User login
Microtox and Mesotox
The terms when they mention one of these terms.
Let’s settle the nomenclature confusion. In this column, I define and outline suggested terminology based on studies and my 15 years of experience using neuromodulators. If any readers or colleagues disagree, please write to me and we can discuss the alternatives in a subsequent article; if you agree, please also write to me so we can collaboratively correct the discrepancies in the literature accordingly.
The term mesotherapy, originating from the Greek “mesos” referring to the early embryonic mesoderm, was identified in the 1950’s by Dr. Michel Pistor, a French physician who administered drugs intradermally. The term was defined as a minimally invasive technique by which drugs or bioactive substances are given in small quantities through dermal micropunctures. Drugs administered intradermally diffuse very slowly and therefore, stay in the tissue longer than those administered intramuscularly.
Thus, Mesotox is defined not by the concentration of the neuromodulator or location, but by the depth of injection in the superficial dermis. It can be delivered through individual injections or through a microneedling pen.
Microtox refers to the dilution of the neuromodulator at concentrations below the proposed dilution guidelines of the manufacturer: Less than 2.5 U per 0.1 mL for onabotulinumtoxinA (OBA), incobotulinumtoxinA (IBA), and prabotulinumtoxinA (PBA); and less than 10 U per 0.1 mL for abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO), This method allows for the injection of superficial cutaneous muscles softening the dynamic rhytids without complete paralysis.
Mesotox is widely used off label for facial lifting, reduction in skin laxity or crepiness, flushing of rosacea, acne, hyperhidrosis of the face, keloids, seborrhea, neck rejuvenation, contouring of the mandibular border, and scalp oiliness. Based on a review of articles using this technique, dilution methods were less than 2.5 U per 1 mL (OBA, IBA) and less than 10 U per 0.1 mL (ABO) depth of injection was the superficial to mid-dermis with injection points 0.5 cm to 1 cm apart.
In a study by Atwa and colleagues, 25 patients with mild facial skin laxity received intradermal Botox-A on one side and saline on the other. This split face study showed a highly significant difference with facial lifting on the treated side. Mesotox injection points vary based on the clinical indication and area being treated.
The treatment of dynamic muscles using standard neuromodulator dosing protocols include the treatment of the glabella, crow’s feet, forehead lines, masseter hypertrophy, bunny lines, gummy smile, perioral lines, mentalis hypertonia, platysmal bands, and marionette lines.
However, hyperdilute neuromodulators or Microtox can effectively be used alone or in combination with standard dosing for the following off-label uses. Used in combination with standard dosing of the forehead lines, I use Microtox in the lateral brow to soften the frontalis muscle without dropping the brow in patients with a low-set brow or lid laxity. I also use it for the jelly roll of the eyes and to open the aperture of the eyes. Along the nose, Microtox can also be used to treat a sagging nasal tip, decrease the width of the ala, and treat overactive facial muscles adjacent to the nose resulting in an overactive nasolabial fold.
Similarly, Microtox can be used to treat lateral smile lines and downward extensions of the crow’s feet. In all of the aforementioned treatment areas, I recommend approximately 0.5-1 U of toxin in each area divided at 1-cm intervals.Mesotox and Microtox are both highly effective strategies to treat the aging face. However, the nomenclature is not interchangeable. I propose that the term Mesotox be used only to articulate or define the superficial injection of a neuromodulator for the improvement of the skin that does not involve the injection into or paralysis of a cutaneous muscle (“tox” being used generically for all neuromodulators). I also propose that the term Microtox should be used to define the dilution of a neuromodulator beyond the manufacturer-recommended dilution protocols – used for the paralysis of a cutaneous muscle. In addition, I recommend that the terms MicroBotox and MesoBotox no longer be used. These procedures all have risks, and adverse events associated with Microtox and Mesotox are similar to those of any neuromodulator injection at FDA-recommended maximum doses, and dilution and storage protocols and proper injection techniques need to be followed. Expertise and training is crucial and treatment by a board-certified dermatologist or plastic surgeon is imperative.
Dr. Talakoub and Naissan O. Wesley, MD, are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to her at [email protected]. Dr. Talakoub had no relevant disclosures.
References
Awaida CJ et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Sep;142(3):640-9.
Calvani F et al. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2019 May;27(2):156-61.
Iranmanesh B et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Oct;21(10):4160-70.
Kandhari R et al. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2022 Apr-Jun;15(2):101-7.
Lewandowski M et al. Molecules. 2022 May 13;27(10):3143.
Mammucari M et al. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2011 Jun;15(6):682-94.
Park KY et al. Ann Dermatol. 2018 Dec;30(6):688-93.
Pistor M. Chir Dent Fr. 1976;46:59-60.
Rho NK, Gil YC. Toxins (Basel). 2021 Nov 19;13(11):817.
Wu WTL. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Nov;136(5 Suppl):92S-100S.
Zhang H et al. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2021 Apr 30;14:407-17.
The terms when they mention one of these terms.
Let’s settle the nomenclature confusion. In this column, I define and outline suggested terminology based on studies and my 15 years of experience using neuromodulators. If any readers or colleagues disagree, please write to me and we can discuss the alternatives in a subsequent article; if you agree, please also write to me so we can collaboratively correct the discrepancies in the literature accordingly.
The term mesotherapy, originating from the Greek “mesos” referring to the early embryonic mesoderm, was identified in the 1950’s by Dr. Michel Pistor, a French physician who administered drugs intradermally. The term was defined as a minimally invasive technique by which drugs or bioactive substances are given in small quantities through dermal micropunctures. Drugs administered intradermally diffuse very slowly and therefore, stay in the tissue longer than those administered intramuscularly.
Thus, Mesotox is defined not by the concentration of the neuromodulator or location, but by the depth of injection in the superficial dermis. It can be delivered through individual injections or through a microneedling pen.
Microtox refers to the dilution of the neuromodulator at concentrations below the proposed dilution guidelines of the manufacturer: Less than 2.5 U per 0.1 mL for onabotulinumtoxinA (OBA), incobotulinumtoxinA (IBA), and prabotulinumtoxinA (PBA); and less than 10 U per 0.1 mL for abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO), This method allows for the injection of superficial cutaneous muscles softening the dynamic rhytids without complete paralysis.
Mesotox is widely used off label for facial lifting, reduction in skin laxity or crepiness, flushing of rosacea, acne, hyperhidrosis of the face, keloids, seborrhea, neck rejuvenation, contouring of the mandibular border, and scalp oiliness. Based on a review of articles using this technique, dilution methods were less than 2.5 U per 1 mL (OBA, IBA) and less than 10 U per 0.1 mL (ABO) depth of injection was the superficial to mid-dermis with injection points 0.5 cm to 1 cm apart.
In a study by Atwa and colleagues, 25 patients with mild facial skin laxity received intradermal Botox-A on one side and saline on the other. This split face study showed a highly significant difference with facial lifting on the treated side. Mesotox injection points vary based on the clinical indication and area being treated.
The treatment of dynamic muscles using standard neuromodulator dosing protocols include the treatment of the glabella, crow’s feet, forehead lines, masseter hypertrophy, bunny lines, gummy smile, perioral lines, mentalis hypertonia, platysmal bands, and marionette lines.
However, hyperdilute neuromodulators or Microtox can effectively be used alone or in combination with standard dosing for the following off-label uses. Used in combination with standard dosing of the forehead lines, I use Microtox in the lateral brow to soften the frontalis muscle without dropping the brow in patients with a low-set brow or lid laxity. I also use it for the jelly roll of the eyes and to open the aperture of the eyes. Along the nose, Microtox can also be used to treat a sagging nasal tip, decrease the width of the ala, and treat overactive facial muscles adjacent to the nose resulting in an overactive nasolabial fold.
Similarly, Microtox can be used to treat lateral smile lines and downward extensions of the crow’s feet. In all of the aforementioned treatment areas, I recommend approximately 0.5-1 U of toxin in each area divided at 1-cm intervals.Mesotox and Microtox are both highly effective strategies to treat the aging face. However, the nomenclature is not interchangeable. I propose that the term Mesotox be used only to articulate or define the superficial injection of a neuromodulator for the improvement of the skin that does not involve the injection into or paralysis of a cutaneous muscle (“tox” being used generically for all neuromodulators). I also propose that the term Microtox should be used to define the dilution of a neuromodulator beyond the manufacturer-recommended dilution protocols – used for the paralysis of a cutaneous muscle. In addition, I recommend that the terms MicroBotox and MesoBotox no longer be used. These procedures all have risks, and adverse events associated with Microtox and Mesotox are similar to those of any neuromodulator injection at FDA-recommended maximum doses, and dilution and storage protocols and proper injection techniques need to be followed. Expertise and training is crucial and treatment by a board-certified dermatologist or plastic surgeon is imperative.
Dr. Talakoub and Naissan O. Wesley, MD, are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to her at [email protected]. Dr. Talakoub had no relevant disclosures.
References
Awaida CJ et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Sep;142(3):640-9.
Calvani F et al. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2019 May;27(2):156-61.
Iranmanesh B et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Oct;21(10):4160-70.
Kandhari R et al. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2022 Apr-Jun;15(2):101-7.
Lewandowski M et al. Molecules. 2022 May 13;27(10):3143.
Mammucari M et al. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2011 Jun;15(6):682-94.
Park KY et al. Ann Dermatol. 2018 Dec;30(6):688-93.
Pistor M. Chir Dent Fr. 1976;46:59-60.
Rho NK, Gil YC. Toxins (Basel). 2021 Nov 19;13(11):817.
Wu WTL. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Nov;136(5 Suppl):92S-100S.
Zhang H et al. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2021 Apr 30;14:407-17.
The terms when they mention one of these terms.
Let’s settle the nomenclature confusion. In this column, I define and outline suggested terminology based on studies and my 15 years of experience using neuromodulators. If any readers or colleagues disagree, please write to me and we can discuss the alternatives in a subsequent article; if you agree, please also write to me so we can collaboratively correct the discrepancies in the literature accordingly.
The term mesotherapy, originating from the Greek “mesos” referring to the early embryonic mesoderm, was identified in the 1950’s by Dr. Michel Pistor, a French physician who administered drugs intradermally. The term was defined as a minimally invasive technique by which drugs or bioactive substances are given in small quantities through dermal micropunctures. Drugs administered intradermally diffuse very slowly and therefore, stay in the tissue longer than those administered intramuscularly.
Thus, Mesotox is defined not by the concentration of the neuromodulator or location, but by the depth of injection in the superficial dermis. It can be delivered through individual injections or through a microneedling pen.
Microtox refers to the dilution of the neuromodulator at concentrations below the proposed dilution guidelines of the manufacturer: Less than 2.5 U per 0.1 mL for onabotulinumtoxinA (OBA), incobotulinumtoxinA (IBA), and prabotulinumtoxinA (PBA); and less than 10 U per 0.1 mL for abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO), This method allows for the injection of superficial cutaneous muscles softening the dynamic rhytids without complete paralysis.
Mesotox is widely used off label for facial lifting, reduction in skin laxity or crepiness, flushing of rosacea, acne, hyperhidrosis of the face, keloids, seborrhea, neck rejuvenation, contouring of the mandibular border, and scalp oiliness. Based on a review of articles using this technique, dilution methods were less than 2.5 U per 1 mL (OBA, IBA) and less than 10 U per 0.1 mL (ABO) depth of injection was the superficial to mid-dermis with injection points 0.5 cm to 1 cm apart.
In a study by Atwa and colleagues, 25 patients with mild facial skin laxity received intradermal Botox-A on one side and saline on the other. This split face study showed a highly significant difference with facial lifting on the treated side. Mesotox injection points vary based on the clinical indication and area being treated.
The treatment of dynamic muscles using standard neuromodulator dosing protocols include the treatment of the glabella, crow’s feet, forehead lines, masseter hypertrophy, bunny lines, gummy smile, perioral lines, mentalis hypertonia, platysmal bands, and marionette lines.
However, hyperdilute neuromodulators or Microtox can effectively be used alone or in combination with standard dosing for the following off-label uses. Used in combination with standard dosing of the forehead lines, I use Microtox in the lateral brow to soften the frontalis muscle without dropping the brow in patients with a low-set brow or lid laxity. I also use it for the jelly roll of the eyes and to open the aperture of the eyes. Along the nose, Microtox can also be used to treat a sagging nasal tip, decrease the width of the ala, and treat overactive facial muscles adjacent to the nose resulting in an overactive nasolabial fold.
Similarly, Microtox can be used to treat lateral smile lines and downward extensions of the crow’s feet. In all of the aforementioned treatment areas, I recommend approximately 0.5-1 U of toxin in each area divided at 1-cm intervals.Mesotox and Microtox are both highly effective strategies to treat the aging face. However, the nomenclature is not interchangeable. I propose that the term Mesotox be used only to articulate or define the superficial injection of a neuromodulator for the improvement of the skin that does not involve the injection into or paralysis of a cutaneous muscle (“tox” being used generically for all neuromodulators). I also propose that the term Microtox should be used to define the dilution of a neuromodulator beyond the manufacturer-recommended dilution protocols – used for the paralysis of a cutaneous muscle. In addition, I recommend that the terms MicroBotox and MesoBotox no longer be used. These procedures all have risks, and adverse events associated with Microtox and Mesotox are similar to those of any neuromodulator injection at FDA-recommended maximum doses, and dilution and storage protocols and proper injection techniques need to be followed. Expertise and training is crucial and treatment by a board-certified dermatologist or plastic surgeon is imperative.
Dr. Talakoub and Naissan O. Wesley, MD, are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to her at [email protected]. Dr. Talakoub had no relevant disclosures.
References
Awaida CJ et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018 Sep;142(3):640-9.
Calvani F et al. Plast Surg (Oakv). 2019 May;27(2):156-61.
Iranmanesh B et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Oct;21(10):4160-70.
Kandhari R et al. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2022 Apr-Jun;15(2):101-7.
Lewandowski M et al. Molecules. 2022 May 13;27(10):3143.
Mammucari M et al. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2011 Jun;15(6):682-94.
Park KY et al. Ann Dermatol. 2018 Dec;30(6):688-93.
Pistor M. Chir Dent Fr. 1976;46:59-60.
Rho NK, Gil YC. Toxins (Basel). 2021 Nov 19;13(11):817.
Wu WTL. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015 Nov;136(5 Suppl):92S-100S.
Zhang H et al. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2021 Apr 30;14:407-17.
Ulmus davidiana root extract
Ulmus davidiana, commonly known as yugeunpi, has a long history of use in Korea in treating burns, eczema, frostbite, difficulties in urination, inflammation, and psoriasis,1 and has also been used in China for some of these indications, including skin inflammation.2,3 Currently, there are several areas in which the bioactivity of U. davidiana are under investigation, with numerous potential applications in dermatology. This column focuses briefly on the evidence supporting the traditional uses of the plant and potential new applications.
Anti-inflammatory activity
Eom and colleagues studied the potential of a polysaccharide extract from the root bark of U. davidiana to serve as a suitable cosmetic ingredient for conferring moisturizing, anti-inflammatory, and photoprotective activity. In this 2006 investigation, the composition of the polysaccharide extract was found to be primarily rhamnose, galactose, and glucose. The root extract exhibited a similar humectant moisturizing effect as hyaluronic acid, the researchers reported. The U. davidiana root extract was also found to dose-dependently suppress prostaglandin E2. The inhibition of the release of interleukin-6 and IL-8 was also reported to be significant. The use of the U. davidiana extract also stimulated the recovery of human fibroblasts (two times that of positive control) exposed to UVA irradiation. The researchers suggested that their overall results point to the viability of U. davidiana root extract as a cosmetic agent ingredient to protect skin from UV exposure and the inflammation that follows.2
In 2013, Choi and colleagues found that a methanol extract of the stem and root barks of U. davidiana revealed anti-inflammatory properties, with activity attributed to two trihydroxy acids [then-new trihydroxy fatty acid, 9,12,13-trihydroxyoctadeca-10(Z),15(Z)-dienoic acid, and pinellic acid], both of which blocked prostaglandin D₂ production.4
That same year, Lyu and colleagues studied the antiallergic and anti-inflammatory effects of U. davidiana using a 1-fluoro-2,4-dinitrofluorobenzene (DNFB)–induced contact dermatitis mouse model. They found that treatment at a dose of 10 mg/mL successfully prevented skin lesions caused by consistent DNFB application. Further, the researchers observed that topically applied U. davidiana suppressed spongiosis and reduced total serum immunoglobulin and IgG2a levels. Overall, they concluded that the botanical treatment improved contact dermatitis in mice.1
In 2019, So and colleagues studied the chemical components of U. davidiana root bark (isolating a chromane derivative and 22 known substances) and reported data supporting the traditional use of the root bark for gastroenteric and inflammatory indications.3
Bakuchiol [(1E,3S)-3-ethenyl-3,7-dimethyl-1,6-octadien-1-yl]phenol, a prenylated phenolic monoterpene found in the seeds and leaves of various plants, including U. davidiana, is used for its anti-inflammatory properties in traditional Korean medicine.5 Choi and colleagues determined that bakuchiol exhibited robust anti-inflammatory activity in a study of U. davidiana constituents, at least partially accounting for the anti-inflammatory functions of the plant.5
Antifungal activity
In 2021, Alishir and colleagues conducted a phytochemical analysis of the root bark extract of U. davidiana, resulting in the isolation of 10 substances including the novel coumarin glycoside derivative ulmusakidian. Some of the compounds exhibited antifungal activity against Cryptococcus neoformans, though none demonstrated antifungal activity against Candida albicans.6
Wound dressing
Park and colleagues demonstrated in 2020 that superabsorbing hydrogel wound dressings composed of U. davidiana root bark powders, which exhibit gelling activity, performed effectively in speeding up wound closure and cutaneous regeneration in skin-wound mice models. These dressings also displayed thermal stability and superior mechanical properties to pullulan-only gel films. The researchers concluded that gel films composed of U. davidiana have potential to surpass the effectiveness of current products.7
Anti–hair loss activity
Early in 2022, Kwon and colleagues investigated the anti–hair loss mechanism of U. davidiana and determined that supercritical extraction-residues of U. davidiana significantly hinder the secretion of transforming growth factor–beta but dose dependently salvage insulinlike growth factor 1, and substantially decrease dihydrotestosterone synthesis. They concluded that these U. davidiana supercritical fluid extract residues have the potential to halt the loss of human hair.8
Photoprotective potential
Late in 2020, Her and colleagues reported on their development and analysis of a new distillate derived from a fermented mixture of nine anti-inflammatory herbs including U. davidiana. The investigators assessed the effects of the topically applied distillate on UVB-induced skin damage in Institute of Cancer Research mice, finding significant improvements in the dorsal skin photodamage. Application of the distillate also ameliorated collagen production impairment and diminished proinflammatory cytokine levels of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha and IL-1B. The researchers concluded that this anti-inflammatory herbal distillate, which includes U. davidiana, displays the potential to serve as a photoprotective agent.9
Antiaging activity
In 2011, Yang and colleagues set out to identify constituent substances of the root bark of U. davidiana that have the capacity to suppress cellular senescence in human fibroblasts and human umbilical vein endothelial cells. They isolated 22 compounds, of which epifriedelanol, ssioriside, and catechin-7-O-beta-D-glucopyranoside impeded adriamycin-induced cellular senescence in human dermal fibroblasts and friedelin, epifriedelanol, and catechin-7-O-beta-apiofuranoside in the umbilical vein endothelial cells. Epifriedelanol was the most potent of the substances, leading the researchers to conclude that this U. davidiana component can diminish cellular senescence in human primary cells and has the potential as an oral and/or topical antiaging agent.10
Also that year, in a study on the protective effects of U. davidiana on UVB-irradiated hairless mice, the authors claimed that an ethanol extract of U. davidiana significantly suppressed wrinkle development in mice chronically exposed to UVB.11 This study showed that U. davidiana extract exerts antioxidant activity as evidenced by a decrease in MMP-1 activity. It also demonstrated antielastase activity. The treated mice showed a decrease in wrinkles as compared with water-treated mice.11 Although this is just one study in mice, it may demonstrate a protective effect on elastic fibers on skin exposed to UVB light.
Late in 2020, Lee and colleagues reported on their study of the possible antiaging effects on the skin of (-)-phenolic compounds isolated from the root bark of U. davidiana. The function of collagenase MMP-1 was found to be inhibited by the isolate (-)-catechin, which also halted collagen degradation caused by TNF-alpha in normal human dermal fibroblasts. Further, the investigators demonstrated that the U. davidiana isolate (-)-catechin reduced the expression of proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-1B and IL-6. They concluded that the U. davidiana isolate exhibits the potential to combat intrinsic as well as extrinsic cutaneous aging.12
These findings are particularly intriguing. There is much overlap between intrinsic and extrinsic aging. If U. davidiana can keep collagen intact and inhibit cellular senescence, it may serve as an early intervention toward slowing or preventing skin aging.
Summary
Of greatest interest now, perhaps, is its potential to impede cellular senescence. Senescent cells release a multitude of inflammatory and other factors that hasten intrinsic aging. Blocking cellular senescence is an important approach to the prevention and treatment of skin aging.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in the office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Lyu J et al. J Pharmacopuncture. 2013 Jun;16(2):41-5.
2. Eom SY et al. J Cosmet Sci. 2006 Sep-Oct;57(5):355-67.
3. So HM et al. Bioorg Chem. 2019 Oct;91:103145.
4. Choi HG et al. Phytother Res. 2013 Sep;27(9):1376-80.
5. Choi SY et al. J Med Food. 2010 Aug;13(4):1019-23.
6. Alishir A et al. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2021 Mar 15;36:127828.
7. Park TH et al. Saudi Pharm J. 2020 Jul;28(7):791-802.
8. Kwon YE et al. Molecules. 2022 Feb 19;27(4):1419.
9. Her Y et al. Molecules. 2020 Dec 29;26(1):124.
10. Yang HH et al. Planta Med. 2011 Mar;77(5):441-9.
11. Kim YO et al. Korean Journal of Medicinal Crop Science. 2011;19(6):508-13.
12. Lee S et al. Antioxidants (Basel). 2020 Oct 13;9(10):981.
Ulmus davidiana, commonly known as yugeunpi, has a long history of use in Korea in treating burns, eczema, frostbite, difficulties in urination, inflammation, and psoriasis,1 and has also been used in China for some of these indications, including skin inflammation.2,3 Currently, there are several areas in which the bioactivity of U. davidiana are under investigation, with numerous potential applications in dermatology. This column focuses briefly on the evidence supporting the traditional uses of the plant and potential new applications.
Anti-inflammatory activity
Eom and colleagues studied the potential of a polysaccharide extract from the root bark of U. davidiana to serve as a suitable cosmetic ingredient for conferring moisturizing, anti-inflammatory, and photoprotective activity. In this 2006 investigation, the composition of the polysaccharide extract was found to be primarily rhamnose, galactose, and glucose. The root extract exhibited a similar humectant moisturizing effect as hyaluronic acid, the researchers reported. The U. davidiana root extract was also found to dose-dependently suppress prostaglandin E2. The inhibition of the release of interleukin-6 and IL-8 was also reported to be significant. The use of the U. davidiana extract also stimulated the recovery of human fibroblasts (two times that of positive control) exposed to UVA irradiation. The researchers suggested that their overall results point to the viability of U. davidiana root extract as a cosmetic agent ingredient to protect skin from UV exposure and the inflammation that follows.2
In 2013, Choi and colleagues found that a methanol extract of the stem and root barks of U. davidiana revealed anti-inflammatory properties, with activity attributed to two trihydroxy acids [then-new trihydroxy fatty acid, 9,12,13-trihydroxyoctadeca-10(Z),15(Z)-dienoic acid, and pinellic acid], both of which blocked prostaglandin D₂ production.4
That same year, Lyu and colleagues studied the antiallergic and anti-inflammatory effects of U. davidiana using a 1-fluoro-2,4-dinitrofluorobenzene (DNFB)–induced contact dermatitis mouse model. They found that treatment at a dose of 10 mg/mL successfully prevented skin lesions caused by consistent DNFB application. Further, the researchers observed that topically applied U. davidiana suppressed spongiosis and reduced total serum immunoglobulin and IgG2a levels. Overall, they concluded that the botanical treatment improved contact dermatitis in mice.1
In 2019, So and colleagues studied the chemical components of U. davidiana root bark (isolating a chromane derivative and 22 known substances) and reported data supporting the traditional use of the root bark for gastroenteric and inflammatory indications.3
Bakuchiol [(1E,3S)-3-ethenyl-3,7-dimethyl-1,6-octadien-1-yl]phenol, a prenylated phenolic monoterpene found in the seeds and leaves of various plants, including U. davidiana, is used for its anti-inflammatory properties in traditional Korean medicine.5 Choi and colleagues determined that bakuchiol exhibited robust anti-inflammatory activity in a study of U. davidiana constituents, at least partially accounting for the anti-inflammatory functions of the plant.5
Antifungal activity
In 2021, Alishir and colleagues conducted a phytochemical analysis of the root bark extract of U. davidiana, resulting in the isolation of 10 substances including the novel coumarin glycoside derivative ulmusakidian. Some of the compounds exhibited antifungal activity against Cryptococcus neoformans, though none demonstrated antifungal activity against Candida albicans.6
Wound dressing
Park and colleagues demonstrated in 2020 that superabsorbing hydrogel wound dressings composed of U. davidiana root bark powders, which exhibit gelling activity, performed effectively in speeding up wound closure and cutaneous regeneration in skin-wound mice models. These dressings also displayed thermal stability and superior mechanical properties to pullulan-only gel films. The researchers concluded that gel films composed of U. davidiana have potential to surpass the effectiveness of current products.7
Anti–hair loss activity
Early in 2022, Kwon and colleagues investigated the anti–hair loss mechanism of U. davidiana and determined that supercritical extraction-residues of U. davidiana significantly hinder the secretion of transforming growth factor–beta but dose dependently salvage insulinlike growth factor 1, and substantially decrease dihydrotestosterone synthesis. They concluded that these U. davidiana supercritical fluid extract residues have the potential to halt the loss of human hair.8
Photoprotective potential
Late in 2020, Her and colleagues reported on their development and analysis of a new distillate derived from a fermented mixture of nine anti-inflammatory herbs including U. davidiana. The investigators assessed the effects of the topically applied distillate on UVB-induced skin damage in Institute of Cancer Research mice, finding significant improvements in the dorsal skin photodamage. Application of the distillate also ameliorated collagen production impairment and diminished proinflammatory cytokine levels of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha and IL-1B. The researchers concluded that this anti-inflammatory herbal distillate, which includes U. davidiana, displays the potential to serve as a photoprotective agent.9
Antiaging activity
In 2011, Yang and colleagues set out to identify constituent substances of the root bark of U. davidiana that have the capacity to suppress cellular senescence in human fibroblasts and human umbilical vein endothelial cells. They isolated 22 compounds, of which epifriedelanol, ssioriside, and catechin-7-O-beta-D-glucopyranoside impeded adriamycin-induced cellular senescence in human dermal fibroblasts and friedelin, epifriedelanol, and catechin-7-O-beta-apiofuranoside in the umbilical vein endothelial cells. Epifriedelanol was the most potent of the substances, leading the researchers to conclude that this U. davidiana component can diminish cellular senescence in human primary cells and has the potential as an oral and/or topical antiaging agent.10
Also that year, in a study on the protective effects of U. davidiana on UVB-irradiated hairless mice, the authors claimed that an ethanol extract of U. davidiana significantly suppressed wrinkle development in mice chronically exposed to UVB.11 This study showed that U. davidiana extract exerts antioxidant activity as evidenced by a decrease in MMP-1 activity. It also demonstrated antielastase activity. The treated mice showed a decrease in wrinkles as compared with water-treated mice.11 Although this is just one study in mice, it may demonstrate a protective effect on elastic fibers on skin exposed to UVB light.
Late in 2020, Lee and colleagues reported on their study of the possible antiaging effects on the skin of (-)-phenolic compounds isolated from the root bark of U. davidiana. The function of collagenase MMP-1 was found to be inhibited by the isolate (-)-catechin, which also halted collagen degradation caused by TNF-alpha in normal human dermal fibroblasts. Further, the investigators demonstrated that the U. davidiana isolate (-)-catechin reduced the expression of proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-1B and IL-6. They concluded that the U. davidiana isolate exhibits the potential to combat intrinsic as well as extrinsic cutaneous aging.12
These findings are particularly intriguing. There is much overlap between intrinsic and extrinsic aging. If U. davidiana can keep collagen intact and inhibit cellular senescence, it may serve as an early intervention toward slowing or preventing skin aging.
Summary
Of greatest interest now, perhaps, is its potential to impede cellular senescence. Senescent cells release a multitude of inflammatory and other factors that hasten intrinsic aging. Blocking cellular senescence is an important approach to the prevention and treatment of skin aging.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in the office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Lyu J et al. J Pharmacopuncture. 2013 Jun;16(2):41-5.
2. Eom SY et al. J Cosmet Sci. 2006 Sep-Oct;57(5):355-67.
3. So HM et al. Bioorg Chem. 2019 Oct;91:103145.
4. Choi HG et al. Phytother Res. 2013 Sep;27(9):1376-80.
5. Choi SY et al. J Med Food. 2010 Aug;13(4):1019-23.
6. Alishir A et al. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2021 Mar 15;36:127828.
7. Park TH et al. Saudi Pharm J. 2020 Jul;28(7):791-802.
8. Kwon YE et al. Molecules. 2022 Feb 19;27(4):1419.
9. Her Y et al. Molecules. 2020 Dec 29;26(1):124.
10. Yang HH et al. Planta Med. 2011 Mar;77(5):441-9.
11. Kim YO et al. Korean Journal of Medicinal Crop Science. 2011;19(6):508-13.
12. Lee S et al. Antioxidants (Basel). 2020 Oct 13;9(10):981.
Ulmus davidiana, commonly known as yugeunpi, has a long history of use in Korea in treating burns, eczema, frostbite, difficulties in urination, inflammation, and psoriasis,1 and has also been used in China for some of these indications, including skin inflammation.2,3 Currently, there are several areas in which the bioactivity of U. davidiana are under investigation, with numerous potential applications in dermatology. This column focuses briefly on the evidence supporting the traditional uses of the plant and potential new applications.
Anti-inflammatory activity
Eom and colleagues studied the potential of a polysaccharide extract from the root bark of U. davidiana to serve as a suitable cosmetic ingredient for conferring moisturizing, anti-inflammatory, and photoprotective activity. In this 2006 investigation, the composition of the polysaccharide extract was found to be primarily rhamnose, galactose, and glucose. The root extract exhibited a similar humectant moisturizing effect as hyaluronic acid, the researchers reported. The U. davidiana root extract was also found to dose-dependently suppress prostaglandin E2. The inhibition of the release of interleukin-6 and IL-8 was also reported to be significant. The use of the U. davidiana extract also stimulated the recovery of human fibroblasts (two times that of positive control) exposed to UVA irradiation. The researchers suggested that their overall results point to the viability of U. davidiana root extract as a cosmetic agent ingredient to protect skin from UV exposure and the inflammation that follows.2
In 2013, Choi and colleagues found that a methanol extract of the stem and root barks of U. davidiana revealed anti-inflammatory properties, with activity attributed to two trihydroxy acids [then-new trihydroxy fatty acid, 9,12,13-trihydroxyoctadeca-10(Z),15(Z)-dienoic acid, and pinellic acid], both of which blocked prostaglandin D₂ production.4
That same year, Lyu and colleagues studied the antiallergic and anti-inflammatory effects of U. davidiana using a 1-fluoro-2,4-dinitrofluorobenzene (DNFB)–induced contact dermatitis mouse model. They found that treatment at a dose of 10 mg/mL successfully prevented skin lesions caused by consistent DNFB application. Further, the researchers observed that topically applied U. davidiana suppressed spongiosis and reduced total serum immunoglobulin and IgG2a levels. Overall, they concluded that the botanical treatment improved contact dermatitis in mice.1
In 2019, So and colleagues studied the chemical components of U. davidiana root bark (isolating a chromane derivative and 22 known substances) and reported data supporting the traditional use of the root bark for gastroenteric and inflammatory indications.3
Bakuchiol [(1E,3S)-3-ethenyl-3,7-dimethyl-1,6-octadien-1-yl]phenol, a prenylated phenolic monoterpene found in the seeds and leaves of various plants, including U. davidiana, is used for its anti-inflammatory properties in traditional Korean medicine.5 Choi and colleagues determined that bakuchiol exhibited robust anti-inflammatory activity in a study of U. davidiana constituents, at least partially accounting for the anti-inflammatory functions of the plant.5
Antifungal activity
In 2021, Alishir and colleagues conducted a phytochemical analysis of the root bark extract of U. davidiana, resulting in the isolation of 10 substances including the novel coumarin glycoside derivative ulmusakidian. Some of the compounds exhibited antifungal activity against Cryptococcus neoformans, though none demonstrated antifungal activity against Candida albicans.6
Wound dressing
Park and colleagues demonstrated in 2020 that superabsorbing hydrogel wound dressings composed of U. davidiana root bark powders, which exhibit gelling activity, performed effectively in speeding up wound closure and cutaneous regeneration in skin-wound mice models. These dressings also displayed thermal stability and superior mechanical properties to pullulan-only gel films. The researchers concluded that gel films composed of U. davidiana have potential to surpass the effectiveness of current products.7
Anti–hair loss activity
Early in 2022, Kwon and colleagues investigated the anti–hair loss mechanism of U. davidiana and determined that supercritical extraction-residues of U. davidiana significantly hinder the secretion of transforming growth factor–beta but dose dependently salvage insulinlike growth factor 1, and substantially decrease dihydrotestosterone synthesis. They concluded that these U. davidiana supercritical fluid extract residues have the potential to halt the loss of human hair.8
Photoprotective potential
Late in 2020, Her and colleagues reported on their development and analysis of a new distillate derived from a fermented mixture of nine anti-inflammatory herbs including U. davidiana. The investigators assessed the effects of the topically applied distillate on UVB-induced skin damage in Institute of Cancer Research mice, finding significant improvements in the dorsal skin photodamage. Application of the distillate also ameliorated collagen production impairment and diminished proinflammatory cytokine levels of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–alpha and IL-1B. The researchers concluded that this anti-inflammatory herbal distillate, which includes U. davidiana, displays the potential to serve as a photoprotective agent.9
Antiaging activity
In 2011, Yang and colleagues set out to identify constituent substances of the root bark of U. davidiana that have the capacity to suppress cellular senescence in human fibroblasts and human umbilical vein endothelial cells. They isolated 22 compounds, of which epifriedelanol, ssioriside, and catechin-7-O-beta-D-glucopyranoside impeded adriamycin-induced cellular senescence in human dermal fibroblasts and friedelin, epifriedelanol, and catechin-7-O-beta-apiofuranoside in the umbilical vein endothelial cells. Epifriedelanol was the most potent of the substances, leading the researchers to conclude that this U. davidiana component can diminish cellular senescence in human primary cells and has the potential as an oral and/or topical antiaging agent.10
Also that year, in a study on the protective effects of U. davidiana on UVB-irradiated hairless mice, the authors claimed that an ethanol extract of U. davidiana significantly suppressed wrinkle development in mice chronically exposed to UVB.11 This study showed that U. davidiana extract exerts antioxidant activity as evidenced by a decrease in MMP-1 activity. It also demonstrated antielastase activity. The treated mice showed a decrease in wrinkles as compared with water-treated mice.11 Although this is just one study in mice, it may demonstrate a protective effect on elastic fibers on skin exposed to UVB light.
Late in 2020, Lee and colleagues reported on their study of the possible antiaging effects on the skin of (-)-phenolic compounds isolated from the root bark of U. davidiana. The function of collagenase MMP-1 was found to be inhibited by the isolate (-)-catechin, which also halted collagen degradation caused by TNF-alpha in normal human dermal fibroblasts. Further, the investigators demonstrated that the U. davidiana isolate (-)-catechin reduced the expression of proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-1B and IL-6. They concluded that the U. davidiana isolate exhibits the potential to combat intrinsic as well as extrinsic cutaneous aging.12
These findings are particularly intriguing. There is much overlap between intrinsic and extrinsic aging. If U. davidiana can keep collagen intact and inhibit cellular senescence, it may serve as an early intervention toward slowing or preventing skin aging.
Summary
Of greatest interest now, perhaps, is its potential to impede cellular senescence. Senescent cells release a multitude of inflammatory and other factors that hasten intrinsic aging. Blocking cellular senescence is an important approach to the prevention and treatment of skin aging.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in the office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Lyu J et al. J Pharmacopuncture. 2013 Jun;16(2):41-5.
2. Eom SY et al. J Cosmet Sci. 2006 Sep-Oct;57(5):355-67.
3. So HM et al. Bioorg Chem. 2019 Oct;91:103145.
4. Choi HG et al. Phytother Res. 2013 Sep;27(9):1376-80.
5. Choi SY et al. J Med Food. 2010 Aug;13(4):1019-23.
6. Alishir A et al. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2021 Mar 15;36:127828.
7. Park TH et al. Saudi Pharm J. 2020 Jul;28(7):791-802.
8. Kwon YE et al. Molecules. 2022 Feb 19;27(4):1419.
9. Her Y et al. Molecules. 2020 Dec 29;26(1):124.
10. Yang HH et al. Planta Med. 2011 Mar;77(5):441-9.
11. Kim YO et al. Korean Journal of Medicinal Crop Science. 2011;19(6):508-13.
12. Lee S et al. Antioxidants (Basel). 2020 Oct 13;9(10):981.
Study finds high rate of psychiatric burden in cosmetic dermatology patients
results from a large retrospective analysis showed.
“As the rate of cosmetic procedures continues to increase, it is crucial that physicians understand that many patients with a psychiatric disorder require clear communication and appropriate consultation visits,” lead study author Patricia Richey, MD, told this news organization.
While studies have displayed links between the desire for a cosmetic procedure and psychiatric stressors and disorders – most commonly mood disorders, personality disorders, body dysmorphic disorder, and addiction-like behavior – the scarce literature on the subject mostly comes from the realm of plastic surgery.
“The relationship between psychiatric disease and the motivation for dermatologic cosmetic procedures has never been fully elucidated,” said Dr. Richey, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “A possible association between psychiatric disorder and the motivation for cosmetic procedures is critical to understand given increasing procedure rates and the need for clear communication and appropriate consultation visits with these patients.”
For the retrospective cohort study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Richey; Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at MGH; and Ryan W. Chapin, PharmD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, reviewed the medical records of 1,000 patients from a cosmetic dermatology clinic and 1,000 patients from a medical dermatology clinic, both at MGH. Those who crossed over between the two clinics were excluded from the analysis.
Patients in the cosmetic group were significantly younger than those in the medical group (a mean of 48 vs. 56 years, respectively; P < .0001), and there was a higher percentage of women than men in both groups (78.5% vs. 21.5% in the cosmetic group and 61.4% vs. 38.6% in the medical group; P < .00001).
The researchers found that 49% of patients in the cosmetic group had been diagnosed with at least one psychiatric disorder, compared with 33% in the medical group (P < .00001), most commonly anxiety, depression, ADHD, and insomnia. In addition, 39 patients in the cosmetic group had 2 or more psychiatric disorders, compared with 22 of those in the medical group.
Similarly, 44% of patients in the cosmetic group were on a psychiatric medication, compared with 28% in the medical group (P < .00001). The average number of medications among those on more than one psychiatric medication was 1.67 among those in the cosmetic dermatology group versus 1.48 among those in the medical dermatology group (P = .020).
By drug class, a higher percentage of patients in the cosmetic group, compared with those in the medical group, were taking antidepressants (33% vs. 21%, respectively; P < .00001), anxiolytics (26% vs. 13%; P < .00001), mood stabilizers (2.80% vs. 1.10%; P = .006), and stimulants (15.2% vs. 7.20%; P < .00001). The proportion of those taking antipsychotics was essentially even in the two groups (2.50% vs. 2.70%; P = .779).
Dr. Richey and colleagues also observed that patients in the cosmetic group had significantly higher rates of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and ADHD than those in the medical group. “This finding did not particularly surprise me,” she said, since she and her colleagues recently published a study on the association of stimulant use with psychocutaneous disease.
“Stimulants are used to treat ADHD and are also known to trigger OCD-like symptoms,” she said. “I was surprised that no patients had been diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder, but we know that with increased patient access to medical records, physicians are often cautious in their documentation.”
She added that the overall results of the new study underscore the importance of consultation visits with cosmetic patients, including obtaining a full medication list and accurate medical history, if possible. “One could also consider well-studied screening tools mostly from the mood disorder realm, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire–2,” Dr. Richey said. “Much can be gained from simply talking to the patient and trying to understand him/her and underlying motivations prior to performing a procedure.”
Evan Rieder, MD, a New York City–based dermatologist and psychiatrist who was asked to comment on the study, characterized the analysis as demonstrating what medical and cosmetic dermatologists have been seeing in their practices for years. “While this study is limited by its single-center retrospective nature in an academic center that may not be representative of the general population, it does demonstrate a high burden of psychopathology and psychopharmacologic treatments in aesthetic patients,” Dr. Rieder said in an interview.
“While psychiatric illness is not a contraindication to cosmetic treatment, a high percentage of patients with ADHD, OCD, and likely [body dysmorphic disorder] in cosmetic dermatology practices should give us pause.” The nature of these diseases may indicate that some people are seeking aesthetic treatments for reasons yet to be elucidated, he added.
“It certainly indicates that dermatologists should be equipped to screen for, identify, and provide such patients with the appropriate resources for psychological treatment, regardless if they are deemed appropriate candidates for cosmetic intervention,” he said.
In an interview, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, noted that previous studies have demonstrated the interplay between mood disorders and dermatologic conditions for years, namely in acne, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and immune mediated disorders.
“In these conditions, the psychiatric stressors can worsen the skin condition and impede treatment,” Dr. Sodha said. “This study is an important segue into further elucidating our cosmetic patient population, and we should try to ask the next important question: how do we as physicians build a better rapport with these patients, understand their motivations for care, and effectively guide the patient through the consultation process to realistically address their concerns? It might help us both.”
Neither the researchers nor Dr. Sodha reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Rieder disclosed that he is a consultant for Allergan, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dr. Brandt, L’Oreal, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever.
results from a large retrospective analysis showed.
“As the rate of cosmetic procedures continues to increase, it is crucial that physicians understand that many patients with a psychiatric disorder require clear communication and appropriate consultation visits,” lead study author Patricia Richey, MD, told this news organization.
While studies have displayed links between the desire for a cosmetic procedure and psychiatric stressors and disorders – most commonly mood disorders, personality disorders, body dysmorphic disorder, and addiction-like behavior – the scarce literature on the subject mostly comes from the realm of plastic surgery.
“The relationship between psychiatric disease and the motivation for dermatologic cosmetic procedures has never been fully elucidated,” said Dr. Richey, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “A possible association between psychiatric disorder and the motivation for cosmetic procedures is critical to understand given increasing procedure rates and the need for clear communication and appropriate consultation visits with these patients.”
For the retrospective cohort study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Richey; Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at MGH; and Ryan W. Chapin, PharmD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, reviewed the medical records of 1,000 patients from a cosmetic dermatology clinic and 1,000 patients from a medical dermatology clinic, both at MGH. Those who crossed over between the two clinics were excluded from the analysis.
Patients in the cosmetic group were significantly younger than those in the medical group (a mean of 48 vs. 56 years, respectively; P < .0001), and there was a higher percentage of women than men in both groups (78.5% vs. 21.5% in the cosmetic group and 61.4% vs. 38.6% in the medical group; P < .00001).
The researchers found that 49% of patients in the cosmetic group had been diagnosed with at least one psychiatric disorder, compared with 33% in the medical group (P < .00001), most commonly anxiety, depression, ADHD, and insomnia. In addition, 39 patients in the cosmetic group had 2 or more psychiatric disorders, compared with 22 of those in the medical group.
Similarly, 44% of patients in the cosmetic group were on a psychiatric medication, compared with 28% in the medical group (P < .00001). The average number of medications among those on more than one psychiatric medication was 1.67 among those in the cosmetic dermatology group versus 1.48 among those in the medical dermatology group (P = .020).
By drug class, a higher percentage of patients in the cosmetic group, compared with those in the medical group, were taking antidepressants (33% vs. 21%, respectively; P < .00001), anxiolytics (26% vs. 13%; P < .00001), mood stabilizers (2.80% vs. 1.10%; P = .006), and stimulants (15.2% vs. 7.20%; P < .00001). The proportion of those taking antipsychotics was essentially even in the two groups (2.50% vs. 2.70%; P = .779).
Dr. Richey and colleagues also observed that patients in the cosmetic group had significantly higher rates of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and ADHD than those in the medical group. “This finding did not particularly surprise me,” she said, since she and her colleagues recently published a study on the association of stimulant use with psychocutaneous disease.
“Stimulants are used to treat ADHD and are also known to trigger OCD-like symptoms,” she said. “I was surprised that no patients had been diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder, but we know that with increased patient access to medical records, physicians are often cautious in their documentation.”
She added that the overall results of the new study underscore the importance of consultation visits with cosmetic patients, including obtaining a full medication list and accurate medical history, if possible. “One could also consider well-studied screening tools mostly from the mood disorder realm, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire–2,” Dr. Richey said. “Much can be gained from simply talking to the patient and trying to understand him/her and underlying motivations prior to performing a procedure.”
Evan Rieder, MD, a New York City–based dermatologist and psychiatrist who was asked to comment on the study, characterized the analysis as demonstrating what medical and cosmetic dermatologists have been seeing in their practices for years. “While this study is limited by its single-center retrospective nature in an academic center that may not be representative of the general population, it does demonstrate a high burden of psychopathology and psychopharmacologic treatments in aesthetic patients,” Dr. Rieder said in an interview.
“While psychiatric illness is not a contraindication to cosmetic treatment, a high percentage of patients with ADHD, OCD, and likely [body dysmorphic disorder] in cosmetic dermatology practices should give us pause.” The nature of these diseases may indicate that some people are seeking aesthetic treatments for reasons yet to be elucidated, he added.
“It certainly indicates that dermatologists should be equipped to screen for, identify, and provide such patients with the appropriate resources for psychological treatment, regardless if they are deemed appropriate candidates for cosmetic intervention,” he said.
In an interview, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, noted that previous studies have demonstrated the interplay between mood disorders and dermatologic conditions for years, namely in acne, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and immune mediated disorders.
“In these conditions, the psychiatric stressors can worsen the skin condition and impede treatment,” Dr. Sodha said. “This study is an important segue into further elucidating our cosmetic patient population, and we should try to ask the next important question: how do we as physicians build a better rapport with these patients, understand their motivations for care, and effectively guide the patient through the consultation process to realistically address their concerns? It might help us both.”
Neither the researchers nor Dr. Sodha reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Rieder disclosed that he is a consultant for Allergan, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dr. Brandt, L’Oreal, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever.
results from a large retrospective analysis showed.
“As the rate of cosmetic procedures continues to increase, it is crucial that physicians understand that many patients with a psychiatric disorder require clear communication and appropriate consultation visits,” lead study author Patricia Richey, MD, told this news organization.
While studies have displayed links between the desire for a cosmetic procedure and psychiatric stressors and disorders – most commonly mood disorders, personality disorders, body dysmorphic disorder, and addiction-like behavior – the scarce literature on the subject mostly comes from the realm of plastic surgery.
“The relationship between psychiatric disease and the motivation for dermatologic cosmetic procedures has never been fully elucidated,” said Dr. Richey, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and conducts research for the Wellman Center for Photomedicine and the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “A possible association between psychiatric disorder and the motivation for cosmetic procedures is critical to understand given increasing procedure rates and the need for clear communication and appropriate consultation visits with these patients.”
For the retrospective cohort study, which was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Richey; Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of the Dermatology Laser and Cosmetic Center at MGH; and Ryan W. Chapin, PharmD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, reviewed the medical records of 1,000 patients from a cosmetic dermatology clinic and 1,000 patients from a medical dermatology clinic, both at MGH. Those who crossed over between the two clinics were excluded from the analysis.
Patients in the cosmetic group were significantly younger than those in the medical group (a mean of 48 vs. 56 years, respectively; P < .0001), and there was a higher percentage of women than men in both groups (78.5% vs. 21.5% in the cosmetic group and 61.4% vs. 38.6% in the medical group; P < .00001).
The researchers found that 49% of patients in the cosmetic group had been diagnosed with at least one psychiatric disorder, compared with 33% in the medical group (P < .00001), most commonly anxiety, depression, ADHD, and insomnia. In addition, 39 patients in the cosmetic group had 2 or more psychiatric disorders, compared with 22 of those in the medical group.
Similarly, 44% of patients in the cosmetic group were on a psychiatric medication, compared with 28% in the medical group (P < .00001). The average number of medications among those on more than one psychiatric medication was 1.67 among those in the cosmetic dermatology group versus 1.48 among those in the medical dermatology group (P = .020).
By drug class, a higher percentage of patients in the cosmetic group, compared with those in the medical group, were taking antidepressants (33% vs. 21%, respectively; P < .00001), anxiolytics (26% vs. 13%; P < .00001), mood stabilizers (2.80% vs. 1.10%; P = .006), and stimulants (15.2% vs. 7.20%; P < .00001). The proportion of those taking antipsychotics was essentially even in the two groups (2.50% vs. 2.70%; P = .779).
Dr. Richey and colleagues also observed that patients in the cosmetic group had significantly higher rates of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and ADHD than those in the medical group. “This finding did not particularly surprise me,” she said, since she and her colleagues recently published a study on the association of stimulant use with psychocutaneous disease.
“Stimulants are used to treat ADHD and are also known to trigger OCD-like symptoms,” she said. “I was surprised that no patients had been diagnosed with body dysmorphic disorder, but we know that with increased patient access to medical records, physicians are often cautious in their documentation.”
She added that the overall results of the new study underscore the importance of consultation visits with cosmetic patients, including obtaining a full medication list and accurate medical history, if possible. “One could also consider well-studied screening tools mostly from the mood disorder realm, such as the Patient Health Questionnaire–2,” Dr. Richey said. “Much can be gained from simply talking to the patient and trying to understand him/her and underlying motivations prior to performing a procedure.”
Evan Rieder, MD, a New York City–based dermatologist and psychiatrist who was asked to comment on the study, characterized the analysis as demonstrating what medical and cosmetic dermatologists have been seeing in their practices for years. “While this study is limited by its single-center retrospective nature in an academic center that may not be representative of the general population, it does demonstrate a high burden of psychopathology and psychopharmacologic treatments in aesthetic patients,” Dr. Rieder said in an interview.
“While psychiatric illness is not a contraindication to cosmetic treatment, a high percentage of patients with ADHD, OCD, and likely [body dysmorphic disorder] in cosmetic dermatology practices should give us pause.” The nature of these diseases may indicate that some people are seeking aesthetic treatments for reasons yet to be elucidated, he added.
“It certainly indicates that dermatologists should be equipped to screen for, identify, and provide such patients with the appropriate resources for psychological treatment, regardless if they are deemed appropriate candidates for cosmetic intervention,” he said.
In an interview, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, noted that previous studies have demonstrated the interplay between mood disorders and dermatologic conditions for years, namely in acne, atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, and immune mediated disorders.
“In these conditions, the psychiatric stressors can worsen the skin condition and impede treatment,” Dr. Sodha said. “This study is an important segue into further elucidating our cosmetic patient population, and we should try to ask the next important question: how do we as physicians build a better rapport with these patients, understand their motivations for care, and effectively guide the patient through the consultation process to realistically address their concerns? It might help us both.”
Neither the researchers nor Dr. Sodha reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Rieder disclosed that he is a consultant for Allergan, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dr. Brandt, L’Oreal, Procter & Gamble, and Unilever.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF DERMATOLOGY
What does it take for men to embrace cosmetic treatments?
with the same gusto as women.
However, this could be changing as millennials – who tend to be more proactive about efforts to prevent skin aging – are getting older.
At a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Dr. Carruthers referred to the results of an online survey of 600 men aged 30-65 years conducted by Jared Jagdeo, MD, and colleagues in 2016, to gauge attitudes toward age-related changes of their facial features and their preferences for prioritizing treatment. The top five barriers to treatment cited by the respondents were: “I don’t think I need it yet” (47%); “concerned about safety/side effects” (46%); “concerned about injecting a foreign substance into my body” (45%); “cost” (42%), and “concerned my face won’t look natural” (41%).
“Since then, millennials took over as the largest portion of our workforce in North America,” said Dr. Carruthers who, with her husband, Alastair Carruthers, MD, pioneered the cosmetic use of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox). “Millennials are interested in how they look and how to keep their aesthetic the best it can possibly be,” she said, so there may be “a generational aspect to this.”
Another factor that may affect the uptake of cosmetic procedures among men is the number of hours they spend gazing at their own image on a computer screen. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, men have spent an increasing number of hours on video-conferencing calls via Zoom and other platforms, causing them to rethink how they view their appearance, Dr. Carruthers added. “Zoom dysmorphia” is the term that describes the phenomenon that developed during the pandemic where more patients expressed a desire to make changes to their appearance, including nose jobs and smoothing out forehead wrinkles.
“When we’re on a Zoom call, we’re spending 40% of our time looking at ourselves,” said Dr. Carruthers, clinical professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “This would hint that the looking glass is not as powerful as the computer screen to motivate men” to pursue aesthetic treatments.
According to data from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the top 5 cosmetic surgical procedures performed in men in 2020 were nose shaping, eyelid surgery, cheek implants, liposuction, and ear surgery. The top 5 minimally-invasive procedures in men were botulinum toxin type A, followed by laser skin resurfacing, laser hair removal, soft tissue fillers, and microdermabrasion.
Why might men consider an injectable instead of surgery? Dr. Carruthers asked. “According to the 2016 survey by Dr. Jagdeo and colleagues, it’s to appear more youthful and to appear good for their age.”
From a clinical standpoint, success comes from understanding the subtle differences between treating men and women, she added.
In a 2022 article about optimizing skin tightening in aesthetics in men, Christian A. Albornoz, MD, and colleagues noted that in contrast to women, men “tend to have higher levels of collagen density and greater skin thickness, but these begin to decrease earlier on. They can also more frequently have severe photodamage”.
In another article published in 2018, Terrence Keaney, MD, and colleagues reviewed the objective data available on male aging and aesthetics. They stated that a “communication gap exists for men, as evidenced by the lack of information available online or by word of mouth about injectable treatments” and concluded that “educating men about available aesthetic treatments and about the safety and side effects associated with each treatment, as well as addressing concerns about their treatment results looking natural, are key considerations.”
That sentiment resonates with Dr. Carruthers. Part of the reason why men have not sought cosmetic treatments along with their female partners and friends seeking cosmetic treatments “is that they haven’t had anything in their cup,” she said. “Maybe this is something we need to think about, to try and help men come in and enjoy the positive benefits of aesthetic, noninvasive cosmetic treatments.”
The course was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Wellman Center for Photomedicine.
Dr. Carruthers disclosed that she is a consultant and researcher for Alastin, Appiell, Allergan Aesthetics, Avari Medical, Bonti, Evolus, Fount Bio, Jeune Aesthetics, Merz, and Revance Biopharma.
with the same gusto as women.
However, this could be changing as millennials – who tend to be more proactive about efforts to prevent skin aging – are getting older.
At a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Dr. Carruthers referred to the results of an online survey of 600 men aged 30-65 years conducted by Jared Jagdeo, MD, and colleagues in 2016, to gauge attitudes toward age-related changes of their facial features and their preferences for prioritizing treatment. The top five barriers to treatment cited by the respondents were: “I don’t think I need it yet” (47%); “concerned about safety/side effects” (46%); “concerned about injecting a foreign substance into my body” (45%); “cost” (42%), and “concerned my face won’t look natural” (41%).
“Since then, millennials took over as the largest portion of our workforce in North America,” said Dr. Carruthers who, with her husband, Alastair Carruthers, MD, pioneered the cosmetic use of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox). “Millennials are interested in how they look and how to keep their aesthetic the best it can possibly be,” she said, so there may be “a generational aspect to this.”
Another factor that may affect the uptake of cosmetic procedures among men is the number of hours they spend gazing at their own image on a computer screen. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, men have spent an increasing number of hours on video-conferencing calls via Zoom and other platforms, causing them to rethink how they view their appearance, Dr. Carruthers added. “Zoom dysmorphia” is the term that describes the phenomenon that developed during the pandemic where more patients expressed a desire to make changes to their appearance, including nose jobs and smoothing out forehead wrinkles.
“When we’re on a Zoom call, we’re spending 40% of our time looking at ourselves,” said Dr. Carruthers, clinical professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “This would hint that the looking glass is not as powerful as the computer screen to motivate men” to pursue aesthetic treatments.
According to data from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the top 5 cosmetic surgical procedures performed in men in 2020 were nose shaping, eyelid surgery, cheek implants, liposuction, and ear surgery. The top 5 minimally-invasive procedures in men were botulinum toxin type A, followed by laser skin resurfacing, laser hair removal, soft tissue fillers, and microdermabrasion.
Why might men consider an injectable instead of surgery? Dr. Carruthers asked. “According to the 2016 survey by Dr. Jagdeo and colleagues, it’s to appear more youthful and to appear good for their age.”
From a clinical standpoint, success comes from understanding the subtle differences between treating men and women, she added.
In a 2022 article about optimizing skin tightening in aesthetics in men, Christian A. Albornoz, MD, and colleagues noted that in contrast to women, men “tend to have higher levels of collagen density and greater skin thickness, but these begin to decrease earlier on. They can also more frequently have severe photodamage”.
In another article published in 2018, Terrence Keaney, MD, and colleagues reviewed the objective data available on male aging and aesthetics. They stated that a “communication gap exists for men, as evidenced by the lack of information available online or by word of mouth about injectable treatments” and concluded that “educating men about available aesthetic treatments and about the safety and side effects associated with each treatment, as well as addressing concerns about their treatment results looking natural, are key considerations.”
That sentiment resonates with Dr. Carruthers. Part of the reason why men have not sought cosmetic treatments along with their female partners and friends seeking cosmetic treatments “is that they haven’t had anything in their cup,” she said. “Maybe this is something we need to think about, to try and help men come in and enjoy the positive benefits of aesthetic, noninvasive cosmetic treatments.”
The course was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Wellman Center for Photomedicine.
Dr. Carruthers disclosed that she is a consultant and researcher for Alastin, Appiell, Allergan Aesthetics, Avari Medical, Bonti, Evolus, Fount Bio, Jeune Aesthetics, Merz, and Revance Biopharma.
with the same gusto as women.
However, this could be changing as millennials – who tend to be more proactive about efforts to prevent skin aging – are getting older.
At a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy, Dr. Carruthers referred to the results of an online survey of 600 men aged 30-65 years conducted by Jared Jagdeo, MD, and colleagues in 2016, to gauge attitudes toward age-related changes of their facial features and their preferences for prioritizing treatment. The top five barriers to treatment cited by the respondents were: “I don’t think I need it yet” (47%); “concerned about safety/side effects” (46%); “concerned about injecting a foreign substance into my body” (45%); “cost” (42%), and “concerned my face won’t look natural” (41%).
“Since then, millennials took over as the largest portion of our workforce in North America,” said Dr. Carruthers who, with her husband, Alastair Carruthers, MD, pioneered the cosmetic use of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox). “Millennials are interested in how they look and how to keep their aesthetic the best it can possibly be,” she said, so there may be “a generational aspect to this.”
Another factor that may affect the uptake of cosmetic procedures among men is the number of hours they spend gazing at their own image on a computer screen. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, men have spent an increasing number of hours on video-conferencing calls via Zoom and other platforms, causing them to rethink how they view their appearance, Dr. Carruthers added. “Zoom dysmorphia” is the term that describes the phenomenon that developed during the pandemic where more patients expressed a desire to make changes to their appearance, including nose jobs and smoothing out forehead wrinkles.
“When we’re on a Zoom call, we’re spending 40% of our time looking at ourselves,” said Dr. Carruthers, clinical professor of ophthalmology and visual sciences at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver. “This would hint that the looking glass is not as powerful as the computer screen to motivate men” to pursue aesthetic treatments.
According to data from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, the top 5 cosmetic surgical procedures performed in men in 2020 were nose shaping, eyelid surgery, cheek implants, liposuction, and ear surgery. The top 5 minimally-invasive procedures in men were botulinum toxin type A, followed by laser skin resurfacing, laser hair removal, soft tissue fillers, and microdermabrasion.
Why might men consider an injectable instead of surgery? Dr. Carruthers asked. “According to the 2016 survey by Dr. Jagdeo and colleagues, it’s to appear more youthful and to appear good for their age.”
From a clinical standpoint, success comes from understanding the subtle differences between treating men and women, she added.
In a 2022 article about optimizing skin tightening in aesthetics in men, Christian A. Albornoz, MD, and colleagues noted that in contrast to women, men “tend to have higher levels of collagen density and greater skin thickness, but these begin to decrease earlier on. They can also more frequently have severe photodamage”.
In another article published in 2018, Terrence Keaney, MD, and colleagues reviewed the objective data available on male aging and aesthetics. They stated that a “communication gap exists for men, as evidenced by the lack of information available online or by word of mouth about injectable treatments” and concluded that “educating men about available aesthetic treatments and about the safety and side effects associated with each treatment, as well as addressing concerns about their treatment results looking natural, are key considerations.”
That sentiment resonates with Dr. Carruthers. Part of the reason why men have not sought cosmetic treatments along with their female partners and friends seeking cosmetic treatments “is that they haven’t had anything in their cup,” she said. “Maybe this is something we need to think about, to try and help men come in and enjoy the positive benefits of aesthetic, noninvasive cosmetic treatments.”
The course was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Wellman Center for Photomedicine.
Dr. Carruthers disclosed that she is a consultant and researcher for Alastin, Appiell, Allergan Aesthetics, Avari Medical, Bonti, Evolus, Fount Bio, Jeune Aesthetics, Merz, and Revance Biopharma.
FROM A LASER & AESTHETIC SKIN THERAPY COURSE
How do patients perceive aesthetic providers on social media?
DENVER – However, in a recent survey, when asked if an aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively affects their desire to see that provider, 48% of patients were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% indicated yes.
Those are key findings from the survey, which aimed to evaluate the social media preferences and perceptions of patients who undergo aesthetic procedures.
“Aesthetic providers have firmly established a presence on social media,” Morgan Murphrey, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where she presented the results. “According to the dermatology literature, somewhere between 25% and 50% of patients are looking up aesthetic providers on social media before they even see them in the clinic. This raises the question: How do patients perceive aesthetic providers that are on social media, and what do they want to see on their professional accounts?”
To find out, Dr. Murphrey, chief dermatology resident at the University of California, Davis, and Sabrina Fabi, MD, a San Diego–based cosmetic dermatologist, used Survey Monkey to randomly survey 2,063 individuals in the United States. They used descriptive statistics to analyze characteristics and responses of the study participants.
Of the 2,063 respondents, 651 (32%) indicated that they undergo medical aesthetic treatments including Botox injections, fillers, or laser procedures. More than half (56%) were women, 25% were 18-30 years old, 64% were 31-60 years old, and 11% were 61 years or older.
The three most common social media platforms they used were Facebook (70%), Instagram (65%), and YouTube (63%), followed by TikTok (45%) and Snapchat (29%). When the researchers stratified respondents by income level, individuals making $200,000 or more per year were statistically more likely to be on Instagram while those making less than $200,000 were more likely to be on Facebook and YouTube.
When asked if their aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively impacts their desire to see them as a patient, 48% of respondent were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% answered yes. “Only 2% felt strongly about this if the provider was on a specific social media platform, while 9% of respondents preferred that their provider not be on social media,” Dr. Murphrey added.
When asked if the number of social media followers influences their perception of an aesthetic provider as an expert, 43% of respondents answered no while 57% answered yes. “Once you get to about 20,000 followers, there seems to be somewhat of a law of diminishing returns in the number of followers,” she said. However, 55% indicated that they prefer to see a provider with a social media account that is verified with a blue check mark.
As for content published, 70% of respondents found it very important (36%) or important (34%) that a provider show before-and-after photos on their social media pages, while 67% said that they favor viewing personal content such as posts about the provider’s family and hobbies.
“This study summarizes to us that there is really low risk to creating a social media account; it’s something to think about,” Dr. Murphrey said. “Only 9% of respondents really didn’t want aesthetic providers to be on social media, but when we stratified our results, those individuals were less likely to be on social media themselves.”
Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the findings as important, “as the role of social media (especially visually based platforms like Instagram) will only continue to grow in our dermatologic and aesthetic practices.” Several studies have displayed a trend of plastic surgeons and other subspecialities outnumbering dermatologists within the aesthetic realm of social media, she noted. “As our patients increasingly seek out health care information and advice through these platforms, studies like Dr. Murphrey’s and Dr. Fabi’s are helpful in allowing us to better understand patient preferences and perspectives, in that we, as dermatologists, may be able to better aid their medical decisions in the future,” she added.
Neither the researchers nor Dr. Richey reported having relevant financial disclosures.
DENVER – However, in a recent survey, when asked if an aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively affects their desire to see that provider, 48% of patients were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% indicated yes.
Those are key findings from the survey, which aimed to evaluate the social media preferences and perceptions of patients who undergo aesthetic procedures.
“Aesthetic providers have firmly established a presence on social media,” Morgan Murphrey, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where she presented the results. “According to the dermatology literature, somewhere between 25% and 50% of patients are looking up aesthetic providers on social media before they even see them in the clinic. This raises the question: How do patients perceive aesthetic providers that are on social media, and what do they want to see on their professional accounts?”
To find out, Dr. Murphrey, chief dermatology resident at the University of California, Davis, and Sabrina Fabi, MD, a San Diego–based cosmetic dermatologist, used Survey Monkey to randomly survey 2,063 individuals in the United States. They used descriptive statistics to analyze characteristics and responses of the study participants.
Of the 2,063 respondents, 651 (32%) indicated that they undergo medical aesthetic treatments including Botox injections, fillers, or laser procedures. More than half (56%) were women, 25% were 18-30 years old, 64% were 31-60 years old, and 11% were 61 years or older.
The three most common social media platforms they used were Facebook (70%), Instagram (65%), and YouTube (63%), followed by TikTok (45%) and Snapchat (29%). When the researchers stratified respondents by income level, individuals making $200,000 or more per year were statistically more likely to be on Instagram while those making less than $200,000 were more likely to be on Facebook and YouTube.
When asked if their aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively impacts their desire to see them as a patient, 48% of respondent were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% answered yes. “Only 2% felt strongly about this if the provider was on a specific social media platform, while 9% of respondents preferred that their provider not be on social media,” Dr. Murphrey added.
When asked if the number of social media followers influences their perception of an aesthetic provider as an expert, 43% of respondents answered no while 57% answered yes. “Once you get to about 20,000 followers, there seems to be somewhat of a law of diminishing returns in the number of followers,” she said. However, 55% indicated that they prefer to see a provider with a social media account that is verified with a blue check mark.
As for content published, 70% of respondents found it very important (36%) or important (34%) that a provider show before-and-after photos on their social media pages, while 67% said that they favor viewing personal content such as posts about the provider’s family and hobbies.
“This study summarizes to us that there is really low risk to creating a social media account; it’s something to think about,” Dr. Murphrey said. “Only 9% of respondents really didn’t want aesthetic providers to be on social media, but when we stratified our results, those individuals were less likely to be on social media themselves.”
Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the findings as important, “as the role of social media (especially visually based platforms like Instagram) will only continue to grow in our dermatologic and aesthetic practices.” Several studies have displayed a trend of plastic surgeons and other subspecialities outnumbering dermatologists within the aesthetic realm of social media, she noted. “As our patients increasingly seek out health care information and advice through these platforms, studies like Dr. Murphrey’s and Dr. Fabi’s are helpful in allowing us to better understand patient preferences and perspectives, in that we, as dermatologists, may be able to better aid their medical decisions in the future,” she added.
Neither the researchers nor Dr. Richey reported having relevant financial disclosures.
DENVER – However, in a recent survey, when asked if an aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively affects their desire to see that provider, 48% of patients were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% indicated yes.
Those are key findings from the survey, which aimed to evaluate the social media preferences and perceptions of patients who undergo aesthetic procedures.
“Aesthetic providers have firmly established a presence on social media,” Morgan Murphrey, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where she presented the results. “According to the dermatology literature, somewhere between 25% and 50% of patients are looking up aesthetic providers on social media before they even see them in the clinic. This raises the question: How do patients perceive aesthetic providers that are on social media, and what do they want to see on their professional accounts?”
To find out, Dr. Murphrey, chief dermatology resident at the University of California, Davis, and Sabrina Fabi, MD, a San Diego–based cosmetic dermatologist, used Survey Monkey to randomly survey 2,063 individuals in the United States. They used descriptive statistics to analyze characteristics and responses of the study participants.
Of the 2,063 respondents, 651 (32%) indicated that they undergo medical aesthetic treatments including Botox injections, fillers, or laser procedures. More than half (56%) were women, 25% were 18-30 years old, 64% were 31-60 years old, and 11% were 61 years or older.
The three most common social media platforms they used were Facebook (70%), Instagram (65%), and YouTube (63%), followed by TikTok (45%) and Snapchat (29%). When the researchers stratified respondents by income level, individuals making $200,000 or more per year were statistically more likely to be on Instagram while those making less than $200,000 were more likely to be on Facebook and YouTube.
When asked if their aesthetic medical provider’s social media presence positively impacts their desire to see them as a patient, 48% of respondent were neutral or had no opinion, while 41% answered yes. “Only 2% felt strongly about this if the provider was on a specific social media platform, while 9% of respondents preferred that their provider not be on social media,” Dr. Murphrey added.
When asked if the number of social media followers influences their perception of an aesthetic provider as an expert, 43% of respondents answered no while 57% answered yes. “Once you get to about 20,000 followers, there seems to be somewhat of a law of diminishing returns in the number of followers,” she said. However, 55% indicated that they prefer to see a provider with a social media account that is verified with a blue check mark.
As for content published, 70% of respondents found it very important (36%) or important (34%) that a provider show before-and-after photos on their social media pages, while 67% said that they favor viewing personal content such as posts about the provider’s family and hobbies.
“This study summarizes to us that there is really low risk to creating a social media account; it’s something to think about,” Dr. Murphrey said. “Only 9% of respondents really didn’t want aesthetic providers to be on social media, but when we stratified our results, those individuals were less likely to be on social media themselves.”
Patricia Richey, MD, who practices Mohs surgery and cosmetic dermatology in Washington, D.C., and was asked to comment on the results, characterized the findings as important, “as the role of social media (especially visually based platforms like Instagram) will only continue to grow in our dermatologic and aesthetic practices.” Several studies have displayed a trend of plastic surgeons and other subspecialities outnumbering dermatologists within the aesthetic realm of social media, she noted. “As our patients increasingly seek out health care information and advice through these platforms, studies like Dr. Murphrey’s and Dr. Fabi’s are helpful in allowing us to better understand patient preferences and perspectives, in that we, as dermatologists, may be able to better aid their medical decisions in the future,” she added.
Neither the researchers nor Dr. Richey reported having relevant financial disclosures.
AT ASDS 2022
Combining treatment options for scar revision often a useful approach
DENVER – 
“It’s important to manage expectations,” Dr. Ortiz, director of laser and cosmetic dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “I tell them I can improve their scar and make it look less noticeable, but I can’t make it look like normal skin. It’s going to require multiple treatments. It’s not a one-time thing; it’s going to take several months to see the full benefit. And, it’s an investment of time and money.”
Nonablative, ablative, and fractional resurfacing stimulates dermal fibroblasts to replace lost collagen and elastin. Traditional lasers offer impressive clinical results for scars but are associated with significant preprocedural discomfort, prolonged recovery, and a significant risk of side effects, Dr. Ortiz said, while nonablative lasers are more tolerable with shorter recovery times.
Multiple sessions are required, and results are often less clinically impressive. “It’s often difficult for patients to have a lot of downtime with each treatment so often I prefer to use the nonablative laser, especially for acne scarring,” she said.
Mounting evidence suggests that the sooner scars are treated after they are formed, the better. That may not be feasible for patients with a long history of acne scars, but for surgical scars, Dr. Ortiz prefers to start treatment on the day of suture removal. “Whenever I do that, I always get better results,” she said.
Outcomes may also improve by combining different treatment options, but the type of scar drives the type of modality to consider. There are red scars from postinflammatory erythema, hyperpigmented scars, hypopigmented scars, atrophic scars, hypertrophic scars, spread scars, pin cushion scars, and keloid scars, “which are the most difficult to treat,” she said. “When I’m using a combination approach, I start with the redness component of the scar, because you don’t want to exacerbate nonspecific erythema, or it’ll be difficult to see where the redness is. So, I always use vascular laser first, then a pigment-specific laser, followed by resurfacing, and augmentation with filler if needed.”
Red scars generally fade with time, but that can take several months to more than a year. “If you use a laser, that can speed up the recovery,” said Dr. Ortiz, who is the vice president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “A vascular laser will work, such as KTP, or intense pulsed light. Studies favor a low fluence and a short pulse duration. Pulsed dye laser (PDL) penetrates deeper than KTP, so theoretically you get a bit of collagen remodeling because it can increase TGF-beta [transforming growth factor–beta], so theoretically, PDL is a little bit better than KTP for red scars, but both will work.”
In a comparative study, researchers used purpuric and nonpurpuric parameters to treat surgical scars but found no significant differences between the two treatment settings. “I tend to stick to short pulse duration and low fluence settings,” said Dr. Ortiz, who was not affiliated with the study.
A separate, single-blinded, split scar study, which compared the efficacy of KTP to 595 nm PDL in reduction of erythema in surgical scars, found no significant difference between the two approaches. A review of available therapeutic lasers for acne scarring found that the thermal energy delivered by KTP extends only to the papillary dermis, making it useful for postinflammatory erythema without significant effects on collagen remodeling.
Hyperpigmentation
Use of concomitant bleaching cream can also help as a preventive strategy for hyperpigmentation. But one study of 100 patients found that pretreatment with a bleaching regimen prior to undergoing CO2 laser resurfacing made no significant difference in hyperpigmentation compared with those who received no pretreatment regimen.
When Dr. Ortiz is concerned about hyperpigmentation after laser treatment, she prescribes post-treatment tranexamic acid 325 mg twice daily for 6 months or longer. “I don’t do any kind of workup or labs, but I do not prescribe it if a patient has increased risk of clotting,” she said. Those at increased risk include smokers, those on birth control pills, those on hormonal supplementation, those with a current malignancy, and those with a history of a cerebrovascular accident or deep vein thrombosis.
Hypopigmented, atrophic scars
In Dr. Ortiz’s clinical experience, hypopigmented scars respond well to treatment with the 1550 nonablative laser. “The idea is that you’re removing some of the scarred collagen and it allows the melanocytes to migrate in and repigment,” she said. Following laser treatment, consider applying topical bimatoprost 0.03% twice daily for at least 3 months to optimize results, she added.
For atrophic scars, options include subcision, laser treatment, radiofrequency microneedling, fillers, or biostimulators. “I caution against using permanent fillers because there is a higher risk of granuloma formation,” Dr. Ortiz said. “I tend to use hyaluronic acid fillers, which have a low G prime. I inject superficially.”
She shared a technique she learned from Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It entails spreading the skin with one’s fingers for a scar, especially an acne scar. “If it improves when you spread the skin, then you know it’s amenable to laser treatment,” Dr. Ortiz said. “But if it doesn’t improve when you spread the skin, it probably needs a little subcision. Insert an 18- or 20-gauge tribeveled hypodermic needle or an 18-gauge Nokor under the scar to sever the fibrous components that anchor the scar. This can take more than one treatment. I’ll often do this immediately before resurfacing.”
For hypertrophic scars, consider laser-assisted drug delivery, which creates vertical channels that assist the delivery of topically applied drugs into the skin. “You never want to use something that isn’t meant to be injected into the skin because you can get a granulomatous reaction,” she warned. “I often use topical triamcinolone acetonide, 5-FU, or poly-l-lactic acid.”
Dr. Ortiz noted that botulinum toxin type A may be helpful for scars, despite the paucity of evidence regarding specific mechanisms of action. “There is some thought that it can modulate TGF-beta,” she said. “It also may modulate collagen deposition. Currently we’re looking into Botox alone for keloid scars. The initial results look just okay.”
Dr. Ortiz disclosed that she has received consulting fees from Alastin, Cutera, and Sciton, and honoraria from BTL and Procter & Gamble. She is also a member of the advisory board for Aerolase, Allergan, Bausch Health, Endo, Galderma, Rodan + Fields, and Sciton, and has received equipment from BTL, Sciton, and SmartGraft.
DENVER –
“It’s important to manage expectations,” Dr. Ortiz, director of laser and cosmetic dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “I tell them I can improve their scar and make it look less noticeable, but I can’t make it look like normal skin. It’s going to require multiple treatments. It’s not a one-time thing; it’s going to take several months to see the full benefit. And, it’s an investment of time and money.”
Nonablative, ablative, and fractional resurfacing stimulates dermal fibroblasts to replace lost collagen and elastin. Traditional lasers offer impressive clinical results for scars but are associated with significant preprocedural discomfort, prolonged recovery, and a significant risk of side effects, Dr. Ortiz said, while nonablative lasers are more tolerable with shorter recovery times.
Multiple sessions are required, and results are often less clinically impressive. “It’s often difficult for patients to have a lot of downtime with each treatment so often I prefer to use the nonablative laser, especially for acne scarring,” she said.
Mounting evidence suggests that the sooner scars are treated after they are formed, the better. That may not be feasible for patients with a long history of acne scars, but for surgical scars, Dr. Ortiz prefers to start treatment on the day of suture removal. “Whenever I do that, I always get better results,” she said.
Outcomes may also improve by combining different treatment options, but the type of scar drives the type of modality to consider. There are red scars from postinflammatory erythema, hyperpigmented scars, hypopigmented scars, atrophic scars, hypertrophic scars, spread scars, pin cushion scars, and keloid scars, “which are the most difficult to treat,” she said. “When I’m using a combination approach, I start with the redness component of the scar, because you don’t want to exacerbate nonspecific erythema, or it’ll be difficult to see where the redness is. So, I always use vascular laser first, then a pigment-specific laser, followed by resurfacing, and augmentation with filler if needed.”
Red scars generally fade with time, but that can take several months to more than a year. “If you use a laser, that can speed up the recovery,” said Dr. Ortiz, who is the vice president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “A vascular laser will work, such as KTP, or intense pulsed light. Studies favor a low fluence and a short pulse duration. Pulsed dye laser (PDL) penetrates deeper than KTP, so theoretically you get a bit of collagen remodeling because it can increase TGF-beta [transforming growth factor–beta], so theoretically, PDL is a little bit better than KTP for red scars, but both will work.”
In a comparative study, researchers used purpuric and nonpurpuric parameters to treat surgical scars but found no significant differences between the two treatment settings. “I tend to stick to short pulse duration and low fluence settings,” said Dr. Ortiz, who was not affiliated with the study.
A separate, single-blinded, split scar study, which compared the efficacy of KTP to 595 nm PDL in reduction of erythema in surgical scars, found no significant difference between the two approaches. A review of available therapeutic lasers for acne scarring found that the thermal energy delivered by KTP extends only to the papillary dermis, making it useful for postinflammatory erythema without significant effects on collagen remodeling.
Hyperpigmentation
Use of concomitant bleaching cream can also help as a preventive strategy for hyperpigmentation. But one study of 100 patients found that pretreatment with a bleaching regimen prior to undergoing CO2 laser resurfacing made no significant difference in hyperpigmentation compared with those who received no pretreatment regimen.
When Dr. Ortiz is concerned about hyperpigmentation after laser treatment, she prescribes post-treatment tranexamic acid 325 mg twice daily for 6 months or longer. “I don’t do any kind of workup or labs, but I do not prescribe it if a patient has increased risk of clotting,” she said. Those at increased risk include smokers, those on birth control pills, those on hormonal supplementation, those with a current malignancy, and those with a history of a cerebrovascular accident or deep vein thrombosis.
Hypopigmented, atrophic scars
In Dr. Ortiz’s clinical experience, hypopigmented scars respond well to treatment with the 1550 nonablative laser. “The idea is that you’re removing some of the scarred collagen and it allows the melanocytes to migrate in and repigment,” she said. Following laser treatment, consider applying topical bimatoprost 0.03% twice daily for at least 3 months to optimize results, she added.
For atrophic scars, options include subcision, laser treatment, radiofrequency microneedling, fillers, or biostimulators. “I caution against using permanent fillers because there is a higher risk of granuloma formation,” Dr. Ortiz said. “I tend to use hyaluronic acid fillers, which have a low G prime. I inject superficially.”
She shared a technique she learned from Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It entails spreading the skin with one’s fingers for a scar, especially an acne scar. “If it improves when you spread the skin, then you know it’s amenable to laser treatment,” Dr. Ortiz said. “But if it doesn’t improve when you spread the skin, it probably needs a little subcision. Insert an 18- or 20-gauge tribeveled hypodermic needle or an 18-gauge Nokor under the scar to sever the fibrous components that anchor the scar. This can take more than one treatment. I’ll often do this immediately before resurfacing.”
For hypertrophic scars, consider laser-assisted drug delivery, which creates vertical channels that assist the delivery of topically applied drugs into the skin. “You never want to use something that isn’t meant to be injected into the skin because you can get a granulomatous reaction,” she warned. “I often use topical triamcinolone acetonide, 5-FU, or poly-l-lactic acid.”
Dr. Ortiz noted that botulinum toxin type A may be helpful for scars, despite the paucity of evidence regarding specific mechanisms of action. “There is some thought that it can modulate TGF-beta,” she said. “It also may modulate collagen deposition. Currently we’re looking into Botox alone for keloid scars. The initial results look just okay.”
Dr. Ortiz disclosed that she has received consulting fees from Alastin, Cutera, and Sciton, and honoraria from BTL and Procter & Gamble. She is also a member of the advisory board for Aerolase, Allergan, Bausch Health, Endo, Galderma, Rodan + Fields, and Sciton, and has received equipment from BTL, Sciton, and SmartGraft.
DENVER –
“It’s important to manage expectations,” Dr. Ortiz, director of laser and cosmetic dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “I tell them I can improve their scar and make it look less noticeable, but I can’t make it look like normal skin. It’s going to require multiple treatments. It’s not a one-time thing; it’s going to take several months to see the full benefit. And, it’s an investment of time and money.”
Nonablative, ablative, and fractional resurfacing stimulates dermal fibroblasts to replace lost collagen and elastin. Traditional lasers offer impressive clinical results for scars but are associated with significant preprocedural discomfort, prolonged recovery, and a significant risk of side effects, Dr. Ortiz said, while nonablative lasers are more tolerable with shorter recovery times.
Multiple sessions are required, and results are often less clinically impressive. “It’s often difficult for patients to have a lot of downtime with each treatment so often I prefer to use the nonablative laser, especially for acne scarring,” she said.
Mounting evidence suggests that the sooner scars are treated after they are formed, the better. That may not be feasible for patients with a long history of acne scars, but for surgical scars, Dr. Ortiz prefers to start treatment on the day of suture removal. “Whenever I do that, I always get better results,” she said.
Outcomes may also improve by combining different treatment options, but the type of scar drives the type of modality to consider. There are red scars from postinflammatory erythema, hyperpigmented scars, hypopigmented scars, atrophic scars, hypertrophic scars, spread scars, pin cushion scars, and keloid scars, “which are the most difficult to treat,” she said. “When I’m using a combination approach, I start with the redness component of the scar, because you don’t want to exacerbate nonspecific erythema, or it’ll be difficult to see where the redness is. So, I always use vascular laser first, then a pigment-specific laser, followed by resurfacing, and augmentation with filler if needed.”
Red scars generally fade with time, but that can take several months to more than a year. “If you use a laser, that can speed up the recovery,” said Dr. Ortiz, who is the vice president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “A vascular laser will work, such as KTP, or intense pulsed light. Studies favor a low fluence and a short pulse duration. Pulsed dye laser (PDL) penetrates deeper than KTP, so theoretically you get a bit of collagen remodeling because it can increase TGF-beta [transforming growth factor–beta], so theoretically, PDL is a little bit better than KTP for red scars, but both will work.”
In a comparative study, researchers used purpuric and nonpurpuric parameters to treat surgical scars but found no significant differences between the two treatment settings. “I tend to stick to short pulse duration and low fluence settings,” said Dr. Ortiz, who was not affiliated with the study.
A separate, single-blinded, split scar study, which compared the efficacy of KTP to 595 nm PDL in reduction of erythema in surgical scars, found no significant difference between the two approaches. A review of available therapeutic lasers for acne scarring found that the thermal energy delivered by KTP extends only to the papillary dermis, making it useful for postinflammatory erythema without significant effects on collagen remodeling.
Hyperpigmentation
Use of concomitant bleaching cream can also help as a preventive strategy for hyperpigmentation. But one study of 100 patients found that pretreatment with a bleaching regimen prior to undergoing CO2 laser resurfacing made no significant difference in hyperpigmentation compared with those who received no pretreatment regimen.
When Dr. Ortiz is concerned about hyperpigmentation after laser treatment, she prescribes post-treatment tranexamic acid 325 mg twice daily for 6 months or longer. “I don’t do any kind of workup or labs, but I do not prescribe it if a patient has increased risk of clotting,” she said. Those at increased risk include smokers, those on birth control pills, those on hormonal supplementation, those with a current malignancy, and those with a history of a cerebrovascular accident or deep vein thrombosis.
Hypopigmented, atrophic scars
In Dr. Ortiz’s clinical experience, hypopigmented scars respond well to treatment with the 1550 nonablative laser. “The idea is that you’re removing some of the scarred collagen and it allows the melanocytes to migrate in and repigment,” she said. Following laser treatment, consider applying topical bimatoprost 0.03% twice daily for at least 3 months to optimize results, she added.
For atrophic scars, options include subcision, laser treatment, radiofrequency microneedling, fillers, or biostimulators. “I caution against using permanent fillers because there is a higher risk of granuloma formation,” Dr. Ortiz said. “I tend to use hyaluronic acid fillers, which have a low G prime. I inject superficially.”
She shared a technique she learned from Mathew Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It entails spreading the skin with one’s fingers for a scar, especially an acne scar. “If it improves when you spread the skin, then you know it’s amenable to laser treatment,” Dr. Ortiz said. “But if it doesn’t improve when you spread the skin, it probably needs a little subcision. Insert an 18- or 20-gauge tribeveled hypodermic needle or an 18-gauge Nokor under the scar to sever the fibrous components that anchor the scar. This can take more than one treatment. I’ll often do this immediately before resurfacing.”
For hypertrophic scars, consider laser-assisted drug delivery, which creates vertical channels that assist the delivery of topically applied drugs into the skin. “You never want to use something that isn’t meant to be injected into the skin because you can get a granulomatous reaction,” she warned. “I often use topical triamcinolone acetonide, 5-FU, or poly-l-lactic acid.”
Dr. Ortiz noted that botulinum toxin type A may be helpful for scars, despite the paucity of evidence regarding specific mechanisms of action. “There is some thought that it can modulate TGF-beta,” she said. “It also may modulate collagen deposition. Currently we’re looking into Botox alone for keloid scars. The initial results look just okay.”
Dr. Ortiz disclosed that she has received consulting fees from Alastin, Cutera, and Sciton, and honoraria from BTL and Procter & Gamble. She is also a member of the advisory board for Aerolase, Allergan, Bausch Health, Endo, Galderma, Rodan + Fields, and Sciton, and has received equipment from BTL, Sciton, and SmartGraft.
AT ASDS 2022
Study addresses whether cosmetic treatments make patients happier
DENVER – compared with the general population, according to a study of 42 individuals. However, these treatments did not improve their baseline happiness or life satisfaction scores at follow-up.
Those are key findings from the study that lead author Rishi Chopra, MD, MS, presented during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.
“These are interesting and surprising results,” said Dr. Chopra, a dermatologist and laser and cosmetic dermatologic surgery fellow at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “Patients are seeking consultations with us with the hope that the treatments we offer may potentially help them feel happier, but are we really delivering on that?”
In a pivotal 2018 study that examined patient motivations for undergoing cosmetic dermatology procedures, investigators found that 67.2% did so to “feel happier and more confident or improve total quality of life”. Moreover, 38.5% cited the desire to “feel happier, better overall, or improve total quality of life” as the key reason for pursuing cosmetic procedures.
Prior published evidence validates this benefit of procedures, as neuromodulators have repeatedly demonstrated to improve mood and depression, including a 2020 randomized, single-blind crossover study that examined the impact of neuromodulators on mood and appearance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It found that patients who received treatment with neuromodulators prior to the pandemic, stopped during the pandemic, and restarted again, reported increased happiness, self-satisfaction with appearance, and overall treatment satisfaction.
“However, studies evaluating the effect of filler on happiness have failed to demonstrate an impact,” Dr. Chopra said. “Thus, the jury is still out.”
Study evaluated 42 patients
In what he said is the first study of its kind, he and his colleagues evaluated the impact of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures on the happiness of 42 treatment non-naive patients (those who regularly undergo cosmetic procedures) with a mean age of 47 years who were surveyed in November and December of 2021 during the COVID-19 Omicron subvariant outbreak at the cosmetic dermatology practices of Sabrina G. Fabi, MD, in San Diego, and Nicole Kanaris, MBBCh, in Johannesburg, South Africa.
“On average, these patients were undergoing six treatments per year during four visits per year, so these were frequent flyers,” Dr. Chopra said. “We set out to assess: Are patients who seek cosmetic procedures happy at baseline? And, do cosmetic procedures make us happier or more satisfied with life?”
Prior to treatment, patients completed the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Three weeks later, patients completed the SHS, SWLS, the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and a 5-point satisfaction score. The researchers used paired and unpaired t-tests, independent sample t-tests, and Spearman rank correlations to conduct statistical analyses.
The baseline SHS score of study participants was an average of 5.87, which Dr. Chopra said is higher than the worldwide population range between 4.57 and 5.33, and 5.05 in the U.S. population. “The patients in our study were very happy to begin with,” an important point to consider, he said. Following their treatments, respondents felt “improved” or “much improved” on the GAIS (a mean score of 3.64) and “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” based on the SWLS (a mean score of 4.4). “So overall, they viewed their treatments as a success,” Dr. Chopra said.
In terms of happiness, however, the researchers observed no significant differences between pre- and posttreatment scores on the SHS (a mean of 5.87 vs. 6.61, respectively; P = .634) nor on the SWLS (a mean of 29.62 vs. 29.1; P = .709). On stratified analysis, no significant differences in the SHS, SWLS, and the GAIS were observed when the researchers accounted for the aggressiveness of the procedure, the number of treatments, the number of sites treated, the type of treatment, and whether the respondents were happier or sadder at baseline. “Surprisingly, this had no effect whatsoever on happiness,” he said. “Not only that, these factors didn’t improve a patient’s perception of the efficacy or satisfaction with a treatment either.”
According to Dr. Chopra, this is the first study to evaluate the impact of a broad spectrum of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures, including injectables and lasers, on the happiness and life satisfaction of treatment non-naive patients.
“Surprisingly, we found these patients were no happier after treatment,” he told this news organization. “However, before rushing to declare that cosmetic procedures don’t make us happier, it is critical to evaluate these results in the context of our study population. We believe there to be a distinction between treatment naive and non-naive patients. All the patients in our study were treatment non-naive, routinely and frequently undergoing cosmetic procedures. Moreover, our treatment non-naive patients were very happy at baseline prior to treatment.”
He and his colleagues hypothesize that there is a “ceiling effect” to the happiness one can attain via these procedures. “Our treatment non-naive patients had already reached this ceiling-peak happiness of their treatment journey, and at this point were only pursuing procedures to maintain their results and happiness,” he said. “Thus, we were unable to measure any effect this late in the ‘maintenance-phase’ of their journey via our study. On the other hand, treatment naive patients (those who have never undergone a cosmetic procedure) were not included. We hypothesize that evaluating patients at the start of their journey after their first round of treatments will demonstrate an impact on happiness, prior to reaching the ceiling and subsequent ‘maintenance phase.’ ”
Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that it was not clear which specific cosmetic treatments the study participants received. “I would like to see if different injectable or device treatments would give different happiness scale results,” Dr. Green said.
“In addition, only two locations were surveyed, so the results could have location bias. I think it would be a great idea to replicate this survey of experienced cosmetic treatment patients with many locations and to include survey responses based on the procedure that was done. That said, it is interesting that overall, investigator satisfaction did not correlate with patient happiness from the treatments.”
Dr. Chopra reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
DENVER – compared with the general population, according to a study of 42 individuals. However, these treatments did not improve their baseline happiness or life satisfaction scores at follow-up.
Those are key findings from the study that lead author Rishi Chopra, MD, MS, presented during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.
“These are interesting and surprising results,” said Dr. Chopra, a dermatologist and laser and cosmetic dermatologic surgery fellow at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “Patients are seeking consultations with us with the hope that the treatments we offer may potentially help them feel happier, but are we really delivering on that?”
In a pivotal 2018 study that examined patient motivations for undergoing cosmetic dermatology procedures, investigators found that 67.2% did so to “feel happier and more confident or improve total quality of life”. Moreover, 38.5% cited the desire to “feel happier, better overall, or improve total quality of life” as the key reason for pursuing cosmetic procedures.
Prior published evidence validates this benefit of procedures, as neuromodulators have repeatedly demonstrated to improve mood and depression, including a 2020 randomized, single-blind crossover study that examined the impact of neuromodulators on mood and appearance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It found that patients who received treatment with neuromodulators prior to the pandemic, stopped during the pandemic, and restarted again, reported increased happiness, self-satisfaction with appearance, and overall treatment satisfaction.
“However, studies evaluating the effect of filler on happiness have failed to demonstrate an impact,” Dr. Chopra said. “Thus, the jury is still out.”
Study evaluated 42 patients
In what he said is the first study of its kind, he and his colleagues evaluated the impact of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures on the happiness of 42 treatment non-naive patients (those who regularly undergo cosmetic procedures) with a mean age of 47 years who were surveyed in November and December of 2021 during the COVID-19 Omicron subvariant outbreak at the cosmetic dermatology practices of Sabrina G. Fabi, MD, in San Diego, and Nicole Kanaris, MBBCh, in Johannesburg, South Africa.
“On average, these patients were undergoing six treatments per year during four visits per year, so these were frequent flyers,” Dr. Chopra said. “We set out to assess: Are patients who seek cosmetic procedures happy at baseline? And, do cosmetic procedures make us happier or more satisfied with life?”
Prior to treatment, patients completed the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Three weeks later, patients completed the SHS, SWLS, the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and a 5-point satisfaction score. The researchers used paired and unpaired t-tests, independent sample t-tests, and Spearman rank correlations to conduct statistical analyses.
The baseline SHS score of study participants was an average of 5.87, which Dr. Chopra said is higher than the worldwide population range between 4.57 and 5.33, and 5.05 in the U.S. population. “The patients in our study were very happy to begin with,” an important point to consider, he said. Following their treatments, respondents felt “improved” or “much improved” on the GAIS (a mean score of 3.64) and “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” based on the SWLS (a mean score of 4.4). “So overall, they viewed their treatments as a success,” Dr. Chopra said.
In terms of happiness, however, the researchers observed no significant differences between pre- and posttreatment scores on the SHS (a mean of 5.87 vs. 6.61, respectively; P = .634) nor on the SWLS (a mean of 29.62 vs. 29.1; P = .709). On stratified analysis, no significant differences in the SHS, SWLS, and the GAIS were observed when the researchers accounted for the aggressiveness of the procedure, the number of treatments, the number of sites treated, the type of treatment, and whether the respondents were happier or sadder at baseline. “Surprisingly, this had no effect whatsoever on happiness,” he said. “Not only that, these factors didn’t improve a patient’s perception of the efficacy or satisfaction with a treatment either.”
According to Dr. Chopra, this is the first study to evaluate the impact of a broad spectrum of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures, including injectables and lasers, on the happiness and life satisfaction of treatment non-naive patients.
“Surprisingly, we found these patients were no happier after treatment,” he told this news organization. “However, before rushing to declare that cosmetic procedures don’t make us happier, it is critical to evaluate these results in the context of our study population. We believe there to be a distinction between treatment naive and non-naive patients. All the patients in our study were treatment non-naive, routinely and frequently undergoing cosmetic procedures. Moreover, our treatment non-naive patients were very happy at baseline prior to treatment.”
He and his colleagues hypothesize that there is a “ceiling effect” to the happiness one can attain via these procedures. “Our treatment non-naive patients had already reached this ceiling-peak happiness of their treatment journey, and at this point were only pursuing procedures to maintain their results and happiness,” he said. “Thus, we were unable to measure any effect this late in the ‘maintenance-phase’ of their journey via our study. On the other hand, treatment naive patients (those who have never undergone a cosmetic procedure) were not included. We hypothesize that evaluating patients at the start of their journey after their first round of treatments will demonstrate an impact on happiness, prior to reaching the ceiling and subsequent ‘maintenance phase.’ ”
Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that it was not clear which specific cosmetic treatments the study participants received. “I would like to see if different injectable or device treatments would give different happiness scale results,” Dr. Green said.
“In addition, only two locations were surveyed, so the results could have location bias. I think it would be a great idea to replicate this survey of experienced cosmetic treatment patients with many locations and to include survey responses based on the procedure that was done. That said, it is interesting that overall, investigator satisfaction did not correlate with patient happiness from the treatments.”
Dr. Chopra reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
DENVER – compared with the general population, according to a study of 42 individuals. However, these treatments did not improve their baseline happiness or life satisfaction scores at follow-up.
Those are key findings from the study that lead author Rishi Chopra, MD, MS, presented during an oral abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.
“These are interesting and surprising results,” said Dr. Chopra, a dermatologist and laser and cosmetic dermatologic surgery fellow at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston. “Patients are seeking consultations with us with the hope that the treatments we offer may potentially help them feel happier, but are we really delivering on that?”
In a pivotal 2018 study that examined patient motivations for undergoing cosmetic dermatology procedures, investigators found that 67.2% did so to “feel happier and more confident or improve total quality of life”. Moreover, 38.5% cited the desire to “feel happier, better overall, or improve total quality of life” as the key reason for pursuing cosmetic procedures.
Prior published evidence validates this benefit of procedures, as neuromodulators have repeatedly demonstrated to improve mood and depression, including a 2020 randomized, single-blind crossover study that examined the impact of neuromodulators on mood and appearance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It found that patients who received treatment with neuromodulators prior to the pandemic, stopped during the pandemic, and restarted again, reported increased happiness, self-satisfaction with appearance, and overall treatment satisfaction.
“However, studies evaluating the effect of filler on happiness have failed to demonstrate an impact,” Dr. Chopra said. “Thus, the jury is still out.”
Study evaluated 42 patients
In what he said is the first study of its kind, he and his colleagues evaluated the impact of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures on the happiness of 42 treatment non-naive patients (those who regularly undergo cosmetic procedures) with a mean age of 47 years who were surveyed in November and December of 2021 during the COVID-19 Omicron subvariant outbreak at the cosmetic dermatology practices of Sabrina G. Fabi, MD, in San Diego, and Nicole Kanaris, MBBCh, in Johannesburg, South Africa.
“On average, these patients were undergoing six treatments per year during four visits per year, so these were frequent flyers,” Dr. Chopra said. “We set out to assess: Are patients who seek cosmetic procedures happy at baseline? And, do cosmetic procedures make us happier or more satisfied with life?”
Prior to treatment, patients completed the Subjective Happiness Scale (SHS) and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Three weeks later, patients completed the SHS, SWLS, the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and a 5-point satisfaction score. The researchers used paired and unpaired t-tests, independent sample t-tests, and Spearman rank correlations to conduct statistical analyses.
The baseline SHS score of study participants was an average of 5.87, which Dr. Chopra said is higher than the worldwide population range between 4.57 and 5.33, and 5.05 in the U.S. population. “The patients in our study were very happy to begin with,” an important point to consider, he said. Following their treatments, respondents felt “improved” or “much improved” on the GAIS (a mean score of 3.64) and “somewhat satisfied” or “very satisfied” based on the SWLS (a mean score of 4.4). “So overall, they viewed their treatments as a success,” Dr. Chopra said.
In terms of happiness, however, the researchers observed no significant differences between pre- and posttreatment scores on the SHS (a mean of 5.87 vs. 6.61, respectively; P = .634) nor on the SWLS (a mean of 29.62 vs. 29.1; P = .709). On stratified analysis, no significant differences in the SHS, SWLS, and the GAIS were observed when the researchers accounted for the aggressiveness of the procedure, the number of treatments, the number of sites treated, the type of treatment, and whether the respondents were happier or sadder at baseline. “Surprisingly, this had no effect whatsoever on happiness,” he said. “Not only that, these factors didn’t improve a patient’s perception of the efficacy or satisfaction with a treatment either.”
According to Dr. Chopra, this is the first study to evaluate the impact of a broad spectrum of minimally invasive cosmetic procedures, including injectables and lasers, on the happiness and life satisfaction of treatment non-naive patients.
“Surprisingly, we found these patients were no happier after treatment,” he told this news organization. “However, before rushing to declare that cosmetic procedures don’t make us happier, it is critical to evaluate these results in the context of our study population. We believe there to be a distinction between treatment naive and non-naive patients. All the patients in our study were treatment non-naive, routinely and frequently undergoing cosmetic procedures. Moreover, our treatment non-naive patients were very happy at baseline prior to treatment.”
He and his colleagues hypothesize that there is a “ceiling effect” to the happiness one can attain via these procedures. “Our treatment non-naive patients had already reached this ceiling-peak happiness of their treatment journey, and at this point were only pursuing procedures to maintain their results and happiness,” he said. “Thus, we were unable to measure any effect this late in the ‘maintenance-phase’ of their journey via our study. On the other hand, treatment naive patients (those who have never undergone a cosmetic procedure) were not included. We hypothesize that evaluating patients at the start of their journey after their first round of treatments will demonstrate an impact on happiness, prior to reaching the ceiling and subsequent ‘maintenance phase.’ ”
Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study results, said that it was not clear which specific cosmetic treatments the study participants received. “I would like to see if different injectable or device treatments would give different happiness scale results,” Dr. Green said.
“In addition, only two locations were surveyed, so the results could have location bias. I think it would be a great idea to replicate this survey of experienced cosmetic treatment patients with many locations and to include survey responses based on the procedure that was done. That said, it is interesting that overall, investigator satisfaction did not correlate with patient happiness from the treatments.”
Dr. Chopra reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
AT ASDS 2022
First-in-class device for facial wrinkles, tightening hits the market
DENVER – .
“It’s early yet, but I have treated dozens of patients with this device, and they have been happy with the results,” Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “This is a new technique that offers the ability to remove a significant amount of damaged, lax skin without concern for scarring,” he said.
A brainchild of dermatologists and plastic surgeons at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, the first-in-class device is cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of moderate and severe wrinkles in the mid and lower face in adults aged 22 years or older with Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV. It features a proprietary needle design that makes a series of high throughput microexcisions in epidermal and dermal tissue, with minimal downtime and without using thermal energy.
“It doesn’t do anything equivalent to a facelift, but the concept is a facelift by thousands of micro-punch excisions,” said Dr. Avram, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital. “Rather than pulling up the skin and lifting it and cutting the excess skin like we do with a facelift, we are creating thousands of smaller-scale tissue removals with immediate closures to do the same thing. The micro-cores are about the size of a 22-gauge needle and there is no scarring due to the small size of these tissue extractions.”
The device features needle cartridges capable of excising up to 24,000 cores per treatment. According to data from Cytrellis, the manufacturer, the equivalent of about 2 inches of skin can be removed during the procedure, which typically takes fewer than 30 minutes to perform. “There is no heat whatsoever,” Dr. Avram said. “In my experience, it especially helps with jawline definition, the lower medial cheek excess skin, and accordion lines in that area.”
In a pivotal trial of the device, 51 patients with mid to lower face wrinkles (moderately deep or deep wrinkles with well-defined edges) were treated 2-3 times with 7%-8% skin removal and up to a 5-mm needle coring depth). The investigators found that 40% of study participants achieved an improvement of 2 grades on the Lemperle Wrinkle Severity Scale and that the rate of overall satisfaction (slightly, somewhat, and extremely satisfied) was 86%.
In addition, 90% showed improvement of treated sites on the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, and 70% were comfortable enough to go out in public or return to work 3 days after treatment. Common side effects that can occur immediately post treatment include redness, swelling, and pinpoint bleeding, which typically clear in a few days.
Dr. Avram, immediate past president of the ASDS, has posted videos to his Instagram feed that show him treating patients with the Ellacor device and he admits that the procedure looks painful. “There are all these tear emojis and people cursing me out,” he said, referring to responses from his Instagram followers.
Proper local anesthesia prior to treatment is key. “I perform nerve blocks and infiltrate the skin,” he said. “You have to cover the whole treatment area. If you don’t, then it’s going to hurt. The average pain score is 1.9 out of 10. The highest pain score I’ve gotten from a patient is a 3 out of 10.”
Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, Sciton, and Soliton, and has ownership and/or shareholder interest in Cytrellis.
DENVER – .
“It’s early yet, but I have treated dozens of patients with this device, and they have been happy with the results,” Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “This is a new technique that offers the ability to remove a significant amount of damaged, lax skin without concern for scarring,” he said.
A brainchild of dermatologists and plastic surgeons at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, the first-in-class device is cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of moderate and severe wrinkles in the mid and lower face in adults aged 22 years or older with Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV. It features a proprietary needle design that makes a series of high throughput microexcisions in epidermal and dermal tissue, with minimal downtime and without using thermal energy.
“It doesn’t do anything equivalent to a facelift, but the concept is a facelift by thousands of micro-punch excisions,” said Dr. Avram, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital. “Rather than pulling up the skin and lifting it and cutting the excess skin like we do with a facelift, we are creating thousands of smaller-scale tissue removals with immediate closures to do the same thing. The micro-cores are about the size of a 22-gauge needle and there is no scarring due to the small size of these tissue extractions.”
The device features needle cartridges capable of excising up to 24,000 cores per treatment. According to data from Cytrellis, the manufacturer, the equivalent of about 2 inches of skin can be removed during the procedure, which typically takes fewer than 30 minutes to perform. “There is no heat whatsoever,” Dr. Avram said. “In my experience, it especially helps with jawline definition, the lower medial cheek excess skin, and accordion lines in that area.”
In a pivotal trial of the device, 51 patients with mid to lower face wrinkles (moderately deep or deep wrinkles with well-defined edges) were treated 2-3 times with 7%-8% skin removal and up to a 5-mm needle coring depth). The investigators found that 40% of study participants achieved an improvement of 2 grades on the Lemperle Wrinkle Severity Scale and that the rate of overall satisfaction (slightly, somewhat, and extremely satisfied) was 86%.
In addition, 90% showed improvement of treated sites on the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, and 70% were comfortable enough to go out in public or return to work 3 days after treatment. Common side effects that can occur immediately post treatment include redness, swelling, and pinpoint bleeding, which typically clear in a few days.
Dr. Avram, immediate past president of the ASDS, has posted videos to his Instagram feed that show him treating patients with the Ellacor device and he admits that the procedure looks painful. “There are all these tear emojis and people cursing me out,” he said, referring to responses from his Instagram followers.
Proper local anesthesia prior to treatment is key. “I perform nerve blocks and infiltrate the skin,” he said. “You have to cover the whole treatment area. If you don’t, then it’s going to hurt. The average pain score is 1.9 out of 10. The highest pain score I’ve gotten from a patient is a 3 out of 10.”
Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, Sciton, and Soliton, and has ownership and/or shareholder interest in Cytrellis.
DENVER – .
“It’s early yet, but I have treated dozens of patients with this device, and they have been happy with the results,” Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “This is a new technique that offers the ability to remove a significant amount of damaged, lax skin without concern for scarring,” he said.
A brainchild of dermatologists and plastic surgeons at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, the first-in-class device is cleared by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of moderate and severe wrinkles in the mid and lower face in adults aged 22 years or older with Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV. It features a proprietary needle design that makes a series of high throughput microexcisions in epidermal and dermal tissue, with minimal downtime and without using thermal energy.
“It doesn’t do anything equivalent to a facelift, but the concept is a facelift by thousands of micro-punch excisions,” said Dr. Avram, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital. “Rather than pulling up the skin and lifting it and cutting the excess skin like we do with a facelift, we are creating thousands of smaller-scale tissue removals with immediate closures to do the same thing. The micro-cores are about the size of a 22-gauge needle and there is no scarring due to the small size of these tissue extractions.”
The device features needle cartridges capable of excising up to 24,000 cores per treatment. According to data from Cytrellis, the manufacturer, the equivalent of about 2 inches of skin can be removed during the procedure, which typically takes fewer than 30 minutes to perform. “There is no heat whatsoever,” Dr. Avram said. “In my experience, it especially helps with jawline definition, the lower medial cheek excess skin, and accordion lines in that area.”
In a pivotal trial of the device, 51 patients with mid to lower face wrinkles (moderately deep or deep wrinkles with well-defined edges) were treated 2-3 times with 7%-8% skin removal and up to a 5-mm needle coring depth). The investigators found that 40% of study participants achieved an improvement of 2 grades on the Lemperle Wrinkle Severity Scale and that the rate of overall satisfaction (slightly, somewhat, and extremely satisfied) was 86%.
In addition, 90% showed improvement of treated sites on the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, and 70% were comfortable enough to go out in public or return to work 3 days after treatment. Common side effects that can occur immediately post treatment include redness, swelling, and pinpoint bleeding, which typically clear in a few days.
Dr. Avram, immediate past president of the ASDS, has posted videos to his Instagram feed that show him treating patients with the Ellacor device and he admits that the procedure looks painful. “There are all these tear emojis and people cursing me out,” he said, referring to responses from his Instagram followers.
Proper local anesthesia prior to treatment is key. “I perform nerve blocks and infiltrate the skin,” he said. “You have to cover the whole treatment area. If you don’t, then it’s going to hurt. The average pain score is 1.9 out of 10. The highest pain score I’ve gotten from a patient is a 3 out of 10.”
Dr. Avram disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Allergan, Merz, Sciton, and Soliton, and has ownership and/or shareholder interest in Cytrellis.
AT ASDS 2022
Ready or not, hands-free devices are coming
Denver – When Anne Chapas, MD, was asked to help conduct a clinical trial of a wearable, hands-free device for remodeling of the face and submental area, she responded with a healthy dose of skepticism.
“My first thought was, ‘this is crazy. It looks like a Storm Trooper helmet,’ ” Dr. Chapas, founder and medical director of UnionDerm, New York, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “But it’s the first FDA-cleared device that uses bipolar radiofrequency to target the lower third of the face and the submental area of the face. We wanted to see how it works.”
Its bipolar radiofrequency (RF) component reaches 4 mm in depth and travels from central to outer electrodes. The device features real-time temperature monitoring and the ability to delivery energy at lower temps for longer periods of time compared with hands-on approaches. No cooling is required.
“It is able to treat a large surface area simultaneously to achieve maximal tissue contraction,” Dr. Chapas said. “What we’ve learned in decades of RF technology is that it’s not just about heat. It has to be the right amount of heat for the right amount of time. That’s what’s difficult when we’re doing our own individual treatments. How many pulses do we need? How is that heat dissipating? Are we getting the amount of heat we need? Is the patient in pain? We need to take that data from the individual provider and come up with an automated system. That’s what this device is trying to accomplish.”
In a prospective trial, she and her colleagues enrolled 40 patients between the ages of 36 and 75 years with visible signs of facial aging who were seeking skin tightening treatments at one of three centers in the United States. They underwent three biweekly treatments with the Evoke device to the lower face and submental area where a target temperature of 42°-43° C was maintained for 41 minutes, or about 20 minutes for each site.
For the primary safety endpoint, investigators and blinded evaluators used a 4-point Likert scale before treatment, and 1, 3, and 6 months post-treatment. Follow-up visit satisfaction metrics were the patient’s skin appearance evaluation and overall satisfaction, and the investigator improvement rating based on an analysis of volumetric data from 3D imaging software. Chin and cheek discomfort metrics were assessed at all treatments. The subject satisfaction metrics were measured on an 11-point scale where 0 is most comfortable and 10 is most uncomfortable.
In terms of safety, patients tolerated the treatments well and rated their average discomfort from 0.643 to 1.45 on the 11-point Likert scale. “The subject satisfaction rate was about 80%, which is in line with other devices, such as microfocused ultrasound,” said Dr. Chapas, who is also a clinical instructor of dermatology at the Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.
“The physicians were a little tougher on their assessments. We felt there was about a 65%-70% success rate after the three treatment timepoints.” One possible reason for the disparity between the patient and physician assessments is that patients “may be more accepting of meager results from a hands-free treatment.”
Expect to see more hands-free devices hit the dermatology market in the coming months and years ahead, Dr. Chapas said. Before clinicians incorporate such systems into their practices, she advises them to review existing evidence for the technology, including published data and asking for demonstrations. “If it’s not efficacious, you’ve just wasted everybody’s time,” she said. “Also, is it practical for your office? Do you have the space for it? What staff training is involved? Is it truly automated?”
She added, “If you have a device that’s hands-free but someone must stay in the room with the patient for an hour, does that really help the flow of your practice? And finally, what do your patients want? Do they want to come back multiple times, or do they prefer one-and-done treatments?”
Other questions to consider, she said, include, who benefits from these treatments. Does it fill an unmet need for patients, and for clinicians? Does it help with operator fatigue? How are more consistent treatments achieved? Can the technology be applied to broad body areas?
“The hands-free revolution has been building,” Dr. Chapas commented. “The next generation of lasers and energy devices are going to be coming into our offices, so we should think carefully about how to incorporate them.”
Dr. Chapas disclosed that she is an investigator for InMode (the manufacturer of Evoke), Cutera, and Galderma, and a speaker for Allergan.
Denver – When Anne Chapas, MD, was asked to help conduct a clinical trial of a wearable, hands-free device for remodeling of the face and submental area, she responded with a healthy dose of skepticism.
“My first thought was, ‘this is crazy. It looks like a Storm Trooper helmet,’ ” Dr. Chapas, founder and medical director of UnionDerm, New York, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “But it’s the first FDA-cleared device that uses bipolar radiofrequency to target the lower third of the face and the submental area of the face. We wanted to see how it works.”
Its bipolar radiofrequency (RF) component reaches 4 mm in depth and travels from central to outer electrodes. The device features real-time temperature monitoring and the ability to delivery energy at lower temps for longer periods of time compared with hands-on approaches. No cooling is required.
“It is able to treat a large surface area simultaneously to achieve maximal tissue contraction,” Dr. Chapas said. “What we’ve learned in decades of RF technology is that it’s not just about heat. It has to be the right amount of heat for the right amount of time. That’s what’s difficult when we’re doing our own individual treatments. How many pulses do we need? How is that heat dissipating? Are we getting the amount of heat we need? Is the patient in pain? We need to take that data from the individual provider and come up with an automated system. That’s what this device is trying to accomplish.”
In a prospective trial, she and her colleagues enrolled 40 patients between the ages of 36 and 75 years with visible signs of facial aging who were seeking skin tightening treatments at one of three centers in the United States. They underwent three biweekly treatments with the Evoke device to the lower face and submental area where a target temperature of 42°-43° C was maintained for 41 minutes, or about 20 minutes for each site.
For the primary safety endpoint, investigators and blinded evaluators used a 4-point Likert scale before treatment, and 1, 3, and 6 months post-treatment. Follow-up visit satisfaction metrics were the patient’s skin appearance evaluation and overall satisfaction, and the investigator improvement rating based on an analysis of volumetric data from 3D imaging software. Chin and cheek discomfort metrics were assessed at all treatments. The subject satisfaction metrics were measured on an 11-point scale where 0 is most comfortable and 10 is most uncomfortable.
In terms of safety, patients tolerated the treatments well and rated their average discomfort from 0.643 to 1.45 on the 11-point Likert scale. “The subject satisfaction rate was about 80%, which is in line with other devices, such as microfocused ultrasound,” said Dr. Chapas, who is also a clinical instructor of dermatology at the Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.
“The physicians were a little tougher on their assessments. We felt there was about a 65%-70% success rate after the three treatment timepoints.” One possible reason for the disparity between the patient and physician assessments is that patients “may be more accepting of meager results from a hands-free treatment.”
Expect to see more hands-free devices hit the dermatology market in the coming months and years ahead, Dr. Chapas said. Before clinicians incorporate such systems into their practices, she advises them to review existing evidence for the technology, including published data and asking for demonstrations. “If it’s not efficacious, you’ve just wasted everybody’s time,” she said. “Also, is it practical for your office? Do you have the space for it? What staff training is involved? Is it truly automated?”
She added, “If you have a device that’s hands-free but someone must stay in the room with the patient for an hour, does that really help the flow of your practice? And finally, what do your patients want? Do they want to come back multiple times, or do they prefer one-and-done treatments?”
Other questions to consider, she said, include, who benefits from these treatments. Does it fill an unmet need for patients, and for clinicians? Does it help with operator fatigue? How are more consistent treatments achieved? Can the technology be applied to broad body areas?
“The hands-free revolution has been building,” Dr. Chapas commented. “The next generation of lasers and energy devices are going to be coming into our offices, so we should think carefully about how to incorporate them.”
Dr. Chapas disclosed that she is an investigator for InMode (the manufacturer of Evoke), Cutera, and Galderma, and a speaker for Allergan.
Denver – When Anne Chapas, MD, was asked to help conduct a clinical trial of a wearable, hands-free device for remodeling of the face and submental area, she responded with a healthy dose of skepticism.
“My first thought was, ‘this is crazy. It looks like a Storm Trooper helmet,’ ” Dr. Chapas, founder and medical director of UnionDerm, New York, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “But it’s the first FDA-cleared device that uses bipolar radiofrequency to target the lower third of the face and the submental area of the face. We wanted to see how it works.”
Its bipolar radiofrequency (RF) component reaches 4 mm in depth and travels from central to outer electrodes. The device features real-time temperature monitoring and the ability to delivery energy at lower temps for longer periods of time compared with hands-on approaches. No cooling is required.
“It is able to treat a large surface area simultaneously to achieve maximal tissue contraction,” Dr. Chapas said. “What we’ve learned in decades of RF technology is that it’s not just about heat. It has to be the right amount of heat for the right amount of time. That’s what’s difficult when we’re doing our own individual treatments. How many pulses do we need? How is that heat dissipating? Are we getting the amount of heat we need? Is the patient in pain? We need to take that data from the individual provider and come up with an automated system. That’s what this device is trying to accomplish.”
In a prospective trial, she and her colleagues enrolled 40 patients between the ages of 36 and 75 years with visible signs of facial aging who were seeking skin tightening treatments at one of three centers in the United States. They underwent three biweekly treatments with the Evoke device to the lower face and submental area where a target temperature of 42°-43° C was maintained for 41 minutes, or about 20 minutes for each site.
For the primary safety endpoint, investigators and blinded evaluators used a 4-point Likert scale before treatment, and 1, 3, and 6 months post-treatment. Follow-up visit satisfaction metrics were the patient’s skin appearance evaluation and overall satisfaction, and the investigator improvement rating based on an analysis of volumetric data from 3D imaging software. Chin and cheek discomfort metrics were assessed at all treatments. The subject satisfaction metrics were measured on an 11-point scale where 0 is most comfortable and 10 is most uncomfortable.
In terms of safety, patients tolerated the treatments well and rated their average discomfort from 0.643 to 1.45 on the 11-point Likert scale. “The subject satisfaction rate was about 80%, which is in line with other devices, such as microfocused ultrasound,” said Dr. Chapas, who is also a clinical instructor of dermatology at the Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.
“The physicians were a little tougher on their assessments. We felt there was about a 65%-70% success rate after the three treatment timepoints.” One possible reason for the disparity between the patient and physician assessments is that patients “may be more accepting of meager results from a hands-free treatment.”
Expect to see more hands-free devices hit the dermatology market in the coming months and years ahead, Dr. Chapas said. Before clinicians incorporate such systems into their practices, she advises them to review existing evidence for the technology, including published data and asking for demonstrations. “If it’s not efficacious, you’ve just wasted everybody’s time,” she said. “Also, is it practical for your office? Do you have the space for it? What staff training is involved? Is it truly automated?”
She added, “If you have a device that’s hands-free but someone must stay in the room with the patient for an hour, does that really help the flow of your practice? And finally, what do your patients want? Do they want to come back multiple times, or do they prefer one-and-done treatments?”
Other questions to consider, she said, include, who benefits from these treatments. Does it fill an unmet need for patients, and for clinicians? Does it help with operator fatigue? How are more consistent treatments achieved? Can the technology be applied to broad body areas?
“The hands-free revolution has been building,” Dr. Chapas commented. “The next generation of lasers and energy devices are going to be coming into our offices, so we should think carefully about how to incorporate them.”
Dr. Chapas disclosed that she is an investigator for InMode (the manufacturer of Evoke), Cutera, and Galderma, and a speaker for Allergan.
AT ASDS 2022
Vision loss may be a risk with PRP facial injections
A systematic review was recently conducted by Wu and colleagues examining the risk of blindness associated with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection. In dermatology, PRP is used more commonly now than 5 years ago to promote hair growth with injections on the scalp, as an adjunct to microneedling procedures, and sometimes – in a similar way to facial fillers – to improve volume loss, and skin tone and texture (particularly to the tear trough region).
Total unilateral blindness occurred in all cases. In one of the seven reported cases, the patient experienced recovery of vision after 3 months, but with some residual deficits noted on the ophthalmologist examination. In this case, the patient was evaluated and treated by an ophthalmologist within 3 hours of symptom onset.
In addition, four cases were reported from Venezuela, one from the United States, one from the United Kingdom, and one from Malaysia. Similar to reports of blindness with facial fillers, the most common injection site reported with this adverse effect was the glabella (five cases);
Other reports involved injections of the forehead (two), followed by the nasolabial fold (one), lateral canthus (one), and temporomandibular joint (one). Two of the seven patients received injections at more than one site, resulting in the total number of injections reported (10) being higher than the number of patients.
The risk of blindness is inherent with deep injection into a vessel that anastomoses with the blood supply to the eye. No mention was made as to whether PRP or platelet-rich fibrin was used. Other details are lacking from the original articles as to injection technique and whether or not cannula injection was used. No treatment was attempted in four of seven cases.
As plasma is native to the arteries and dissolves in the blood stream naturally, the mechanism as to why retinal artery occlusion or blindness would occur is not completely clear. One theory is that it is volume related and results from the speed of injection, causing a large rapid bolus that temporarily occludes or compresses an involved vessel.
Another theory is that damage to the vessel results from the injection itself or injection technique, leading to a clotting cascade and clot of the involved vessel with subsequent retrograde flow or blockade of the retinal artery. But if this were the case, we would expect to hear about more cases of clots leading to vascular occlusion or skin necrosis, which does not typically occur or we do not hear about.
Details about proper collection materials and technique or mixing with some other materials are also unknown in these cases, thus leaving the possibility that a more occlusive material may have been injected, as opposed to the fluid-like composition of the typical PRP preparation.With regards to risk with scalp PRP injection, the frontal scalp does receive blood supply from the supratrochlear artery that anastomoses with the angular artery of the face – both of which anastomose with the retinal artery (where occlusion would occur via back flow). The scalp tributaries are small and far enough away from the retina at that point that risk of back flow the to retinal artery should be minimal. Additionally, no reports of vascular occlusion from PRP scalp injection leading to skin necrosis have ever been reported. Of note, this is also not a risk that has been reported with the use of PRP with microneedling procedures, where PRP is placed on top of the skin before, during and after microneedling.
Anything that occludes the blood supply to the eye, whether it be fat, filler, or PRP, has an inherent risk of blindness. As there is no reversal agent or designated treatment for PRP occlusion, care must be taken to minimize risk, including awareness of anatomy and avoidance of injection into high risk areas, and cannula use where appropriate. Gentle, slow, low-volume administration, and when possible, use of a retrograde injection technique, may also be helpful.
Dr. Wesley and Lily Talakoub, MD, are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
A systematic review was recently conducted by Wu and colleagues examining the risk of blindness associated with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection. In dermatology, PRP is used more commonly now than 5 years ago to promote hair growth with injections on the scalp, as an adjunct to microneedling procedures, and sometimes – in a similar way to facial fillers – to improve volume loss, and skin tone and texture (particularly to the tear trough region).
Total unilateral blindness occurred in all cases. In one of the seven reported cases, the patient experienced recovery of vision after 3 months, but with some residual deficits noted on the ophthalmologist examination. In this case, the patient was evaluated and treated by an ophthalmologist within 3 hours of symptom onset.
In addition, four cases were reported from Venezuela, one from the United States, one from the United Kingdom, and one from Malaysia. Similar to reports of blindness with facial fillers, the most common injection site reported with this adverse effect was the glabella (five cases);
Other reports involved injections of the forehead (two), followed by the nasolabial fold (one), lateral canthus (one), and temporomandibular joint (one). Two of the seven patients received injections at more than one site, resulting in the total number of injections reported (10) being higher than the number of patients.
The risk of blindness is inherent with deep injection into a vessel that anastomoses with the blood supply to the eye. No mention was made as to whether PRP or platelet-rich fibrin was used. Other details are lacking from the original articles as to injection technique and whether or not cannula injection was used. No treatment was attempted in four of seven cases.
As plasma is native to the arteries and dissolves in the blood stream naturally, the mechanism as to why retinal artery occlusion or blindness would occur is not completely clear. One theory is that it is volume related and results from the speed of injection, causing a large rapid bolus that temporarily occludes or compresses an involved vessel.
Another theory is that damage to the vessel results from the injection itself or injection technique, leading to a clotting cascade and clot of the involved vessel with subsequent retrograde flow or blockade of the retinal artery. But if this were the case, we would expect to hear about more cases of clots leading to vascular occlusion or skin necrosis, which does not typically occur or we do not hear about.
Details about proper collection materials and technique or mixing with some other materials are also unknown in these cases, thus leaving the possibility that a more occlusive material may have been injected, as opposed to the fluid-like composition of the typical PRP preparation.With regards to risk with scalp PRP injection, the frontal scalp does receive blood supply from the supratrochlear artery that anastomoses with the angular artery of the face – both of which anastomose with the retinal artery (where occlusion would occur via back flow). The scalp tributaries are small and far enough away from the retina at that point that risk of back flow the to retinal artery should be minimal. Additionally, no reports of vascular occlusion from PRP scalp injection leading to skin necrosis have ever been reported. Of note, this is also not a risk that has been reported with the use of PRP with microneedling procedures, where PRP is placed on top of the skin before, during and after microneedling.
Anything that occludes the blood supply to the eye, whether it be fat, filler, or PRP, has an inherent risk of blindness. As there is no reversal agent or designated treatment for PRP occlusion, care must be taken to minimize risk, including awareness of anatomy and avoidance of injection into high risk areas, and cannula use where appropriate. Gentle, slow, low-volume administration, and when possible, use of a retrograde injection technique, may also be helpful.
Dr. Wesley and Lily Talakoub, MD, are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.
A systematic review was recently conducted by Wu and colleagues examining the risk of blindness associated with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection. In dermatology, PRP is used more commonly now than 5 years ago to promote hair growth with injections on the scalp, as an adjunct to microneedling procedures, and sometimes – in a similar way to facial fillers – to improve volume loss, and skin tone and texture (particularly to the tear trough region).
Total unilateral blindness occurred in all cases. In one of the seven reported cases, the patient experienced recovery of vision after 3 months, but with some residual deficits noted on the ophthalmologist examination. In this case, the patient was evaluated and treated by an ophthalmologist within 3 hours of symptom onset.
In addition, four cases were reported from Venezuela, one from the United States, one from the United Kingdom, and one from Malaysia. Similar to reports of blindness with facial fillers, the most common injection site reported with this adverse effect was the glabella (five cases);
Other reports involved injections of the forehead (two), followed by the nasolabial fold (one), lateral canthus (one), and temporomandibular joint (one). Two of the seven patients received injections at more than one site, resulting in the total number of injections reported (10) being higher than the number of patients.
The risk of blindness is inherent with deep injection into a vessel that anastomoses with the blood supply to the eye. No mention was made as to whether PRP or platelet-rich fibrin was used. Other details are lacking from the original articles as to injection technique and whether or not cannula injection was used. No treatment was attempted in four of seven cases.
As plasma is native to the arteries and dissolves in the blood stream naturally, the mechanism as to why retinal artery occlusion or blindness would occur is not completely clear. One theory is that it is volume related and results from the speed of injection, causing a large rapid bolus that temporarily occludes or compresses an involved vessel.
Another theory is that damage to the vessel results from the injection itself or injection technique, leading to a clotting cascade and clot of the involved vessel with subsequent retrograde flow or blockade of the retinal artery. But if this were the case, we would expect to hear about more cases of clots leading to vascular occlusion or skin necrosis, which does not typically occur or we do not hear about.
Details about proper collection materials and technique or mixing with some other materials are also unknown in these cases, thus leaving the possibility that a more occlusive material may have been injected, as opposed to the fluid-like composition of the typical PRP preparation.With regards to risk with scalp PRP injection, the frontal scalp does receive blood supply from the supratrochlear artery that anastomoses with the angular artery of the face – both of which anastomose with the retinal artery (where occlusion would occur via back flow). The scalp tributaries are small and far enough away from the retina at that point that risk of back flow the to retinal artery should be minimal. Additionally, no reports of vascular occlusion from PRP scalp injection leading to skin necrosis have ever been reported. Of note, this is also not a risk that has been reported with the use of PRP with microneedling procedures, where PRP is placed on top of the skin before, during and after microneedling.
Anything that occludes the blood supply to the eye, whether it be fat, filler, or PRP, has an inherent risk of blindness. As there is no reversal agent or designated treatment for PRP occlusion, care must be taken to minimize risk, including awareness of anatomy and avoidance of injection into high risk areas, and cannula use where appropriate. Gentle, slow, low-volume administration, and when possible, use of a retrograde injection technique, may also be helpful.
Dr. Wesley and Lily Talakoub, MD, are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.