Try the modernized ClinicalTrials.gov beta website. Learn more about the modernization effort.
Working…
ClinicalTrials.gov
ClinicalTrials.gov Menu

A Controlled Clinical Study of 2 Different Moisturizers for the Relief of Dry Skin

The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Read our disclaimer for details.
 
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04510103
Recruitment Status : Completed
First Posted : August 12, 2020
Last Update Posted : August 12, 2020
Sponsor:
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Johnson & Johnson Consumer and Personal Products Worldwide ( Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (J&JCI) )

Brief Summary:
Dry skin is characterized by a lack of moisture in the outer layer of the skin and can occur as a result of numerous factors including cold weather, low humidity, age, etc. In this study, the moisturizing benefits of two formulas were evaluated for barrier function improvement/impact when used by women with moderately to severely dry skin on their lower legs.

Condition or disease Intervention/treatment Phase
Skin Skin Care Skin Cream Drug: Moisturizer A, F#9155-005 Other: Moisturizer B, F#E1387-004 Procedure: Regression Procedure: Non-Regression Not Applicable

Layout table for study information
Study Type : Interventional  (Clinical Trial)
Actual Enrollment : 46 participants
Allocation: Randomized
Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment
Intervention Model Description: Subjects were assigned to one of two procedural groups (Regression or Non-Regression) based on Visit 1 scheduling. Subjects were provided with a commercial cleanser to use during a 3-day period with no moisturizers and no hair removal allowed on their lower legs, and to continue using throughout the study. At Visit 2, all subjects received the two test moisturizers to use split-leg (right vs. left lower leg randomized) to use for 6 weeks. Subjects returned for evaluations at Week 2 (Visit 3), Week 4 (Visit 4), and Week 6 (Visit 5). At Week 6, subjects in the Regression group entered a 2-week regression period (no moisturizer usage) and returned for evaluations at Regression Days 1, 4, 7, 10, and 14. Meanwhile, at Week 6, subjects in the Non-Regression group (exploratory) continued using the moisturizers; they returned for evaluations at Week 6 + Days 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Masking: Triple (Participant, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Masking Description: The test moisturizers were assigned a product code; each moisturizer was assigned to a subject's right or left lower leg per a randomization schedule. Subjects were blinded to the product identities, and evaluators were blinded to which product was used on each leg. Procedural group was unblinded and based on scheduling at Visit 1.
Primary Purpose: Treatment
Official Title: A Bilateral, Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate 2 Different Moisturizer Chassis Formulas for the Relief of Dry Skin
Actual Study Start Date : October 23, 2015
Actual Primary Completion Date : March 25, 2016
Actual Study Completion Date : April 7, 2016

Arm Intervention/treatment
Regression Group
The Regression Group received the two test moisturizers to use split-leg (right vs. left lower leg randomized) for 6 weeks and then entered a 2-week regression period (no moisturizer usage).
Drug: Moisturizer A, F#9155-005
OTC Monograph Drug. Used twice daily on left or right lower leg per randomization schedule.

Other: Moisturizer B, F#E1387-004
Cosmetic Moisturizer. Used twice daily on left or right lower leg per randomization schedule.

Procedure: Regression
2 week regression period after 6 weeks of moisturizer use.

Non-Regression Group
The Non-Regression Group received the two test moisturizers to use split-leg (right vs. left lower leg randomized) for 6 weeks and then underwent a physical insult (tape stripping) on the lower legs and continued using the moisturizer for 4 additional days.
Drug: Moisturizer A, F#9155-005
OTC Monograph Drug. Used twice daily on left or right lower leg per randomization schedule.

Other: Moisturizer B, F#E1387-004
Cosmetic Moisturizer. Used twice daily on left or right lower leg per randomization schedule.

Procedure: Non-Regression
Physical insult (tape stripping) on the lower leg after 6 weeks of moisturizer use.




Primary Outcome Measures :
  1. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 6 in Clinical Grading of Skin Dryness [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 6 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin dryness on a scale of 0 (no dryness) to 4 (severe scaling/fissuring). Half-points allowed.


Secondary Outcome Measures :
  1. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 2 in Clinical Grading of Skin Dryness [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 2 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin dryness on a scale of 0 (no dryness) to 4 (severe scaling/fissuring). Half-points allowed.

  2. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 4 in Clinical Grading of Skin Dryness [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 4 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin dryness on a scale of 0 (no dryness) to 4 (severe scaling/fissuring). Half-points allowed.

  3. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 1 in Clinical Grading of Skin Dryness [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 1 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin dryness on a scale of 0 (no dryness) to 4 (severe scaling/fissuring). Half-points allowed.

  4. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 4 in Clinical Grading of Skin Dryness [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 4 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin dryness on a scale of 0 (no dryness) to 4 (severe scaling/fissuring). Half-points allowed.

  5. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 7 in Clinical Grading of Skin Dryness [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 7 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin dryness on a scale of 0 (no dryness) to 4 (severe scaling/fissuring). Half-points allowed.

  6. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 10 in Clinical Grading of Skin Dryness [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 10 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin dryness on a scale of 0 (no dryness) to 4 (severe scaling/fissuring). Half-points allowed.

  7. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 14 in Clinical Grading of Skin Dryness [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 14 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin dryness on a scale of 0 (no dryness) to 4 (severe scaling/fissuring). Half-points allowed.

  8. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 2 in Clinical Grading of Skin Cracking [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 2 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin cracking on a scale of 0 (none) to 8 (obvious cracking). Whole points only.

  9. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 4 in Clinical Grading of Skin Cracking [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 4 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin cracking on a scale of 0 (none) to 8 (obvious cracking). Whole points only.

  10. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 6 in Clinical Grading of Skin Cracking [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 6 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin cracking on a scale of 0 (none) to 8 (obvious cracking). Whole points only.

  11. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 1 in Clinical Grading of Skin Cracking [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 1 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin cracking on a scale of 0 (none) to 8 (obvious cracking). Whole points only.

  12. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 4 in Clinical Grading of Skin Cracking [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 4 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin cracking on a scale of 0 (none) to 8 (obvious cracking). Whole points only.

  13. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 7 in Clinical Grading of Skin Cracking [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 7 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin cracking on a scale of 0 (none) to 8 (obvious cracking). Whole points only.

  14. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 10 in Clinical Grading of Skin Cracking [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 10 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin cracking on a scale of 0 (none) to 8 (obvious cracking). Whole points only.

  15. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 14 in Clinical Grading of Skin Cracking [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 14 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin cracking on a scale of 0 (none) to 8 (obvious cracking). Whole points only.

  16. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 2 in Clinical Grading of Skin Scaling [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 2 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin scaling on a scale of 0 (none) to 8 (large scales). Whole points only.

  17. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 4 in Clinical Grading of Skin Scaling [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 4 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin scaling on a scale of 0 (none) to 8 (large scales). Whole points only.

  18. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 6 in Clinical Grading of Skin Scaling [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 6 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin scaling on a scale of 0 (none) to 8 (large scales). Whole points only.

  19. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 1 in Clinical Grading of Skin Scaling [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 1 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin scaling on a scale of 0 (none) to 8 (large scales). Whole points only.

  20. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 4 in Clinical Grading of Skin Scaling [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 4 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin scaling on a scale of 0 (none) to 8 (large scales). Whole points only.

  21. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 7 in Clinical Grading of Skin Scaling [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 7 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin scaling on a scale of 0 (none) to 8 (large scales). Whole points only.

  22. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 10 in Clinical Grading of Skin Scaling [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 10 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin scaling on a scale of 0 (none) to 8 (large scales). Whole points only.

  23. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 14 in Clinical Grading of Skin Scaling [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 14 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for skin scaling on a scale of 0 (none) to 8 (large scales). Whole points only.

  24. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 2 in Clinical Grading of Tactile Roughness [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 2 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for tactile roughness on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe) scale. Half-points allowed.

  25. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 4 in Clinical Grading of Tactile Roughness [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 4 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for tactile roughness on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe) scale. Half-points allowed.

  26. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 6 in Clinical Grading of Tactile Roughness [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 6 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for tactile roughness on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe) scale. Half-points allowed.

  27. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 1 in Clinical Grading of Tactile Roughness [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 1 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for tactile roughness on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe) scale. Half-points allowed.

  28. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 4 in Clinical Grading of Tactile Roughness [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 4 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for tactile roughness on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe) scale. Half-points allowed.

  29. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 7 in Clinical Grading of Tactile Roughness [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 7 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for tactile roughness on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe) scale. Half-points allowed.

  30. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 10 in Clinical Grading of Tactile Roughness [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 10 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for tactile roughness on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe) scale. Half-points allowed.

  31. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 14 in Clinical Grading of Tactile Roughness [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 14 ]
    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for tactile roughness on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe) scale. Half-points allowed.

  32. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 2 in Clinical Tolerance Grading [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 2 ]

    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for the following tolerance parameters on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe):

    • erythema
    • edema
    • burning/stinging (via subject interview)
    • itching (via subject interview)
    • tightness (via subject interview) Half-points allowed.

  33. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 4 in Clinical Tolerance Grading [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 4 ]

    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for the following tolerance parameters on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe):

    • erythema
    • edema
    • burning/stinging (via subject interview)
    • itching (via subject interview)
    • tightness (via subject interview) Half-points allowed.

  34. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 6 in Clinical Tolerance Grading [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 6 ]

    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for the following tolerance parameters on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe):

    • erythema
    • edema
    • burning/stinging (via subject interview)
    • itching (via subject interview)
    • tightness (via subject interview) Half-points allowed.

  35. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 1 in Clinical Tolerance Grading [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 1 ]

    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for the following tolerance parameters on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe):

    • erythema
    • edema
    • burning/stinging (via subject interview)
    • itching (via subject interview)
    • tightness (via subject interview) Half-points allowed.

  36. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 4 in Clinical Tolerance Grading [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 4 ]

    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for the following tolerance parameters on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe):

    • erythema
    • edema
    • burning/stinging (via subject interview)
    • itching (via subject interview)
    • tightness (via subject interview) Half-points allowed.

  37. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 7 in Clinical Tolerance Grading [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 7 ]

    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for the following tolerance parameters on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe):

    • erythema
    • edema
    • burning/stinging (via subject interview)
    • itching (via subject interview)
    • tightness (via subject interview) Half-points allowed.

  38. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 10 in Clinical Tolerance Grading [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 10 ]

    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for the following tolerance parameters on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe):

    • erythema
    • edema
    • burning/stinging (via subject interview)
    • itching (via subject interview)
    • tightness (via subject interview) Half-points allowed.

  39. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 14 in Clinical Tolerance Grading [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 14 ]

    The investigator assessed each of the subject's lower legs for the following tolerance parameters on a scale of 0 (none) to 3 (severe):

    • erythema
    • edema
    • burning/stinging (via subject interview)
    • itching (via subject interview)
    • tightness (via subject interview) Half-points allowed.

  40. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 4 in TEWL [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 4 ]
    Transepidermal water loss (TEWL), a measure of the passive transfer of water through the outer layer of the skin in g/m2/h, was measured with an open-chambered evaporimeter. Three measurements were taken per leg.

  41. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 6 in TEWL [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 6 ]
    Transepidermal water loss (TEWL), a measure of the passive transfer of water through the outer layer of the skin in g/m2/h, was measured with an open-chambered evaporimeter. Three measurements were taken per leg.

  42. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 1 in TEWL [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 1 ]
    Transepidermal water loss (TEWL), a measure of the passive transfer of water through the outer layer of the skin in g/m2/h, was measured with an open-chambered evaporimeter. Three measurements were taken per leg.

  43. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 4 in TEWL [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 4 ]
    Transepidermal water loss (TEWL), a measure of the passive transfer of water through the outer layer of the skin in g/m2/h, was measured with an open-chambered evaporimeter. Three measurements were taken per leg.

  44. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 7 in TEWL [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 7 ]
    Transepidermal water loss (TEWL), a measure of the passive transfer of water through the outer layer of the skin in g/m2/h, was measured with an open-chambered evaporimeter. Three measurements were taken per leg.

  45. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 10 in TEWL [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 10 ]
    Transepidermal water loss (TEWL), a measure of the passive transfer of water through the outer layer of the skin in g/m2/h, was measured with an open-chambered evaporimeter. Three measurements were taken per leg.

  46. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 14 in TEWL [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 14 ]
    Transepidermal water loss (TEWL), a measure of the passive transfer of water through the outer layer of the skin in g/m2/h, was measured with an open-chambered evaporimeter. Three measurements were taken per leg.

  47. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 4 in Skin Hydration [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 4 ]
    Skin hydration of the lower legs was measured with two different instruments: 1) a Corneometer, which measures hydration in arbitrary units from 0 to 120, with higher values indicating more hydrated skin, and 2) Skicon, which measures hydration in microSiemens (uS) from 0 to 2000, with higher values indicating more hydrated skin. Five measurements were taken with each instrument.

  48. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 6 in Skin Hydration [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 6 ]
    Skin hydration of the lower legs was measured with two different instruments: 1) a Corneometer, which measures hydration in arbitrary units from 0 to 120, with higher values indicating more hydrated skin, and 2) Skicon, which measures hydration in microSiemens (uS) from 0 to 2000, with higher values indicating more hydrated skin. Five measurements were taken with each instrument.

  49. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 1 in Skin Hydration [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 1 ]
    Skin hydration of the lower legs was measured with two different instruments: 1) a Corneometer, which measures hydration in arbitrary units from 0 to 120, with higher values indicating more hydrated skin, and 2) Skicon, which measures hydration in microSiemens (uS) from 0 to 2000, with higher values indicating more hydrated skin. Five measurements were taken with each instrument.

  50. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 4 in Skin Hydration [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 4 ]
    Skin hydration of the lower legs was measured with two different instruments: 1) a Corneometer, which measures hydration in arbitrary units from 0 to 120, with higher values indicating more hydrated skin, and 2) Skicon, which measures hydration in microSiemens (uS) from 0 to 2000, with higher values indicating more hydrated skin. Five measurements were taken with each instrument.

  51. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 7 in Skin Hydration [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 7 ]
    Skin hydration of the lower legs was measured with two different instruments: 1) a Corneometer, which measures hydration in arbitrary units from 0 to 120, with higher values indicating more hydrated skin, and 2) Skicon, which measures hydration in microSiemens (uS) from 0 to 2000, with higher values indicating more hydrated skin. Five measurements were taken with each instrument.

  52. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 10 in Skin Hydration [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 10 ]
    Skin hydration of the lower legs was measured with two different instruments: 1) a Corneometer, which measures hydration in arbitrary units from 0 to 120, with higher values indicating more hydrated skin, and 2) Skicon, which measures hydration in microSiemens (uS) from 0 to 2000, with higher values indicating more hydrated skin. Five measurements were taken with each instrument.

  53. Mean Change from Regression Baseline to Regression Day 14 in Skin Hydration [ Time Frame: Regression Baseline to Regression Day 14 ]
    Skin hydration of the lower legs was measured with two different instruments: 1) a Corneometer, which measures hydration in arbitrary units from 0 to 120, with higher values indicating more hydrated skin, and 2) Skicon, which measures hydration in microSiemens (uS) from 0 to 2000, with higher values indicating more hydrated skin. Five measurements were taken with each instrument.

  54. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 4 in Skin Flaking using D-Squames [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 4 ]
    D-Squame tapes were used to collect skin surface cells. The first tape was placed on a D-Squame storage card. Image analysis was used to calculate the degree of skin flaking.

  55. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 6 in Skin Flaking using D-Squames [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 6 ]
    D-Squame tapes were used to collect skin surface cells. The first tape was placed on a D-Squame storage card. Image analysis was used to calculate the degree of skin flaking.

  56. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 4 in NMFs using D-Squames [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 4 ]
    D-Squame tapes were used to collect skin surface cells. The second tape was stored in a scintillation vial and shipped to a designated lab for analysis of natural moisturizing factors (NMFs), components of the skin that help it maintain adequate hydration.

  57. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 6 in NMFs using D-Squames [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 6 ]
    D-Squame tapes were used to collect skin surface cells. The second tape was stored in a scintillation vial and shipped to a designated lab for analysis of natural moisturizing factors (NMFs), components of the skin that help it maintain adequate hydration.

  58. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 4 in Epidermal Lipids [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 4 ]
    Special adhesive tapes were used to collect and analyze epidermal lipid samples from the skin surface.

  59. Mean Change from Baseline to Week 6 in Epidermal Lipids [ Time Frame: Baseline to Week 6 ]
    Special adhesive tapes were used to collect and analyze epidermal lipid samples from the skin surface.



Information from the National Library of Medicine

Choosing to participate in a study is an important personal decision. Talk with your doctor and family members or friends about deciding to join a study. To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contacts provided below. For general information, Learn About Clinical Studies.


Layout table for eligibility information
Ages Eligible for Study:   18 Years to 65 Years   (Adult, Older Adult)
Sexes Eligible for Study:   Female
Accepts Healthy Volunteers:   No
Criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  • moderately to severely dry skin on both leg legs, as determined by the investigator.
  • Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV
  • generally in good health
  • routinely uses moisturizers on the legs at least 1-3 times per week.
  • if of reproductive potential: using a medically acceptable form of birth control for at least 3 months before the study and willing to continue it for at least 1 month after study completion.
  • able to read, write, speak, and understand English.
  • willing and able to complete all study instructions.
  • has completed the informed consent document including a HIPAA disclosure and photograph release.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • known allergies/sensitivities to adhesive tapes or study product ingredients.
  • known skin conditions, uncontrolled medical conditions, or any other condition that could interfere with evaluations/data interpretation or increase risk to the subject.
  • any active bacterial/fungal/viral skin infections or susceptibility to such infections.
  • females who are pregnant, breastfeeding, or planning to become pregnant in near future.
  • compromised/broken skin, tattoos, scarring, excessive hair growth, very uneven skin tone, or other conditions that would interfere with evaluations or increase risk to the subject.
  • current participation in another study.
  • participation in another study in past 4 weeks.
  • employees or relatives of the investigator or study site.

Information from the National Library of Medicine

To learn more about this study, you or your doctor may contact the study research staff using the contact information provided by the sponsor.

Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT04510103


Locations
Layout table for location information
United States, Colorado
Thomas J. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States, 80915
Sponsors and Collaborators
Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (J&JCI)
Investigators
Layout table for investigator information
Study Director: Neena Tierney Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (J&JCI)
Principal Investigator: Kun "Mark" Qian, M.D. Thomas J. Stephens & Associates, Inc.
Layout table for additonal information
Responsible Party: Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (J&JCI)
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04510103    
Other Study ID Numbers: PS-150914160029-SACT
First Posted: August 12, 2020    Key Record Dates
Last Update Posted: August 12, 2020
Last Verified: August 2020
Individual Participant Data (IPD) Sharing Statement:
Plan to Share IPD: Yes
Plan Description: Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. has an agreement with the Yale Open Data Access (YODA) Project to serve as the independent review panel for evaluation of requests for clinical study reports and participant level data from investigators and physicians for scientific research that will advance medical knowledge and public health. Requests for access to the study data can be submitted through the YODA Project site at http://yoda.yale.edu.
URL: http://yoda.yale.edu

Layout table for additional information
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Drug Product: No
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated Device Product: No
Keywords provided by Johnson & Johnson Consumer and Personal Products Worldwide ( Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. (J&JCI) ):
Skin
Stratum Corneum
Skin Care
Skin Cream
Dryness
Moisturization
Hydration