Acne Prone Skin
Conditions
Keywords
acne, pediatric
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to determine the tolerability of Cetaphil® DermaControl™ Foam Wash and Moisturizer SPF 30 in pediatric subjects (7-11) with acne prone skin.
Detailed description
This was a open-label, single center study conducted in the United States that evaluated the tolerability of Cetaphil® DermaControl™ skin care products used at least once daily for 22 days in male and female subjects age 7 to 11 with acne prone skin. There were 4 visits during the course of the study: screening (within 7 days of visit 1), visit 1(baseline /day1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22/exit). Tolerability assessments were performed by a board certified dermatologist at all visits. Subjects completed the baseline skin care regimen questionnaire at visit 1. Hydration assessments were competed at visits 1, 2, and 3. A subject satisfaction questionnaire was completed at visit 3. Adverse event assessments were conducted for all subjects at every clinic visit after informed consent/assent was signed.
Interventions
DRUGFacial Cleanser and Moisturizer SPF 30
Cetaphil® DermaControl™ Foam Wash and Moisturizer SPF 30
Sponsors
Galderma R&D
Study design
Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
7 Years to 11 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Male and female subjects 7-11 years of age * Subjects with acne-prone skin \[Global severity of acne (GSA) Score of 1 (almost clear) or 2 (mild) and any oiliness evaluation score or GSA Score of 0 (none) with an oiliness evaluation score greater than or equal to 1 (mild)\]
Exclusion criteria
* Subjects with any visible skin condition or facial hair that could interfere with the evaluations * Subjects taking other medications, supplements, or non-prescription treatments that, in the opinion of the principal investigator/board certified dermatologist, could interfere with the test results including any regimen of steroidal/non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or antihistamines * Subjects currently under the treatment for asthma or diabetes (insulin-dependent only) * Subjects with abnormal pigmented vascular skin lesions, abnormal skin pigmentation, or body art (tattoos, permanent or temporary) on the face, which could interfere with subsequent evaluations of dermal responsiveness
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Erythema | Week 3 | Cutaneous tolerability based on visual inspection (investigator reported severity scale) was assessed at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Erythema: 0 = none, no observable redness; 1 = very mild, slight redness, spotty or diffuse; 2 = mild, moderate redness; 3 = moderate, intense; 4 = severe, fiery red with edema. |
| Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Edema | Week 3 | Cutaneous tolerability based on visual inspection (investigator reported severity scale) was assessed at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Edema: 0 = none; 1 = mild; 2 = moderate; 3 = intense. |
| Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Dryness | Week 3 | Cutaneous tolerability based on visual inspection (investigator reported severity scale) was assessed at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Dryness: 0 = no observable scaling; 1 = fine flakes/scaling; 2 = moderate flakes/scaling; 3 = larger flakes/severe scaling. |
| Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Roughness | Week 3 | Cutaneous tolerability based on visual inspection (investigator reported severity scale) was assessed at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Roughness: 1 - no roughness, skin is fine, silky smooth, 2 - firm (not too rough, not too smooth), 3 - coarse, rough skin, 4 - leathery, flaky skin. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Barrier Function (TEWL) | Week 3 | Barrier function was assessed by measuring transepidermal water loss (TEWL) at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). TEWL measures water loss through the epidermis (for example, by evaporation). Measuring TEWL is a well-established way to assess the skin's water-barrier function. High TEWL values indicate impaired skin barrier function; low values indicate normal barrier function. |
| Hydration (Corneometry) | Week 3 | Hydration was assessed using corneometry at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Corneometry measures the hydration status of the skin. An increase in corneometry values indicates an increase in the hydration status of the skin, and vice versa. The test is procedure specific, so results are reported in arbitrary units. |
| Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Itching | Week 3 | Cutaneous tolerability based on visual inspection (investigator reported severity scale) was assessed at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Itching: 0 = none, no itching; 1 = mild, slight itching, not really bothersome; 2 = moderate, definite itching that is somewhat bothersome; 3 = severe, intense itching that may interrupt daily activities and/or sleep |
| Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | Day 22 | All subjects used Cetaphil® DermaControl™ Oil Control Foam Wash and Cetaphil® DermaControl™ Oil Control Moisturizer SPF 30 at least once daily for 22 days. Patient satisfaction questions were asked for the moisturizer at study end (day 22). |
| Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | Day 22 | All subjects used Cetaphil® DermaControl™ Oil Control Foam Wash and Cetaphil® DermaControl™ Oil Control Moisturizer SPF 30 at least once daily for 22 days. Patient satisfaction questions were asked for the face wash at study end (day 22). |
| Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Burning | Week 3 | Cutaneous tolerability based on visual inspection (investigator reported severity scale) was assessed at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Burning: 0 = none, no burning; 1 = mild, slight burning sensation, not really bothersome; 2 = moderate, definite warm, burning sensation that is somewhat bothersome; 3 = severe, hot burning sensation that causes definite discomfort and may interrupt daily activities and/or sleep |
| Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Stinging | Week 3 | Cutaneous tolerability based on visual inspection (investigator reported severity scale) was assessed at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Stinging: 0 = none, no stinging; 1 = mild, slight stinging sensation, not really bothersome; 2 = moderate, definite stinging sensation that is somewhat bothersome; 3 = severe, stinging sensation that causes definite discomfort and may interrupt daily activities and/or sleep |
| Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Tightness | Week 3 | Cutaneous tolerability based on visual inspection (investigator reported severity scale) was assessed at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Tightness: 0 = none, no tightness; 1 = mild, slight tightness, not really bothersome; 2 = moderate, definite tightness sensation that is somewhat bothersome; 3 = severe, tightness sensation that causes definite discomfort and may interrupt daily activities and/or sleep |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Cetaphil® DermaControl™ Regimen. All subjects used Cetaphil® DermaControl™ Oil Control Foam Wash and Cetaphil® DermaControl™ Oil Control Moisturizer SPF 30 at least once daily for 22 days.
Facial Cleanser and Moisturizer SPF 30: Cetaphil® DermaControl™ Foam Wash and Moisturizer SPF 30 | 35 |
| Total | 35 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Cetaphil® DermaControl™ Regimen. |
|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 9.0 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.5 |
| Age, Customized | 9.0 years |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 12 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 23 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants |
| Fitzpatrick Skin Type II | 7 participants |
| Fitzpatrick Skin Type III | 5 participants |
| Fitzpatrick Skin Type IV | 3 participants |
| Fitzpatrick Skin Type V | 12 participants |
| Fitzpatrick Skin Type VI | 8 participants |
| Global Severity of Acne Almost Clear | 27 participants |
| Global Severity of Acne Clear | 1 participants |
| Global Severity of Acne MIld | 7 participants |
| Normal Skin Type | 35 participants |
| Oiliness Evaluation Score Mildly Oily | 7 participants |
| Oiliness Evaluation Score Not Oily | 28 participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 2 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 9 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 2 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 22 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 17 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 18 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk |
|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | — / — |
| other Total, other adverse events | 11 / 35 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 35 |
Outcome results
Primary
Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Dryness
Cutaneous tolerability based on visual inspection (investigator reported severity scale) was assessed at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Dryness: 0 = no observable scaling; 1 = fine flakes/scaling; 2 = moderate flakes/scaling; 3 = larger flakes/severe scaling.
Time frame: Week 3
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Dryness | Fine Flakes/Scaling | 1 participants |
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Dryness | No Observable Scaling | 34 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Dryness | No Observable Scaling | 33 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Dryness | Fine Flakes/Scaling | 2 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Dryness | No Observable Scaling | 32 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Dryness | Fine Flakes/Scaling | 3 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Dryness | Fine Flakes/Scaling | 3 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Dryness | No Observable Scaling | 32 participants |
Primary
Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Edema
Cutaneous tolerability based on visual inspection (investigator reported severity scale) was assessed at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Edema: 0 = none; 1 = mild; 2 = moderate; 3 = intense.
Time frame: Week 3
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Edema | None | 35 participants |
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Edema | Mild | 0 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Edema | Mild | 0 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Edema | None | 35 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Edema | Mild | 1 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Edema | None | 34 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Edema | None | 34 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Edema | Mild | 1 participants |
Primary
Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Erythema
Cutaneous tolerability based on visual inspection (investigator reported severity scale) was assessed at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Erythema: 0 = none, no observable redness; 1 = very mild, slight redness, spotty or diffuse; 2 = mild, moderate redness; 3 = moderate, intense; 4 = severe, fiery red with edema.
Time frame: Week 3
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Erythema | None | 29 participants |
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Erythema | Mild | 0 participants |
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Erythema | Very Mild | 6 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Erythema | None | 33 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Erythema | Mild | 0 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Erythema | Very Mild | 2 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Erythema | Very Mild | 4 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Erythema | None | 30 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Erythema | Mild | 1 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Erythema | None | 29 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Erythema | Mild | 1 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Erythema | Very Mild | 5 participants |
Primary
Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Roughness
Cutaneous tolerability based on visual inspection (investigator reported severity scale) was assessed at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Roughness: 1 - no roughness, skin is fine, silky smooth, 2 - firm (not too rough, not too smooth), 3 - coarse, rough skin, 4 - leathery, flaky skin.
Time frame: Week 3
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Roughness | No Roughness, Skin is Fine, Silky Smooth | 35 participants |
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Roughness | Coarse, Rough Skin | 0 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Roughness | No Roughness, Skin is Fine, Silky Smooth | 34 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Roughness | Coarse, Rough Skin | 1 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Roughness | No Roughness, Skin is Fine, Silky Smooth | 35 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Roughness | Coarse, Rough Skin | 0 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Roughness | Coarse, Rough Skin | 1 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Visual Inspection - Roughness | No Roughness, Skin is Fine, Silky Smooth | 34 participants |
Secondary
Barrier Function (TEWL)
Barrier function was assessed by measuring transepidermal water loss (TEWL) at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). TEWL measures water loss through the epidermis (for example, by evaporation). Measuring TEWL is a well-established way to assess the skin's water-barrier function. High TEWL values indicate impaired skin barrier function; low values indicate normal barrier function.
Time frame: Week 3
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Barrier Function (TEWL) | 8.89 g/m2/h | Standard Deviation 3.01 |
| Week 1 | Barrier Function (TEWL) | 11.41 g/m2/h | Standard Deviation 5.22 |
| Week 3 | Barrier Function (TEWL) | 11.29 g/m2/h | Standard Deviation 3.25 |
Secondary
Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Burning
Cutaneous tolerability based on visual inspection (investigator reported severity scale) was assessed at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Burning: 0 = none, no burning; 1 = mild, slight burning sensation, not really bothersome; 2 = moderate, definite warm, burning sensation that is somewhat bothersome; 3 = severe, hot burning sensation that causes definite discomfort and may interrupt daily activities and/or sleep
Time frame: Week 3
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Burning | Mild | 0 participants |
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Burning | None | 35 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Burning | None | 33 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Burning | Mild | 2 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Burning | Mild | 2 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Burning | None | 33 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Burning | Mild | 4 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Burning | None | 31 participants |
Secondary
Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Itching
Cutaneous tolerability based on visual inspection (investigator reported severity scale) was assessed at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Itching: 0 = none, no itching; 1 = mild, slight itching, not really bothersome; 2 = moderate, definite itching that is somewhat bothersome; 3 = severe, intense itching that may interrupt daily activities and/or sleep
Time frame: Week 3
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Itching | None | 33 participants |
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Itching | Mild | 2 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Itching | Mild | 4 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Itching | None | 31 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Itching | None | 34 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Itching | Mild | 1 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Itching | None | 30 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Itching | Mild | 5 participants |
Secondary
Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Stinging
Cutaneous tolerability based on visual inspection (investigator reported severity scale) was assessed at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Stinging: 0 = none, no stinging; 1 = mild, slight stinging sensation, not really bothersome; 2 = moderate, definite stinging sensation that is somewhat bothersome; 3 = severe, stinging sensation that causes definite discomfort and may interrupt daily activities and/or sleep
Time frame: Week 3
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Stinging | None | 35 participants |
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Stinging | Mild | 0 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Stinging | Mild | 1 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Stinging | None | 34 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Stinging | None | 35 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Stinging | Mild | 0 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Stinging | None | 34 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Stinging | Mild | 1 participants |
Secondary
Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Tightness
Cutaneous tolerability based on visual inspection (investigator reported severity scale) was assessed at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Tightness: 0 = none, no tightness; 1 = mild, slight tightness, not really bothersome; 2 = moderate, definite tightness sensation that is somewhat bothersome; 3 = severe, tightness sensation that causes definite discomfort and may interrupt daily activities and/or sleep
Time frame: Week 3
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Tightness | None | 35 participants |
| Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Tightness | Mild | 0 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Tightness | None | 35 participants |
| Week 1 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Tightness | Mild | 0 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Tightness | Mild | 0 participants |
| Week 3 | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Tightness | None | 35 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Tightness | Mild | 0 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Cutaneous Tolerability Based on Subject and Parent/Legally Authorized Representative Interview - Tightness | None | 35 participants |
Secondary
Hydration (Corneometry)
Hydration was assessed using corneometry at visit 1 (day 1), visit 2 (day 8), and visit 3 (day 22). Corneometry measures the hydration status of the skin. An increase in corneometry values indicates an increase in the hydration status of the skin, and vice versa. The test is procedure specific, so results are reported in arbitrary units.
Time frame: Week 3
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Hydration (Corneometry) | 55.75 arbitrary units | Standard Deviation 11.24 |
| Week 1 | Hydration (Corneometry) | 56.51 arbitrary units | Standard Deviation 12 |
| Week 3 | Hydration (Corneometry) | 48.28 arbitrary units | Standard Deviation 12.47 |
Secondary
Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash
All subjects used Cetaphil® DermaControl™ Oil Control Foam Wash and Cetaphil® DermaControl™ Oil Control Moisturizer SPF 30 at least once daily for 22 days. Patient satisfaction questions were asked for the face wash at study end (day 22).
Time frame: Day 22
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | No | 1 participants |
| Baseline | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | Yes | 34 participants |
| Baseline | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | Missing | 0 participants |
| Week 1 | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | No | 0 participants |
| Week 1 | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | Yes | 35 participants |
| Week 1 | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | Missing | 0 participants |
| Week 3 | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | No | 0 participants |
| Week 3 | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | Missing | 0 participants |
| Week 3 | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | Yes | 35 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | No | 3 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | Yes | 32 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | Missing | 0 participants |
| I Would Keep Using the Face Wash | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | No | 5 participants |
| I Would Keep Using the Face Wash | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | Yes | 30 participants |
| I Would Keep Using the Face Wash | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | Missing | 0 participants |
| I Liked the Face Wash Better Than What I Was Using Before | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | Yes | 6 participants |
| I Liked the Face Wash Better Than What I Was Using Before | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | Missing | 29 participants |
| I Liked the Face Wash Better Than What I Was Using Before | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Face Wash | No | 0 participants |
Secondary
Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer
All subjects used Cetaphil® DermaControl™ Oil Control Foam Wash and Cetaphil® DermaControl™ Oil Control Moisturizer SPF 30 at least once daily for 22 days. Patient satisfaction questions were asked for the moisturizer at study end (day 22).
Time frame: Day 22
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | Yes | 34 participants |
| Baseline | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | Missing | 0 participants |
| Baseline | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | No | 1 participants |
| Week 1 | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | Yes | 28 participants |
| Week 1 | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | Missing | 0 participants |
| Week 1 | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | No | 7 participants |
| Week 3 | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | Yes | 35 participants |
| Week 3 | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | No | 0 participants |
| Week 3 | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | Missing | 0 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | No | 2 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | Missing | 0 participants |
| Worst Post Baseline | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | Yes | 33 participants |
| I Would Keep Using the Face Wash | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | No | 5 participants |
| I Would Keep Using the Face Wash | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | Yes | 30 participants |
| I Would Keep Using the Face Wash | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | Missing | 0 participants |
| I Liked the Face Wash Better Than What I Was Using Before | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | No | 0 participants |
| I Liked the Face Wash Better Than What I Was Using Before | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | Yes | 4 participants |
| I Liked the Face Wash Better Than What I Was Using Before | Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire - Moisturizer | Missing | 31 participants |