Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=100 Randomized Single-blind Other

Comparing Cetaphil Restoraderm System Versus Standard Skin Care in Infants

Atopic Dermatitis

Enrolled (actual)
100
Serious AEs
2.0%
Results posted
Apr 2019
Primary outcome: Primary: Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Atopic Dermatitis Diagnosed by Investigator at 12 Months — 13.2; 25 Percentage of participants

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
N/A
Interventions
Cetaphil Restoraderm (Other); Standard of Care (Other)
Age
Pediatric · 0+ yrs
Sex
All
Sponsor
Oregon Health and Science University
Primary completion
Oct 2014

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Percentage of Participants With Cumulative Atopic Dermatitis Diagnosed by Investigator at 12 Months
13.2; 25
SECONDARY
Percentage of High Emollient Use
87; 45.2; 72.4; 45.8; 66.7; 45.5
SECONDARY
Age at Onset of Eczema
4; 6
SECONDARY
Filaggrin Mutation Status
3; 2; 22; 29
SECONDARY
Transepidermal Water Loss (TEWL)
16.3; 18.3; 15.9; 16.1; 13.9; 16.7
SECONDARY
Skin Hydration (Skin Electrical Capacitance)
55.2; 53.9; 51.8; 52.1; 49.4; 53.7
SECONDARY
Skin pH
5.5; 5.2; 5.3; 5.4; 5.4; 5.4

Summary

The goal of this study is to determine what effect Cetaphil® Restoraderm® system has on babies' skin versus Johnson & Johnson baby lotion and skin cleanser.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • Infants up to three weeks of age born to mothers aged 18-45 years will be recruited for this study.
  • Infants must have a family history of asthma, eczema, or hayfever in at least one first-degree relative and be in otherwise good overall health.

Exclusion Criteria

  • Preterm birth defined as birth prior to 37 weeks gestation
  • Major congenital anomaly
  • Hydrops fetalis
  • Significant dermatitis at birth not including seborrheic dermatitis on the scalp ("cradle cap")
  • Any immunodeficiency disorder
  • Any severe genetic skin disorder
  • Any other serious condition that would make the use of emollients inadvisable
  • Any other major medical problems that the investigator deems may increase the risk of adverse events with the intervention or in whom assessing the outcomes may be masked by the underlying problem or practically very difficult to assess
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01375205). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search