Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Clin Exp Dermatol ; 47(4): 757-759, 2022 Apr.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34798683

RESUMEN

The use of a broad-spectrum sunscreen remains an essential aspect of photoprotection. The environmental and health impacts attributed to certain ultraviolet filers have resulted in public confusion. Hence, the objective of this study is to explore public interest in sunscreen searches using Google Trends.


Asunto(s)
Motor de Búsqueda , Protectores Solares , Humanos , Protectores Solares/uso terapéutico , Rayos Ultravioleta/efectos adversos
2.
Clin Exp Dermatol ; 46(8): 1518-1529, 2021 Dec.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34022073

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of studies have investigated the adverse effect profile of oral cannabinoids; however, few studies have provided sufficient data on the tolerability of topical cannabinoids in human participants. AIM: To assess the tolerability profile of several commercial topical formulations containing cannabidiol (CBD) and palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) on the skin of healthy human participants. METHODS: Three human clinical trials and one in vitro study were conducted. The potential for skin irritation, sensitization and phototoxicity of several products, were assessed via patch testing on healthy human skin. The products assessed included two formulations containing CBD and PEA, one containing hemp seed oil and four concentrations of CBD alone. Ocular toxicity was tested using a traditional hen's egg chorioallantoic membrane model with three CBD, PEA and hemp seed oil formulations. RESULTS: There was no irritation or sensitization of the products evident via patch testing on healthy participants. Additionally, mild phototoxicity of a hemp seed oil product was found at the 48-h time point compared with the negative control. The in vitro experiment demonstrated comparable effects of cannabinoid products with historically nonirritating products. CONCLUSION: These specific formulations of CBD- and PEA-containing products are nonirritating and nonsensitizing in healthy adults, and further encourage similar research assessing their long-term safety and efficacy in human participants with dermatological diseases. There are some limitations to the study: (i) external validity may be limited as formulations from a single manufacturer were used for this study, while vast heterogeneity exists across unregulated, commercial CBD products on the market; and (ii) products were assessed only on normal, nondiseased human skin, and therefore extrapolation to those with dermatological diseases cannot be assumed.


Asunto(s)
Amidas/efectos adversos , Cannabidiol/efectos adversos , Cannabis/efectos adversos , Dermatitis Irritante/etiología , Dermatitis Fototóxica/etiología , Etanolaminas/efectos adversos , Ácidos Palmíticos/efectos adversos , Extractos Vegetales/efectos adversos , Administración Tópica , Amidas/administración & dosificación , Cannabidiol/administración & dosificación , Membrana Corioalantoides/efectos de los fármacos , Etanolaminas/administración & dosificación , Humanos , Técnicas In Vitro , Ácidos Palmíticos/administración & dosificación , Extractos Vegetales/administración & dosificación , Método Simple Ciego
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA