Skin barrier function, as indicated by TEWL, also showed signifi-cant improvements with both products from baseline to week 4 (P<0.05), however, differences between the two products were not statistically significant.
According to the tape stripping results, both products significantly increased ceramide levels for the arm and leg at week 4 compared to baseline (Figure 3). There was no significant difference in ce-ramide synthesis between the two products at week 4.
As shown in Figure 4, ESM application resulted in an overall skin improvement in a diverse panel (White, Asian, and African American). Eczema and eczema-prone skin present differently in patients with skin of color. Currently, its variations are not well represented visually. Healthcare professionals need to be able to recognize the differences in order to properly manage a patient's eczema. As can be appreciated in the photos, eczema skin can have a different hue in darker skin types and can also sometimes manifest as an ashen gray appearance.
The participant-perception questionnaire showed that 98.1% of ESM-treated participants and 94.2% of IRML-treated participants felt their skin was softer, with 94.2% of participants in both groups reporting their skin was soothed at week 1. At week 4, participants reported their skin was healthiest (93.3% ESM, 90.0% IRML), their eczema-prone skin had significantly improved (93.3% ESM, 88.3% IRML), and was completely soothed (93.3% ESM, 91.7% IRML). In addition, when asked about their preferences, 50% of participants preferred ESM, 33.3% preferred IRML, and 16.7% had no preference. Further, 46.7% reported ESM provided better soothing ben-efits compared to 40.0% for IRML.
Two adverse events occurred during the study and were resolved; however, neither was considered related to the study products.
