SRL : FINAL REPORT March 22, EF Expected Static SPF 20. Non-randomized, with blinded evaluations

Similar documents
IN VIVO DETERMINATION OF THE SUN PROTECTION FACTOR (SPF) FINAL REPORT (COMPLEMENT OF PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT NO /18/CGDA/1)

Maximum no. NO. of subjects of failures Probability

FDA N-0018] formerly Docket No. 1978N-0038), RIN 0910-AF43, Labeling and Effectiveness Testing; Sunscreen Drug Products For Over-the Counter

ISO INTERNATIONAL STANDARD. Cosmetics Sun protection test methods In vivo determination of the sun protection factor (SPF)

On July 24, 2015 one test sample labeled EltaMD UV Daily Tinted Lot was received from Swiss- American Products, Inc.

INTERNATIONAL SUN PROTECTION FACTOR (SPF) TEST METHOD. All rights reserved to Colipa, CTFA SA, JCIA, CTFA

UPDATED POSITION PAPER CONSUMER SAFETY OF ALPHA-HYDROXY ACIDS THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON COSMETIC PRODUCTS AND NON-FOOD PRODUCTS SCCNFP/0799/04

A new in-vitro method for determination of Sun Protection Factor

In vitro assay of high-spf sunscreens

Revised Effectiveness Determination; Sunscreen Drug Products for Over-the-Counter

KoC03of. 510(k) SUMMARY. Lexington International, LLC LaserComb. Submitter's Contact Information. Name: David Michaels, Managing Director JAN

Jaychem Industries Ltd 9/4/15

(1 rwa. Personal CareNProducts Council. Kristen Hardin. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration

COSMETICS REFORM EXPLAINED

Australian/New Zealand Standard

Your skin needs sun protection every day 1

A novel daily moisturizing cream for effective management of mild to moderate Atopic Dermatitis in infants and children

Regulation of Sunscreens in Australia

Figure 1: Solar simulator (ISPE srl). their protection range and information to consumer has become complete and clear.

Ultraviolet Radiation

Poster Department of Dermatology, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, MI; 2 Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Skillman, NJ

I wanted to take this moment to respond to your inquiries on ingredient safety.

Hybrid PMMA Bead Containing Chemical Sunscreen Filters

GSK Clinical Study Register

SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL STANDARD

DECON-HAND. Instant Hand Sanitizer. HAND_VL Revised 19 November, Technical Data File

Arbonne Special Value Packs

Pharmacy Coverage Guidelines are subject to change as new information becomes available.

FDA ISSUES 12/19/2012 SPECIFIC PROMOTIONAL PRODUCTS ISSUES

Arbonne Special Value Packs

EU position on cosmetics in TTIP Comparison between 2014 and 2015 versions

PR BENZOYL PEROXIDE WASH National Drug Code Directory

PHYTOSPHERIX TM as a Sun Protection Factor (SPF) Booster

PIROCTONE OLAMINE AND ITS MONOETHANOLAMINE SALT

REGISTRATIONS APPROVALS LISTINGS PREPARING FOR US FDA INSPECTIONS 483 RESPONSES

We understand that a competitor has raised the following issues which we will address in this letter.

PDF of Trial CTRI Website URL -

BSD High School Health

This lab is estimated to take 1 to 1.5 hours.

Science at Work Sensors: Loggers: EASY Logging time: Teacher s notes 18 How good is my suntan cream? Read Other questions you may be able to answer

OAT BETA GLUCAN VP W

Performance Standards for Sunlamps. Amanda Grimm, MSHSRA April 10, 2013 Presented to NCSCP

ASIAN SKIN: ROLE OF UVA IN HYPERPIGMENTATION AND PREVENTION

CLINDAMYCIN PHOSPHATE AND BENZOYL PEROXIDE National Drug Code Directory

Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations

Understanding the new FDA Sunscreen Labeling Changes

Over-the-Counter Sunscreens: Safety and Effectiveness Data

PDF of Trial CTRI Website URL -

Pharmacy Coverage Guidelines are subject to change as new information becomes available.

OTC Sunscreen Drug Products: Towards Greater Protection

216 Congers Road, Bldg. 1. New City, NY USA 845)

Does High SPF offer better protection?

CLINICAL EVALUATION OF REVIVOGEN TOPICAL FORMULA FOR TREATMENT OF MEN AND WOMEN WITH ANDROGENETIC ALOPECIA. A PILOT STUDY

AC Foaming Wheat PF Efficacy Data

HOW TO USE. and make the most out of your CTCL treatment

Pesticide Labeling: Signal Words 1

Science in Sport. Teacher s notes. 301 How good is my sun block? Read. Other questions you may be able to answer. Ultraviolet Any EASYSENSE

Society of Cosmetic Chemists. Robert Ross-Fichtner SCC Toronto April 6, 2016

It is under the author s own responsibility

BARNET CORNEOTHERAPY RESURFACID CR. AHA s Normalization of Increased Skin s ph Time Release Technology Ultra Mild Exfoliation

J.C. van Montfort, MD, Van Montfort Laboratories BV, Brightlands Maastricht Health Campus, Maastricht

SAFETY DATA SHEET Consumer Product

MANNATECH SKIN CARE PRODUCT SAFETY AND EFFICACY TESTING

Literature Scan: Topical Antiparasitics

S051: Dilemmas in Skin Cancer Dilemmas Associated with Oxybenzone in Sunscreens

Abbreviated Update Drugs for Lice and Scabies

ABS Acai Sterols EFA Efficacy Data

In 2008, a study was conducted to measure the moisturizing performance of o/w skin care emulsions with 5 wt. % varying humectant that included Zemea

SAFE. NATURAL. PROTECTION.

HOW IS IT DIFFERENT? WHAT IS ACTISEA H2O for hair? HOW DO I USE IT? WHAT DOES IT DO? WHAT IS IT FOR?

What is skin cancer?

February 22, Dear Ms. Hardin,

Safety Data Sheet Cola Fax CPE-K

Instructions For Use PRALUENT (PRAHL-u-ent) (alirocumab) Injection, for Subcutaneous Injection Single-Dose Pre-Filled Pen (75 mg/ml)

Below is the indication and summary of the most serious and most common risks associated with the use of Natroba. 1

COMMITTEE FOR VETERINARY MEDICINAL PRODUCTS

Swiss textile testing and certification

Antiaging Treatments. Natalia Jiménez. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal Grupo de Dermatología Pedro Jaén

Grade 4: Hygiene Lesson 8: The Sun and Your Skin

A fresher face. without surgery.

Severe itching (pruritus), especially at night; a pimple-like (papular) itchy (pruritic) is also common

POLYTAR Plus Liquid PRODUCT INFORMATION. Polytar Plus Liquid medicated scalp cleanser, contains coal tar solution.

Results Clinical Photography

creen: The Burning Facts 1EPA Although the sun is necessary for life, too much

REVERSE LIGHTENING. 4REVERSE Broad Spectrum SPF 50+ Sunscreen REVERSE LIGHTENING REGIMEN RESULTS

A Comparison of Two Methods of Determining Thermal Properties of Footwear

PLEASE NOTE: ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION ON PAGE 2 MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION. Name Business is Conducted Under (DBA):

Sun Care. Why sun protection matters every day.

Sunscreen's Effects on UV Attenuation. Chase McCorkle 9 th grade Central Catholic High School

Tolerance of a Low-Level Blue and Red Light Therapy Acne Mask in Acne Patients with Sensitive Skin

AHCare. Have younger looking skin the mild way. Amphoteric Hydroxy Complexes: all the benefits of Alpha Hydroxy Acids with enhanced tolerance

Comparing Sunscreens

GENERAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR

NutroxSun: new evidence strengthens the case for skin defence from within

SAFETY DATA SHEETS. This SDS packet was issued with item:

Moderate exposure to UV is essential for a healthy life

There are, however, long-term effects of UV radiation, which are irreversible and often malignant.

designed to stimulate collagen

DUPONT CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS. To Reuse or Not to Reuse: A Life Cycle Assessment of Reusable Garment Properties

Purpose of the experiment

Transcription:

2518-B Reynolda Road Winston Salem. NC 27106 USA (336)725-6503 fax vwfw.suncalelab.com jstanfield.dsuncalelal).com : FINAL REPORT March 22, 2010 Title: Objective: Test Product: Study Design: Study Dates: Results: Adverse Experience: Sponsor: Investigator: Evaluation of the Static Sun Protection Factor (SPF) of a Sunscreen Formula To measure the Static SPF of an over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen formula and the 8% Homosalate Standard (HMS) in human volunteers according to the FDA Final Monograph s EF5-21 - Expected Static SPF 20 Non-randomized, with blinded evaluations February 25, 2010 to March 19, 2010 Twenty subjects completed the test. The mean SPF of the test product, EF5-21, was 21.38 (n=20, SD=1.7). This product meets FDA Final Monograph labeling requirements for Static SPF 20. 1 One Adverse Experience was reported that was not related to the test product Mineral Evolution, LLC 1117 E. Putnam Ave #230 Riverside, CT 06878 Joseph W. Stanfield, M. S.

2518-B Reynolda Road EF5-21 Winston Salem, NC 27106 Summary: On the first day of the study each subject received a series of UV doses from a xenon arc solar simulator to an unprotected site on the midback. On the second day the minimal erythema dose (MED) was determined as the lowest UV dose which produced mild erythema reaching the borders of the exposure site. Then 100 mg of the test product and 100 mg of the HMS standard were applied to separate, adjacent 50 cm 2 areas of the mid-back (8% Homosalate (HMS). The test product had an expected SPF of 20 and the HMS standard sunscreen had an expected SPF of 4. After a 15-minute drying period UV doses ranging from 0.76 to 1.32 times the product of the MED and 25 were administered to the test sunscreen-protected areas. UV doses ranging from 0.64 to 1.56 times the product of the MED and 4 were administered to the HMS standard sunscreen-protected area. A series of UV doses were also administered to a second unprotected site. On the third day the MED was determined for the sunscreen-protected sites and the unprotected site. The SPF of each sunscreen was calculated as the ratio of the MED for each sunscreen-protected site to the final MED. According to the FDA Final Monograph s, the labeled SPF must be calculated as follows: Labeled SPF = Mean SPF Value - A Rounded down to the nearest whole number Where A = ts/sqrt(n) and represents the 95% confidence interval. t = upper 5% of student's t distribution s = Standard Deviation n = Number of Subjects 2

2518-B Reynolda Road EF5-21 Winston Salem, NC 27106 For the panel to be valid, the SPF of the HMS standard sunscreen must fall within the standard deviation range of the expected SPF (i.e. 4.47 ± 1.279) and the 95% confidence interval for the mean SPF of the HMS standard sunscreen must contain the value 4. Results: Twenty subjects, 10 men and 10 women, who provided written, informed consent, completed the study. Subjects included 10 with skin type II and 10 with skin type III. 1 Ages ranged from 18 to 67 years and the mean age was 45.3 years (n=20, SD=15.5). Subject demographic and static SPF results are listed in Table 1. EF5-21 The mean static SPF of the test product, EF5-21, was 21.38 (n=20, SD=1.7). The mean static SPF - A, rounded down to the nearest whole number was 20. HMS Standard The mean SPF of the HMS standard was 4.6 (n=20, SD=0.5). The 95% Confidence interval included the value 4. Adverse Experience: None Reported. 3

Table 1. Subject Demographic and Static SPF Data for EF5-21 and HMS Standard : Mineral Evolution, LLC EF5-21 HMS Standard Subject SRL ID# Initials Age Sex Skin Lamp Eff mw/cm2 Final MED (sec) SPF SPF # Type 01 1199 PDR 29 M II 8 1.500 10 20.00 3.20 02 1325 KSS 25 F II 10 1.632 10 21.38 4.37 03 1324 DN 38 M III 10 1.632 10 21.38 4.20 04 1013 KMM 64 M III 8 1.500 13 21.44 4.50 05 1236 JMW 47 M II 10 1.632 13 21.44 5.06 06 1192 KSJ 39 M III 2 0.734 13 26.00 5.60 07 1191 HWN 66 M III 10 1.632 13 23.00 4.80 08 976 LJL 21 F III 10 1.632 13 21.38 4.38 09 1108 JCR 43 M II 10 1.632 13 21.38 4.48 10 284 GDB 66 F III 10 1.632 13 23.00 5.00 11 915 KGH 47 F II 10 1.632 13 21.44 5.06 12 1008 LAB 45 F III 10 1.632 13 21.44 4.60 13 378 RJV 34 M II 2 0.734 13 20.00 5.00 14 1348 JTJ 18 M III 2 0.734 13 21.38 5.00 15 398 JMC 51 F II 2 0.734 10 21.38 5.00 16 612 RAL 66 F II 10 1.632 10 23.00 4.38 17 626 JHL 67 M II 2 0.734 13 21.38 4.38 18 924 SSB 39 F III 10 0.734 13 18.59 3.56 19 69 BSB 56 F II 8 1.500 13 17.32 4.38 20 694 TJP 45 F III 2 0.734 13 21.30 5.00 Mean= 45.3 SD= 15.5 n= 20 Mean= 21.38 Mean= 4.6 SD= 1.70 SD= 0.5 n= 20 n= 20.0 A= 0.5 Mean+95% Cl= 5.0 Mean-A= 20.88 Mean-95%Cl= 4.0 4

2518-B Reynolda EF5-21 Road Winston Salem, NC 27106 Conclusion: The test product, EF5-21, meets the labeling requirement for Static SPF 20 according to the FDA Final Monograph.' p W. St. S. - Investigator 03/22/10 Date References: 1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Sunscreen Drug Products for Overthe Counter Human Use; Final Monograph; 21CRF Parts 310, 352, 700 and 740. Federal Register 64 (98) May 21, 1999. pp 27666-27693 5