Randomized comparative double-blind study assessing the difference between topically applied microbiome supporting skincare versus conventional skincare on the facial microbiome in correlation to biophysical skin parameters

Abstract

Background: There are trillions of live bacteria, of around 1000 different species, living in human skin which are considered essential for the balance and barrier function of the skin. The gut microbiome has been a subject of extensive research and evidence shows that the gut flora is affected by preservatives and processed foods. In conventional skincare, preservatives are used, and this raises the question of how it affects the skin flora and its balance.

Methods: A randomized double-blind study on 14 healthy volunteers ages 23-45 years old were advised to use microbiome-supporting (MS) products on one cheek and benchmark (BM) products on the other cheek daily for 3 weeks. To investigate how the skin was affected, the skin microbiome was analysed using 16 S rRNA sequencing and biophysical parameters were assessed using an Antera 3D camera. Measurements were performed before and after the 3 weeks of using the products.

Results: The use of MS products for 3 weeks significantly increased the total number of reads mapped to unique bacterial species (p < 0.05) and the number of different unique species (p < 0.05). In addition, the use of MS products significantly reduced redness (p < 0.05) and improved skin texture (p < 0.01). The use of BM products showed no significant difference in any of the parameters except improved skin texture (p < 0.05). Additionally, the MS side showed a significantly improved diversity (p < 0.05) compared with the BM side. The four major phyla found were, similarly to previous findings by others, Actinobacteria, Firmicutes, Proteobacteria and Bacteroidetes. Some of the most prevalent species were Cutibacterium acnes, Staphylococcus epidermidis and Pseudonomas aeruginosa.

Conclusion: The findings of this study showed significant improvements in the microbiome and biophysical parameters within 3 weeks of using MS skincare alone, while BM skincare only gave significantly improved skin roughness. Importantly, the MS side gave a significantly improved bacterial Shannon diversity (p < 0.05) compared with the BM side. Regarding the biophysical parameters, the MS skincare gave significant improvements in several parameters compared with baseline. However, they were not yet significant when compared to using BM skincare and therefore a larger study population will be needed. Importantly, this is the first study to investigate how preservatives affect the facial microbiome in vivo and has raised a need for further investigation. These results together with further studies can lead to innovations within the cosmetic industry that promote healthier skin.