32 SKIN CARE n Product A n Product B
305 285 265 245 225 205
baseline week10
Figure 2: Change in parameter UV Spots between baseline and week 10. Active A
Placebo
Table 2: Pores A
Mean
Median SD
Min max
B Mean
Median SD
Min max
T0
645.0 612.5 272.2 222.0
1494.0 T0
640.2 585.5 270.4 182.0
1301.0 T10
711.2 651.0 248.8 303.0
1419.0 T10
672.6 654.0 256.2 206.0
1444.0 a B b
Discussion From the data obtained in this double blind, placebo-controlled study, it was possible to conclude that there are significant benefits in terms of moisturisation and preventing accelerated skin ageing, particularly maintaining a lighter skin tone and preventing future visible ageing signs for skin treated with Product A, compared to the placebo formulation. Of particular note also, are the results of the blind scoring of skin appearance from paired, randomised images. These support the data obtained from the instrumental analysis by demonstrating that the active formulation was able to lead to perceivably improved skin condition with regular use, whereas the placebo treated side was seen to worsen in appearance. This study was conducted over the
a C b
summer months, when the skin is subject to the highest levels of UV exposure and the deterioration in appearance for the placebo treated side is consistent with the fact that the formulation contains no sun screening agents. That the active treated side demonstrated improved or maintained skin condition, as evidenced from instrumental measurements and blind assessment of images, strongly suggests that this formulation protects and improves skin, even when exposed to higher levels of UV light, without having a sun screening activity. We conclude that regular use of Product A would help to maintain and improve signs of skin ageing, for perceptibly improved skin appearance, with regular use.
a Figure 3: a, b, c: Active and placebo treatment. PERSONAL CARE EUROPE b
Assessments Facial photography – Canfield Visa Standardised digital images were taken of the face using a Canfield Visia II system. Both normal illumination and UV illumination were included. Front, left and right sides of the face were photographed at weeks 0, 4, 8 and 10 and analysed for facial features according to the Canfield Visia software. In addition, pairs of images (left at week 0 and left at week 10, right at week 0 and right at week 10) were assessed visually for differences in overall appearance.
June 2020
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
