to skin damage and recovery.