Dimeticone 10% / Cetrimide 0.3% cream
Available from pharmacies, supermarkets, and retail outlets
Official documents, adverse reaction reporting, and safety monitoring
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Safety monitoring data
Yellow Card reports
The MHRA Yellow Card scheme collects reports of suspected side effects from healthcare professionals and patients. View the Drug Analysis Profile (iDAP) for real-world adverse reaction data.
View Drug Analysis Profile
Browse all Drug Analysis Profiles A–Z
Browse all iDAP reports
Interactive Drug Analysis Profiles for all medicines
Report a side effect
Submit a Yellow Card report to the MHRA
Data from the MHRA Yellow Card scheme. A reported reaction does not necessarily mean the medicine caused it. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
EudraVigilance
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) collects suspected adverse reaction reports from across the EU/EEA through the EudraVigilance system. Search for safety data on this medicine.
Search EudraVigilance database
Browse substances A–Z in the European adverse reaction database
About EudraVigilance
Learn about EU pharmacovigilance and safety monitoring
EudraVigilance data is published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). A suspected adverse reaction is not necessarily caused by the medicine.
1 branded products available
MHRA licensed products
View all licensed products for Dimeticone + Cetrimide on the MHRA register
Siopel cream
This is the NHS Drug Tariff indicative price used for reimbursement purposes. It may not reflect the price paid by patients or pharmacies.
View full Drug TariffSource: NHS Drug Tariff via NHSBSA. Derived from dm+d VMPP (Virtual Medicinal Product Pack) pricing data. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Therapeutically similar medicines
Similarity is based on WHO Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification and on a factual NHS dm+d therapeutic-grouping code prefix. Source data: NHS dm+d via TRUD (OGL v3.0), WHO ATC/DDD Index.
NHS prescribing volume and spending trends
Check stock at pharmacies and supply information
Pharmacy stock checkers
Search for this medicine at major UK pharmacy chains. These links open the retailer's own website — results depend on their current online catalogue.
Supply & safety information
Official UK regulator monitoring and safety alerts
Pharmacy links redirect to the retailer's own search and do not represent real-time stock levels. Shortage and safety information sourced from MHRA drug safety updates (gov.uk, Crown Copyright under OGL v3.0).
Codes for healthcare professionals and prescribing systems
These codes are used by healthcare IT systems and prescribers to identify this medicine.
NHS UK identifiers
SNOMED CT and dm+d codes from NHS TRUD (Technology Reference data Update Distribution), licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
Active and completed clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH). Data accessed via ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Trial information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Academic studies and reviews for this medicine's active substance
Showing the 50 most relevant studies.
Reviews & meta-analyses: 3 · Randomised trials: 11 · 1965–2026
Showing the 50 most relevant studies, sorted by most relevant.
I. Burgess, Christine M. Brown, P. N. Lee
BMJ : British Medical Journal, 2005
J. Heukelbach, D. Pilger, F. Oliveira, et al.
BMC Infectious Diseases, 2008
BackgroundInfestation with the human head louse (Pediculus humanus capitis) occurs worldwide. Existing treatment options are limited, and reports of resistance to commonly used pediculicides have been increasing. In this trial we assessed the efficacy of a product containing a high (92%) concentration of the silicone oil dimeticone (identical in composition to NYDA®), as compared to a 1% permethrin lotion.MethodsRandomized, controlled, observer blinded clinical trial. Participants were recruited from a poor urban neighbourhood in Brazil where pediculosis capitis was highly prevalent. To minimize reinfestation during the trial, participants (145 children aged 5–15 years with head lice infestations) were transferred to a holiday resort outside the endemic area for a period of 9 days. Two applications of dimeticone or 1% permethrin were done, seven days apart. Outcome measures were defined as cure (absence of vital head lice) after first application and before and after second applications, degree of itching, cosmetic acceptability, and clinical pathology.ResultsOverall cure rates were: day 2 – dimeticone 94.5% (95% CI: 86.6% – 98.5%) and permethrin 66.7% (95% CI: 54.6% – 77.3%; p < 0.0001); day 7 – dimeticone 64.4% (95% CI: 53.3% – 75.3%) and permethrin 59.7% (95% CI: 47.5% – 71.1%; p = 0.5); day 9 – dimeticone 97.2% (95% CI: 90.3% – 99.7%) and permethrin 67.6% (95% CI: 55.4%-78.2%); p < 0.0001). Itching was reduced similarly in both groups. Cosmetic acceptability was significantly better in the dimeticone group as compared to the permethrin group (p = 0.01). Two mild product-related incidents occurred in the dimeticone group.ConclusionThe dimeticone product is a safe and highly efficacious pediculicide. Due to its physical mode of action (interruption of the lice's oxygen supply of the central nervous system), development of resistance is unlikely.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN15117709.
Abstract licence: CC BY 2.0
Kana Suzuki, Yasuhiko Kamiya, Chris Smith, et al.
Methods and Protocols, 2023
Kana Suzuki, Yasuhiko Kamiya, Chris Smith, et al.
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 2024
Rashmi Mehta, Diamond Jain, Pratheesh N. Prabhakaran, et al.
Cureus, 2024
Olohitai Gladys Ohiomoba, Saheed Adebawale Ogunme, Adebayo Job Adekunle, et al.
Nigerian Medical Journal : Journal of the Nigeria Medical Association, 2026
I. Burgess, P. N. Lee, G. Matlock
PLoS ONE, 2007
Background Malathion 0.5% has been the most prescribed pediculicide in the United Kingdom for around 10 years, and is widely used in Europe and North America. Anecdotal reports suggest malathion treatments are less effective than formerly, but this has not been confirmed clinically. This study was designed to determine whether malathion is still effective and if 4% dimeticone lotion is a more effective treatment for head louse infestation. Methodology/Principal Findings We designed this study as an assessor blinded, randomised, controlled, parallel group trial involving 58 children and 15 adults with active head louse infestation. Each participant received two applications 7 days apart of either 4% dimeticone lotion, applied for 8 hours or overnight, or 0.5% malathion liquid applied for 12 hours or overnight. All treatment and check-up visits were conducted in participants' homes. Cure of infestation was defined as no evidence of head lice after the second treatment. Some people were found free from lice but later reinfested. Worst case, intention to treat, analysis found dimeticone was significantly more effective than malathion, with 30/43 (69.8%) participants cured using dimeticone compared with 10/30 (33.3%) using malathion (p<0.01, difference 36.4%, 95% confidence interval 14.7% to 58.2%). Per protocol analysis showed cure rates of 30/39 (76.9%) and 10/29 (34.5%) respectively. Irritant reactions were observed in only two participants, both treated with malathion. Conclusions/Significance We concluded that, although malathion liquid is still effective for some people, dimeticone lotion offers a significantly more effective alternative treatment for most people. Trial Registration Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN47755726
Abstract licence: CC BY 4.0
I. Burgess, E. Brunton, N. Burgess
BMC Dermatology, 2013
Özgür Kurt, I. Balcioglu, I. Burgess, et al.
BMC Public Health, 2009
J. Heukelbach, Doerte Wolf, J. M. Clark, et al.
BMC Dermatology, 2019
Sources: aggregated from Europe PMC (EMBL-EBI), OpenAlex, Crossref, PubMed and other open scholarly databases. Retracted articles are excluded. Study information is provided for research purposes and does not constitute medical advice.
Scientific data (pharmacology, interactions, ADME) is not yet available for this medicine. Clinical sections are sourced from the NHS dm+d database.