A Controlled Multi-Center Study Evaluating the Efficacy of Vivité Skin Carein the Treatment of Photoaging of the Face, Eye and Mouth

January 2010 | Volume 9 | Issue 1 | Original Article | 22 | Copyright © January 2010

Mitchel P. Goldman MD and Michael H. Gold MD

Purpose: To determine the efficacy of a skin care system developed with a partially neutralized glycolic compound and natural antioxidants when compared to Cetaphil moisturizing regimen for the treatment of photoaging of the face, eye and mouth.
Methods: A total of 36 patients between 35 and 65 years of age were randomized on a 3:1 ratio to use either Vivité Skin Care System or Cetaphil cleanser and moisturizer for 60 days. Facial skin was evaluated at baseline, day 30 and day 60. Subjects were required to fill out a self-evaluation of facial skin quality before, during, and after treatment. Investigators evaluated facial wrinkling using a common wrinkling scale as well as a visual evaluation of skin texture in a masked manner.
Results: A similar proportion of patients in each group had a 1-point improvement on the hyperpigmentation scale (42% of Vivité patients, 44% of Cetaphil patients). There were no statistically significant between-group differences in investigator rating of wrinkles. Subjectively, patients preferred Vivité to Cetaphil for noticeable improvement in fine lines or wrinkles (37.6–0%, respectively) at the first follow-up. By the final follow-up, more than half the patients in the Vivité group continued to notice an improvement in fine lines or wrinkles, compared with fewer than 25% in the Cetaphil group. More than twice the number of patients in the Vivité group noticed improvement in skin elasticity or tightness compared with those in the Cetaphil group.
Conclusion: Patients reported that the Vivité skin care system improved the appearance of wrinkling and improved skin texture associated with moderate photoaging of the face, eye and mouth areas. Vivité had a higher patient preference rating than a commonly used moisturizing regimen. There were no differences noted in the physician evaluations.