User login
Toxic chemicals found in many cosmetics
People may be absorbing and ingesting potentially toxic chemicals from their cosmetic products, a new study suggests.
– per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Many of these chemicals were not included on the product labels, making it difficult for consumers to consciously avoid them.
“This study is very helpful for elucidating the PFAS content of different types of cosmetics in the U.S. and Canadian markets,” said Elsie Sunderland, PhD, an environmental scientist who was not involved with the study.
“Previously, all the data had been collected in Europe, and this study shows we are dealing with similar problems in the North American marketplace,” said Dr. Sunderland, a professor of environmental chemistry at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.
PFAS are a class of chemicals used in a variety of consumer products, such as nonstick cookware, stain-resistant carpeting, and water-repellent clothing, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They are added to cosmetics to make the products more durable and spreadable, researchers said in the study.
“[PFAS] are added to change the properties of surfaces, to make them nonstick or resistant to stay in water or oils,” said study coauthor Tom Bruton, PhD, senior scientist at the Green Science Policy Institute in Berkeley, Calif. “The concerning thing about cosmetics is that these are products that you’re applying to your skin and face every day, so there’s the skin absorption route that’s of concern, but also incidental ingestion of cosmetics is also a concern as well.”
The CDC says some of the potential health effects of PFAS exposure includes increased cholesterol levels, increased risk of kidney and testicular cancer, changes in liver enzymes, decreased vaccine response in children, and a higher risk of high blood pressure or preeclampsia in pregnant women.
“PFAS are a large class of chemicals. In humans, exposure to some of these chemicals has been associated with impaired immune function, certain cancers, increased risks of diabetes, obesity and endocrine disruption,” Dr. Sunderland said. “They appear to be harmful to every major organ system in the human body.”
For the current study, published online in Environmental Science & Technology Letters, Dr. Bruton and colleagues purchased 231 cosmetic products in the United States and Canada from retailers such as Ulta Beauty, Sephora, Target, and Bed Bath & Beyond. They then screened them for fluorine.Three-quarters of waterproof mascara samples contained high fluorine concentrations, as did nearly two-thirds of foundations and liquid lipsticks, and more than half of the eye and lip products tested.
The authors found that different categories of makeup tended to have higher or lower fluorine concentrations. “High fluorine levels were found in products commonly advertised as ‘wear-resistant’ to water and oils or ‘long-lasting,’ including foundations, liquid lipsticks, and waterproof mascaras,” Dr. Bruton and colleagues wrote.
When they further analyzed a subset of 29 products to determine what types of chemicals were present, they found that each cosmetic product contained at least 4 PFAS, with one product containing 13.The PFAS substances found included some that break down into other chemicals that are known to be highly toxic and environmentally harmful.
“It’s concerning that some of the products we tested appear to be intentionally using PFAS, but not listing those ingredients on the label,” Dr. Bruton said. “I do think that it is helpful for consumers to read labels, but beyond that, there’s not a lot of ways that consumers themselves can solve this problem. ... We think that the industry needs to be more proactive about moving away from this group of chemicals.”
Dr. Sunderland said a resource people can use when trying to avoid PFAS is the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization that maintains an extensive database of cosmetics and personal care products.
“At this point, there is very little regulatory activity related to PFAS in cosmetics,” Dr. Sunderland said. “The best thing to happen now would be for consumers to indicate that they prefer products without PFAS and to demand better transparency in product ingredient lists.”
A similar study done in 2018 by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found high levels of PFAS in nearly one-third of the cosmetics products it tested.
People can also be exposed to PFAS by eating or drinking contaminated food or water and through food packaging. Dr. Sunderland said some wild foods like seafood are known to accumulate these compounds in the environment.
“There are examples of contaminated biosolids leading to accumulation of PFAS in vegetables and milk,” Dr. Sunderland explained. “Food packaging is another concern because it can also result in PFAS accumulation in the foods we eat.”
Although it’s difficult to avoid PFAS altogether, the CDC suggests lowering exposure rates by avoiding contaminated water and food. If you’re not sure if your water is contaminated, you should ask your local or state health and environmental quality departments for fish or water advisories in your area.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
People may be absorbing and ingesting potentially toxic chemicals from their cosmetic products, a new study suggests.
– per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Many of these chemicals were not included on the product labels, making it difficult for consumers to consciously avoid them.
“This study is very helpful for elucidating the PFAS content of different types of cosmetics in the U.S. and Canadian markets,” said Elsie Sunderland, PhD, an environmental scientist who was not involved with the study.
“Previously, all the data had been collected in Europe, and this study shows we are dealing with similar problems in the North American marketplace,” said Dr. Sunderland, a professor of environmental chemistry at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.
PFAS are a class of chemicals used in a variety of consumer products, such as nonstick cookware, stain-resistant carpeting, and water-repellent clothing, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They are added to cosmetics to make the products more durable and spreadable, researchers said in the study.
“[PFAS] are added to change the properties of surfaces, to make them nonstick or resistant to stay in water or oils,” said study coauthor Tom Bruton, PhD, senior scientist at the Green Science Policy Institute in Berkeley, Calif. “The concerning thing about cosmetics is that these are products that you’re applying to your skin and face every day, so there’s the skin absorption route that’s of concern, but also incidental ingestion of cosmetics is also a concern as well.”
The CDC says some of the potential health effects of PFAS exposure includes increased cholesterol levels, increased risk of kidney and testicular cancer, changes in liver enzymes, decreased vaccine response in children, and a higher risk of high blood pressure or preeclampsia in pregnant women.
“PFAS are a large class of chemicals. In humans, exposure to some of these chemicals has been associated with impaired immune function, certain cancers, increased risks of diabetes, obesity and endocrine disruption,” Dr. Sunderland said. “They appear to be harmful to every major organ system in the human body.”
For the current study, published online in Environmental Science & Technology Letters, Dr. Bruton and colleagues purchased 231 cosmetic products in the United States and Canada from retailers such as Ulta Beauty, Sephora, Target, and Bed Bath & Beyond. They then screened them for fluorine.Three-quarters of waterproof mascara samples contained high fluorine concentrations, as did nearly two-thirds of foundations and liquid lipsticks, and more than half of the eye and lip products tested.
The authors found that different categories of makeup tended to have higher or lower fluorine concentrations. “High fluorine levels were found in products commonly advertised as ‘wear-resistant’ to water and oils or ‘long-lasting,’ including foundations, liquid lipsticks, and waterproof mascaras,” Dr. Bruton and colleagues wrote.
When they further analyzed a subset of 29 products to determine what types of chemicals were present, they found that each cosmetic product contained at least 4 PFAS, with one product containing 13.The PFAS substances found included some that break down into other chemicals that are known to be highly toxic and environmentally harmful.
“It’s concerning that some of the products we tested appear to be intentionally using PFAS, but not listing those ingredients on the label,” Dr. Bruton said. “I do think that it is helpful for consumers to read labels, but beyond that, there’s not a lot of ways that consumers themselves can solve this problem. ... We think that the industry needs to be more proactive about moving away from this group of chemicals.”
Dr. Sunderland said a resource people can use when trying to avoid PFAS is the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization that maintains an extensive database of cosmetics and personal care products.
“At this point, there is very little regulatory activity related to PFAS in cosmetics,” Dr. Sunderland said. “The best thing to happen now would be for consumers to indicate that they prefer products without PFAS and to demand better transparency in product ingredient lists.”
A similar study done in 2018 by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found high levels of PFAS in nearly one-third of the cosmetics products it tested.
People can also be exposed to PFAS by eating or drinking contaminated food or water and through food packaging. Dr. Sunderland said some wild foods like seafood are known to accumulate these compounds in the environment.
“There are examples of contaminated biosolids leading to accumulation of PFAS in vegetables and milk,” Dr. Sunderland explained. “Food packaging is another concern because it can also result in PFAS accumulation in the foods we eat.”
Although it’s difficult to avoid PFAS altogether, the CDC suggests lowering exposure rates by avoiding contaminated water and food. If you’re not sure if your water is contaminated, you should ask your local or state health and environmental quality departments for fish or water advisories in your area.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
People may be absorbing and ingesting potentially toxic chemicals from their cosmetic products, a new study suggests.
– per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. Many of these chemicals were not included on the product labels, making it difficult for consumers to consciously avoid them.
“This study is very helpful for elucidating the PFAS content of different types of cosmetics in the U.S. and Canadian markets,” said Elsie Sunderland, PhD, an environmental scientist who was not involved with the study.
“Previously, all the data had been collected in Europe, and this study shows we are dealing with similar problems in the North American marketplace,” said Dr. Sunderland, a professor of environmental chemistry at the Harvard School of Public Health, Boston.
PFAS are a class of chemicals used in a variety of consumer products, such as nonstick cookware, stain-resistant carpeting, and water-repellent clothing, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They are added to cosmetics to make the products more durable and spreadable, researchers said in the study.
“[PFAS] are added to change the properties of surfaces, to make them nonstick or resistant to stay in water or oils,” said study coauthor Tom Bruton, PhD, senior scientist at the Green Science Policy Institute in Berkeley, Calif. “The concerning thing about cosmetics is that these are products that you’re applying to your skin and face every day, so there’s the skin absorption route that’s of concern, but also incidental ingestion of cosmetics is also a concern as well.”
The CDC says some of the potential health effects of PFAS exposure includes increased cholesterol levels, increased risk of kidney and testicular cancer, changes in liver enzymes, decreased vaccine response in children, and a higher risk of high blood pressure or preeclampsia in pregnant women.
“PFAS are a large class of chemicals. In humans, exposure to some of these chemicals has been associated with impaired immune function, certain cancers, increased risks of diabetes, obesity and endocrine disruption,” Dr. Sunderland said. “They appear to be harmful to every major organ system in the human body.”
For the current study, published online in Environmental Science & Technology Letters, Dr. Bruton and colleagues purchased 231 cosmetic products in the United States and Canada from retailers such as Ulta Beauty, Sephora, Target, and Bed Bath & Beyond. They then screened them for fluorine.Three-quarters of waterproof mascara samples contained high fluorine concentrations, as did nearly two-thirds of foundations and liquid lipsticks, and more than half of the eye and lip products tested.
The authors found that different categories of makeup tended to have higher or lower fluorine concentrations. “High fluorine levels were found in products commonly advertised as ‘wear-resistant’ to water and oils or ‘long-lasting,’ including foundations, liquid lipsticks, and waterproof mascaras,” Dr. Bruton and colleagues wrote.
When they further analyzed a subset of 29 products to determine what types of chemicals were present, they found that each cosmetic product contained at least 4 PFAS, with one product containing 13.The PFAS substances found included some that break down into other chemicals that are known to be highly toxic and environmentally harmful.
“It’s concerning that some of the products we tested appear to be intentionally using PFAS, but not listing those ingredients on the label,” Dr. Bruton said. “I do think that it is helpful for consumers to read labels, but beyond that, there’s not a lot of ways that consumers themselves can solve this problem. ... We think that the industry needs to be more proactive about moving away from this group of chemicals.”
Dr. Sunderland said a resource people can use when trying to avoid PFAS is the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization that maintains an extensive database of cosmetics and personal care products.
“At this point, there is very little regulatory activity related to PFAS in cosmetics,” Dr. Sunderland said. “The best thing to happen now would be for consumers to indicate that they prefer products without PFAS and to demand better transparency in product ingredient lists.”
A similar study done in 2018 by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency found high levels of PFAS in nearly one-third of the cosmetics products it tested.
People can also be exposed to PFAS by eating or drinking contaminated food or water and through food packaging. Dr. Sunderland said some wild foods like seafood are known to accumulate these compounds in the environment.
“There are examples of contaminated biosolids leading to accumulation of PFAS in vegetables and milk,” Dr. Sunderland explained. “Food packaging is another concern because it can also result in PFAS accumulation in the foods we eat.”
Although it’s difficult to avoid PFAS altogether, the CDC suggests lowering exposure rates by avoiding contaminated water and food. If you’re not sure if your water is contaminated, you should ask your local or state health and environmental quality departments for fish or water advisories in your area.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Photobiomodulation: Evaluation in a wide range of medical specialties underway
according to Juanita J. Anders, PhD.
During the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, Dr. Anders, professor of anatomy, physiology, and genetics at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., defined photobiomodulation (PBM) as the mechanism by which nonionizing optical radiation in the visible and near-infrared spectral range is absorbed by endogenous chromophores to elicit photophysical and photochemical events at various biological scales. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) involves the use of light sources including lasers, LEDs, and broadband light, that emit visible and/or near-infrared light to cause physiological changes in cells and tissues and result in therapeutic benefits.
In dermatology, LED light therapy devices are commonly used for PBMT in wavelengths that range from blue (415 nm) and red (633 nm) to near infrared (830 nm). “Often, when PBMT is referred to by dermatologists it’s called LED therapy or LED light therapy,” Dr. Anders noted. “Some people are under the impression that this is different from PBMT. But remember: It’s not the device that’s producing the photons that is clinically relevant, but it’s the photons themselves. In both cases, the same radiances and fluence ranges are being used and the mechanisms are the same, so it’s all PBMT.”
The therapy is used to treat a wide variety of medical and aesthetic disorders including acne vulgaris, psoriasis, burns, and wound healing. It has also been used in conjunction with surgical aesthetic and resurfacing procedures and has been reported to reduce erythema, edema, bruising, and days to healing. It’s been shown that PBMT stimulates fibroblast proliferation, collagen synthesis, and extracellular matrix resulting in lifting and tightening lax skin.
According to Dr. Anders, French dermatologists Linda Fouque, MD, and Michele Pelletier, MD, performed a series of in vivo and in vitro studies in which they tested the effects of yellow and red light for skin rejuvenation when used individually or in combination. “They found that fibroblasts and keratinocytes in vitro had great improvement in their morphology both with the yellow and red light, but the best improvement was seen with combination therapy,” Dr. Anders said. “This held true in their work looking at epidermal and dermal markers in the skin, where they found the best up-regulation in protein synthesis of such markers as collagens and fibronectin were produced when a combination wavelength light was used.”
Oral mucositis and pain
PBMT is also being used to treat oral mucositis (OM), a common adverse response to chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, which causes pain, difficulty in swallowing and eating, and oral ulceration, and often interrupts the course of treatments. Authors of a recently published review on the risks and benefits of PBMT concluded that there is consistent evidence from a small number of high-quality studies that PBMT can help prevent the development of cancer therapy–induced OM, reduce pain intensity, as well as promote healing, and enhance patient quality of life.
“They also cautioned that, due to the limited long-term follow-up of patients, there is still concern for the potential long-term risks of PBMT in cancer cell mutation and amplification,” Dr. Anders said. “They advised that PBMT should be used carefully when the irradiation beam is in the direction of the tumor zone.”
Using PBMT for modulation of pain is another area of active research. Based on work from the laboratory of Dr. Anders and others, there are two methods to modulate pain. The first is to target tissue at irradiances below 100 mW/cm2.
“In my laboratory, based on in vivo preclinical animal models of neuropathic pain, we used a 980-nm wavelength laser at 43.25 mW/cm2 transcutaneously delivered to the level of the nerve for 20 seconds,” said Dr. Anders, who is a past president of the ASLMS. “Essentially, we found that the pain was modulated by reducing sensitivity to mechanical stimulation and also by causing an anti-inflammatory shift in microglial and macrophage phenotype in the dorsal root ganglion and spinal cord of affected segments.”
The second way to modulate pain, she continued, is to target tissue at irradiances above 250 mW/cm2. She and her colleagues have conducted in vitro and in vivo studies, which indicate that treatment with an irradiance/fluence rate at 270 mW/cm2 or higher at the nerve can rapidly block pain transmission.
“In vitro, we found that if we used an 810-nm wavelength light at 300 mW/cm2, we got a disruption of microtubules in the DRG neurons in culture, specifically the small neurons, the nociceptive fibers, but we did not affect the proprioceptive fibers unless we increased the length of the treatment,” she said. “We essentially found the same thing in vivo in a rodent model of neuropathic pain.”
In a pilot study, Dr. Anders and coauthors examined the efficacy of laser irradiation of the dorsal root ganglion of the second lumbar spinal nerve for patients with chronic back pain.
They found that PBMT effectively reduced back pain equal to the effects of lidocaine.
Based on these two irradiation approaches of targeting tissue, Dr. Anders recommends that a combination therapy be used to modulate neuropathic pain going forward. “This approach would involve the initial use of a high-irradiance treatment [at least 250 mW/cm2] at the nerve to block the pain transmission,” she said. “That treatment would be followed by a series of low-irradiance treatments [10-100 mW/cm2] along the course of the involved nerve to alter chronic pathology and inflammation.”
Potential applications in neurology
Dr. Anders also discussed research efforts under way involving transcranial PBMT: the delivery of near-infrared light through the tissues of the scalp and skull to targeted brain regions to treat neurologic injuries and disorders. “There have been some exciting results in preclinical animal work and in small clinical pilot work that show that there could be possible beneficial effects in Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and improvement in cognition and memory after a brain injury, such as a TBI,” she said.
“Initially, though, there were a lot of questions about whether you could really deliver light to the brain through the scalp. In my laboratory, we used slices of nonfixed brain and found that the sulci within the human brain act as light-wave guides. We used an 808-nm near-infrared wavelength of light, so that the light could penetrate more deeply.” Using nonfixed cadaver heads, where the light was applied at the scalp surface, Dr. Anders and colleagues were able to measure photons down to the depth of 4 cm. “It’s generally agreed now, though, that it’s to a maximum depth of 2.5-3 cm that enough photons are delivered that would cause a beneficial therapeutic effect,” she said.
Dr. Anders disclosed that she has received equipment from LiteCure, grant funding from the Department of Defense, and that she holds advisory board roles with LiteCure and Neurothera. She has also served in leadership roles for the Optical Society and holds intellectual property rights for the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine.
according to Juanita J. Anders, PhD.
During the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, Dr. Anders, professor of anatomy, physiology, and genetics at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., defined photobiomodulation (PBM) as the mechanism by which nonionizing optical radiation in the visible and near-infrared spectral range is absorbed by endogenous chromophores to elicit photophysical and photochemical events at various biological scales. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) involves the use of light sources including lasers, LEDs, and broadband light, that emit visible and/or near-infrared light to cause physiological changes in cells and tissues and result in therapeutic benefits.
In dermatology, LED light therapy devices are commonly used for PBMT in wavelengths that range from blue (415 nm) and red (633 nm) to near infrared (830 nm). “Often, when PBMT is referred to by dermatologists it’s called LED therapy or LED light therapy,” Dr. Anders noted. “Some people are under the impression that this is different from PBMT. But remember: It’s not the device that’s producing the photons that is clinically relevant, but it’s the photons themselves. In both cases, the same radiances and fluence ranges are being used and the mechanisms are the same, so it’s all PBMT.”
The therapy is used to treat a wide variety of medical and aesthetic disorders including acne vulgaris, psoriasis, burns, and wound healing. It has also been used in conjunction with surgical aesthetic and resurfacing procedures and has been reported to reduce erythema, edema, bruising, and days to healing. It’s been shown that PBMT stimulates fibroblast proliferation, collagen synthesis, and extracellular matrix resulting in lifting and tightening lax skin.
According to Dr. Anders, French dermatologists Linda Fouque, MD, and Michele Pelletier, MD, performed a series of in vivo and in vitro studies in which they tested the effects of yellow and red light for skin rejuvenation when used individually or in combination. “They found that fibroblasts and keratinocytes in vitro had great improvement in their morphology both with the yellow and red light, but the best improvement was seen with combination therapy,” Dr. Anders said. “This held true in their work looking at epidermal and dermal markers in the skin, where they found the best up-regulation in protein synthesis of such markers as collagens and fibronectin were produced when a combination wavelength light was used.”
Oral mucositis and pain
PBMT is also being used to treat oral mucositis (OM), a common adverse response to chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, which causes pain, difficulty in swallowing and eating, and oral ulceration, and often interrupts the course of treatments. Authors of a recently published review on the risks and benefits of PBMT concluded that there is consistent evidence from a small number of high-quality studies that PBMT can help prevent the development of cancer therapy–induced OM, reduce pain intensity, as well as promote healing, and enhance patient quality of life.
“They also cautioned that, due to the limited long-term follow-up of patients, there is still concern for the potential long-term risks of PBMT in cancer cell mutation and amplification,” Dr. Anders said. “They advised that PBMT should be used carefully when the irradiation beam is in the direction of the tumor zone.”
Using PBMT for modulation of pain is another area of active research. Based on work from the laboratory of Dr. Anders and others, there are two methods to modulate pain. The first is to target tissue at irradiances below 100 mW/cm2.
“In my laboratory, based on in vivo preclinical animal models of neuropathic pain, we used a 980-nm wavelength laser at 43.25 mW/cm2 transcutaneously delivered to the level of the nerve for 20 seconds,” said Dr. Anders, who is a past president of the ASLMS. “Essentially, we found that the pain was modulated by reducing sensitivity to mechanical stimulation and also by causing an anti-inflammatory shift in microglial and macrophage phenotype in the dorsal root ganglion and spinal cord of affected segments.”
The second way to modulate pain, she continued, is to target tissue at irradiances above 250 mW/cm2. She and her colleagues have conducted in vitro and in vivo studies, which indicate that treatment with an irradiance/fluence rate at 270 mW/cm2 or higher at the nerve can rapidly block pain transmission.
“In vitro, we found that if we used an 810-nm wavelength light at 300 mW/cm2, we got a disruption of microtubules in the DRG neurons in culture, specifically the small neurons, the nociceptive fibers, but we did not affect the proprioceptive fibers unless we increased the length of the treatment,” she said. “We essentially found the same thing in vivo in a rodent model of neuropathic pain.”
In a pilot study, Dr. Anders and coauthors examined the efficacy of laser irradiation of the dorsal root ganglion of the second lumbar spinal nerve for patients with chronic back pain.
They found that PBMT effectively reduced back pain equal to the effects of lidocaine.
Based on these two irradiation approaches of targeting tissue, Dr. Anders recommends that a combination therapy be used to modulate neuropathic pain going forward. “This approach would involve the initial use of a high-irradiance treatment [at least 250 mW/cm2] at the nerve to block the pain transmission,” she said. “That treatment would be followed by a series of low-irradiance treatments [10-100 mW/cm2] along the course of the involved nerve to alter chronic pathology and inflammation.”
Potential applications in neurology
Dr. Anders also discussed research efforts under way involving transcranial PBMT: the delivery of near-infrared light through the tissues of the scalp and skull to targeted brain regions to treat neurologic injuries and disorders. “There have been some exciting results in preclinical animal work and in small clinical pilot work that show that there could be possible beneficial effects in Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and improvement in cognition and memory after a brain injury, such as a TBI,” she said.
“Initially, though, there were a lot of questions about whether you could really deliver light to the brain through the scalp. In my laboratory, we used slices of nonfixed brain and found that the sulci within the human brain act as light-wave guides. We used an 808-nm near-infrared wavelength of light, so that the light could penetrate more deeply.” Using nonfixed cadaver heads, where the light was applied at the scalp surface, Dr. Anders and colleagues were able to measure photons down to the depth of 4 cm. “It’s generally agreed now, though, that it’s to a maximum depth of 2.5-3 cm that enough photons are delivered that would cause a beneficial therapeutic effect,” she said.
Dr. Anders disclosed that she has received equipment from LiteCure, grant funding from the Department of Defense, and that she holds advisory board roles with LiteCure and Neurothera. She has also served in leadership roles for the Optical Society and holds intellectual property rights for the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine.
according to Juanita J. Anders, PhD.
During the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, Dr. Anders, professor of anatomy, physiology, and genetics at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Md., defined photobiomodulation (PBM) as the mechanism by which nonionizing optical radiation in the visible and near-infrared spectral range is absorbed by endogenous chromophores to elicit photophysical and photochemical events at various biological scales. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) involves the use of light sources including lasers, LEDs, and broadband light, that emit visible and/or near-infrared light to cause physiological changes in cells and tissues and result in therapeutic benefits.
In dermatology, LED light therapy devices are commonly used for PBMT in wavelengths that range from blue (415 nm) and red (633 nm) to near infrared (830 nm). “Often, when PBMT is referred to by dermatologists it’s called LED therapy or LED light therapy,” Dr. Anders noted. “Some people are under the impression that this is different from PBMT. But remember: It’s not the device that’s producing the photons that is clinically relevant, but it’s the photons themselves. In both cases, the same radiances and fluence ranges are being used and the mechanisms are the same, so it’s all PBMT.”
The therapy is used to treat a wide variety of medical and aesthetic disorders including acne vulgaris, psoriasis, burns, and wound healing. It has also been used in conjunction with surgical aesthetic and resurfacing procedures and has been reported to reduce erythema, edema, bruising, and days to healing. It’s been shown that PBMT stimulates fibroblast proliferation, collagen synthesis, and extracellular matrix resulting in lifting and tightening lax skin.
According to Dr. Anders, French dermatologists Linda Fouque, MD, and Michele Pelletier, MD, performed a series of in vivo and in vitro studies in which they tested the effects of yellow and red light for skin rejuvenation when used individually or in combination. “They found that fibroblasts and keratinocytes in vitro had great improvement in their morphology both with the yellow and red light, but the best improvement was seen with combination therapy,” Dr. Anders said. “This held true in their work looking at epidermal and dermal markers in the skin, where they found the best up-regulation in protein synthesis of such markers as collagens and fibronectin were produced when a combination wavelength light was used.”
Oral mucositis and pain
PBMT is also being used to treat oral mucositis (OM), a common adverse response to chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, which causes pain, difficulty in swallowing and eating, and oral ulceration, and often interrupts the course of treatments. Authors of a recently published review on the risks and benefits of PBMT concluded that there is consistent evidence from a small number of high-quality studies that PBMT can help prevent the development of cancer therapy–induced OM, reduce pain intensity, as well as promote healing, and enhance patient quality of life.
“They also cautioned that, due to the limited long-term follow-up of patients, there is still concern for the potential long-term risks of PBMT in cancer cell mutation and amplification,” Dr. Anders said. “They advised that PBMT should be used carefully when the irradiation beam is in the direction of the tumor zone.”
Using PBMT for modulation of pain is another area of active research. Based on work from the laboratory of Dr. Anders and others, there are two methods to modulate pain. The first is to target tissue at irradiances below 100 mW/cm2.
“In my laboratory, based on in vivo preclinical animal models of neuropathic pain, we used a 980-nm wavelength laser at 43.25 mW/cm2 transcutaneously delivered to the level of the nerve for 20 seconds,” said Dr. Anders, who is a past president of the ASLMS. “Essentially, we found that the pain was modulated by reducing sensitivity to mechanical stimulation and also by causing an anti-inflammatory shift in microglial and macrophage phenotype in the dorsal root ganglion and spinal cord of affected segments.”
The second way to modulate pain, she continued, is to target tissue at irradiances above 250 mW/cm2. She and her colleagues have conducted in vitro and in vivo studies, which indicate that treatment with an irradiance/fluence rate at 270 mW/cm2 or higher at the nerve can rapidly block pain transmission.
“In vitro, we found that if we used an 810-nm wavelength light at 300 mW/cm2, we got a disruption of microtubules in the DRG neurons in culture, specifically the small neurons, the nociceptive fibers, but we did not affect the proprioceptive fibers unless we increased the length of the treatment,” she said. “We essentially found the same thing in vivo in a rodent model of neuropathic pain.”
In a pilot study, Dr. Anders and coauthors examined the efficacy of laser irradiation of the dorsal root ganglion of the second lumbar spinal nerve for patients with chronic back pain.
They found that PBMT effectively reduced back pain equal to the effects of lidocaine.
Based on these two irradiation approaches of targeting tissue, Dr. Anders recommends that a combination therapy be used to modulate neuropathic pain going forward. “This approach would involve the initial use of a high-irradiance treatment [at least 250 mW/cm2] at the nerve to block the pain transmission,” she said. “That treatment would be followed by a series of low-irradiance treatments [10-100 mW/cm2] along the course of the involved nerve to alter chronic pathology and inflammation.”
Potential applications in neurology
Dr. Anders also discussed research efforts under way involving transcranial PBMT: the delivery of near-infrared light through the tissues of the scalp and skull to targeted brain regions to treat neurologic injuries and disorders. “There have been some exciting results in preclinical animal work and in small clinical pilot work that show that there could be possible beneficial effects in Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, depression, and improvement in cognition and memory after a brain injury, such as a TBI,” she said.
“Initially, though, there were a lot of questions about whether you could really deliver light to the brain through the scalp. In my laboratory, we used slices of nonfixed brain and found that the sulci within the human brain act as light-wave guides. We used an 808-nm near-infrared wavelength of light, so that the light could penetrate more deeply.” Using nonfixed cadaver heads, where the light was applied at the scalp surface, Dr. Anders and colleagues were able to measure photons down to the depth of 4 cm. “It’s generally agreed now, though, that it’s to a maximum depth of 2.5-3 cm that enough photons are delivered that would cause a beneficial therapeutic effect,” she said.
Dr. Anders disclosed that she has received equipment from LiteCure, grant funding from the Department of Defense, and that she holds advisory board roles with LiteCure and Neurothera. She has also served in leadership roles for the Optical Society and holds intellectual property rights for the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine.
FROM ASLMS 2021
Expert offers 10 ‘tips and tricks’ for everyday cosmetic practice
, based on nearly 10 years of experience treating patients on both coasts of the United States.
They are as follows:
1. Know your clinical endpoints. “One of the things that was drilled into me during my fellowship in lasers and cosmetics at Mass General was to know your clinical endpoints and to avoid a cookbook approach,” said Dr. Jalian, who practices dermatology in Los Angeles. “You should treat based on the pathology that you’re seeing on the skin and let the endpoints be your guide. The skin will tell you what you’re doing right, and the skin will tell you what you’re doing wrong. Picking up on these cues will allow you to deliver a safe and effective treatment to your patients.”
The selection of proper treatment parameters is driven by selective photothermolysis, a microsurgery technique that uses customized wavelengths, pulse durations, and fluences to target a chromophore. “Knowing the size and shape of your target allows you to pick the right pulse duration,” he said. “This is dictated by thermal relaxation time, which is proportional to the size and shape of the target. Smaller targets require a shorter pulse width, while larger targets require a longer pulse width.”
2. Do not perform a procedure for which you cannot recognize and treat the side effects. “I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten referrals from outside providers with a side effect that, if it had been recognized and treated, would have been inconsequential long-term for the patient,” Dr. Jalian said. “You can only avoid complications by not firing the laser. The more you practice, the more complications you’re going to have. This is inevitable, but good practice and common sense can reduce complications significantly.”
Even the most skilled clinicians encounter side effects from time to time. “The most important thing is to form a network of physicians you trust that you can call or text when you need help in managing a particular complication,” he continued. “This happens to all of us,” he said. Don’t be afraid to phone a colleague, he advised, “and get a fresh set of eyes because oftentimes they can provide insights, especially when you’re having tunnel vision during a complication, that can ultimately result in better patient care.”
3. Don’t forget your clinical training. “Trust your clinical judgment,” Dr. Jalian said. “If something doesn’t seem right, even if it was a case referred to you by experienced practitioners, you are a clinician first and foremost, and you are allowed to make a clinical judgment on lesions.” He referred to a 2011 report in which the authors described a series of four cases where patients presented for cosmetic evaluation of vascular lesions that turned out to be more significant pathologic disease. “Trust your clinical insight because this will serve you in the long term,” he said.
4. Set realistic expectations. Patients with unrealistically high expectations are likely to express dissatisfaction with their treatment results, “no matter how good of a job you do,” Dr. Jalian said. “In addition to safely treating the patient, we strive for patient satisfaction, because with these elective procedures we’re trying to give a patient a result they’re looking for. But our No. 1 job is also to be realistic about the results we can obtain. If someone comes in wanting treatment with a skin-tightening device but clearly needs a face-lift because they have too much laxity, your job is to tell them that this is not the appropriate device for them. Learn the art of saying no. If handled correctly, the patient will often thank you before she heads out the door. Ultimately, honesty is the best policy. I may say something like, ‘I’m not telling you the answer you want to hear, I’m telling you the truth.’ That often goes over well.”
5. Use proper anesthesia. Patients come to you for results, but they’re also likely to remember how well you controlled their pain during procedures. Strategies favored by Dr. Jalian include applying extra topical anesthetic to “hot spots” and splitting up treatment sessions when tackling a large area. “Consider using adjunctive analgesics such as oral medications and nitrous oxide,” he added. Other options, he said, are cooling techniques and distraction techniques, such as the use of a stress ball, consideration of the gate control theory of pain, and “talkesthesia”(using conversation to distract the patient).
6. Obtain proper informed consent. A lack of informed consent ranks as a common reason why doctors get sued. “This happens when a physician fails to inform the patient of all medically reasonable alternatives and their risks, even for noninvasive procedures prior to administering treatment,” Dr. Jalian said. “All patients have the right to an informed consent prior to any treatment. It doesn’t necessarily have to be in a written form, but it’s important to at least have a discussion and document it for all procedures, including medical and cosmetic procedures and oral and topical treatments. Keep it simple. A written consent is ineffective if the patient does not understand material about the procedure.” Avoid the use of excessive medical terms. For example, use bruising instead of purpura, redness instead of erythema, and drooping instead of ptosis.
7. Lower the laser treatment density for darker skin types. According to Dr. Jalian, several clinical studies have demonstrated that lower densities are associated with less postinflammatory hyperpigmentation in Asian and Black patients, without sacrificing clinical outcomes. “Density determines how ‘aggressive’ a treatment is,” he said. “The greater the density, the more downtime is required.”
8. Have a vascular occlusion emergency kit on hand. At a minimum, the kit should contain at least 1,500 units of hyaluronidase, aspirin, timolol/acetazolamide, a Snellen chart, steroids, and an EpiPen.
9. Use standardized photography. Even the slightest change in lighting can manipulate your results. According to Dr. Jalian, standardized photos enable you to monitor patient progress, minimize liability, and can serve as a marketing tool “so that you can capitalize on your talent.”
10. Consider combination treatments. He combines lasers based on target and depth. For example, prior to resurfacing he often performs a pass or two with a color laser such as intense pulsed light. “Depending on what’s being done, we’ll do soft-tissue augmentation before or after treatment with certain lasers,” Dr. Jalian added. “If you’re performing a toxin treatment on the same day as a laser procedure, do not treat the lower face or neck. Do the laser procedure first and limit that to the upper third of the face.”
He reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
, based on nearly 10 years of experience treating patients on both coasts of the United States.
They are as follows:
1. Know your clinical endpoints. “One of the things that was drilled into me during my fellowship in lasers and cosmetics at Mass General was to know your clinical endpoints and to avoid a cookbook approach,” said Dr. Jalian, who practices dermatology in Los Angeles. “You should treat based on the pathology that you’re seeing on the skin and let the endpoints be your guide. The skin will tell you what you’re doing right, and the skin will tell you what you’re doing wrong. Picking up on these cues will allow you to deliver a safe and effective treatment to your patients.”
The selection of proper treatment parameters is driven by selective photothermolysis, a microsurgery technique that uses customized wavelengths, pulse durations, and fluences to target a chromophore. “Knowing the size and shape of your target allows you to pick the right pulse duration,” he said. “This is dictated by thermal relaxation time, which is proportional to the size and shape of the target. Smaller targets require a shorter pulse width, while larger targets require a longer pulse width.”
2. Do not perform a procedure for which you cannot recognize and treat the side effects. “I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten referrals from outside providers with a side effect that, if it had been recognized and treated, would have been inconsequential long-term for the patient,” Dr. Jalian said. “You can only avoid complications by not firing the laser. The more you practice, the more complications you’re going to have. This is inevitable, but good practice and common sense can reduce complications significantly.”
Even the most skilled clinicians encounter side effects from time to time. “The most important thing is to form a network of physicians you trust that you can call or text when you need help in managing a particular complication,” he continued. “This happens to all of us,” he said. Don’t be afraid to phone a colleague, he advised, “and get a fresh set of eyes because oftentimes they can provide insights, especially when you’re having tunnel vision during a complication, that can ultimately result in better patient care.”
3. Don’t forget your clinical training. “Trust your clinical judgment,” Dr. Jalian said. “If something doesn’t seem right, even if it was a case referred to you by experienced practitioners, you are a clinician first and foremost, and you are allowed to make a clinical judgment on lesions.” He referred to a 2011 report in which the authors described a series of four cases where patients presented for cosmetic evaluation of vascular lesions that turned out to be more significant pathologic disease. “Trust your clinical insight because this will serve you in the long term,” he said.
4. Set realistic expectations. Patients with unrealistically high expectations are likely to express dissatisfaction with their treatment results, “no matter how good of a job you do,” Dr. Jalian said. “In addition to safely treating the patient, we strive for patient satisfaction, because with these elective procedures we’re trying to give a patient a result they’re looking for. But our No. 1 job is also to be realistic about the results we can obtain. If someone comes in wanting treatment with a skin-tightening device but clearly needs a face-lift because they have too much laxity, your job is to tell them that this is not the appropriate device for them. Learn the art of saying no. If handled correctly, the patient will often thank you before she heads out the door. Ultimately, honesty is the best policy. I may say something like, ‘I’m not telling you the answer you want to hear, I’m telling you the truth.’ That often goes over well.”
5. Use proper anesthesia. Patients come to you for results, but they’re also likely to remember how well you controlled their pain during procedures. Strategies favored by Dr. Jalian include applying extra topical anesthetic to “hot spots” and splitting up treatment sessions when tackling a large area. “Consider using adjunctive analgesics such as oral medications and nitrous oxide,” he added. Other options, he said, are cooling techniques and distraction techniques, such as the use of a stress ball, consideration of the gate control theory of pain, and “talkesthesia”(using conversation to distract the patient).
6. Obtain proper informed consent. A lack of informed consent ranks as a common reason why doctors get sued. “This happens when a physician fails to inform the patient of all medically reasonable alternatives and their risks, even for noninvasive procedures prior to administering treatment,” Dr. Jalian said. “All patients have the right to an informed consent prior to any treatment. It doesn’t necessarily have to be in a written form, but it’s important to at least have a discussion and document it for all procedures, including medical and cosmetic procedures and oral and topical treatments. Keep it simple. A written consent is ineffective if the patient does not understand material about the procedure.” Avoid the use of excessive medical terms. For example, use bruising instead of purpura, redness instead of erythema, and drooping instead of ptosis.
7. Lower the laser treatment density for darker skin types. According to Dr. Jalian, several clinical studies have demonstrated that lower densities are associated with less postinflammatory hyperpigmentation in Asian and Black patients, without sacrificing clinical outcomes. “Density determines how ‘aggressive’ a treatment is,” he said. “The greater the density, the more downtime is required.”
8. Have a vascular occlusion emergency kit on hand. At a minimum, the kit should contain at least 1,500 units of hyaluronidase, aspirin, timolol/acetazolamide, a Snellen chart, steroids, and an EpiPen.
9. Use standardized photography. Even the slightest change in lighting can manipulate your results. According to Dr. Jalian, standardized photos enable you to monitor patient progress, minimize liability, and can serve as a marketing tool “so that you can capitalize on your talent.”
10. Consider combination treatments. He combines lasers based on target and depth. For example, prior to resurfacing he often performs a pass or two with a color laser such as intense pulsed light. “Depending on what’s being done, we’ll do soft-tissue augmentation before or after treatment with certain lasers,” Dr. Jalian added. “If you’re performing a toxin treatment on the same day as a laser procedure, do not treat the lower face or neck. Do the laser procedure first and limit that to the upper third of the face.”
He reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
, based on nearly 10 years of experience treating patients on both coasts of the United States.
They are as follows:
1. Know your clinical endpoints. “One of the things that was drilled into me during my fellowship in lasers and cosmetics at Mass General was to know your clinical endpoints and to avoid a cookbook approach,” said Dr. Jalian, who practices dermatology in Los Angeles. “You should treat based on the pathology that you’re seeing on the skin and let the endpoints be your guide. The skin will tell you what you’re doing right, and the skin will tell you what you’re doing wrong. Picking up on these cues will allow you to deliver a safe and effective treatment to your patients.”
The selection of proper treatment parameters is driven by selective photothermolysis, a microsurgery technique that uses customized wavelengths, pulse durations, and fluences to target a chromophore. “Knowing the size and shape of your target allows you to pick the right pulse duration,” he said. “This is dictated by thermal relaxation time, which is proportional to the size and shape of the target. Smaller targets require a shorter pulse width, while larger targets require a longer pulse width.”
2. Do not perform a procedure for which you cannot recognize and treat the side effects. “I can’t tell you how many times I’ve gotten referrals from outside providers with a side effect that, if it had been recognized and treated, would have been inconsequential long-term for the patient,” Dr. Jalian said. “You can only avoid complications by not firing the laser. The more you practice, the more complications you’re going to have. This is inevitable, but good practice and common sense can reduce complications significantly.”
Even the most skilled clinicians encounter side effects from time to time. “The most important thing is to form a network of physicians you trust that you can call or text when you need help in managing a particular complication,” he continued. “This happens to all of us,” he said. Don’t be afraid to phone a colleague, he advised, “and get a fresh set of eyes because oftentimes they can provide insights, especially when you’re having tunnel vision during a complication, that can ultimately result in better patient care.”
3. Don’t forget your clinical training. “Trust your clinical judgment,” Dr. Jalian said. “If something doesn’t seem right, even if it was a case referred to you by experienced practitioners, you are a clinician first and foremost, and you are allowed to make a clinical judgment on lesions.” He referred to a 2011 report in which the authors described a series of four cases where patients presented for cosmetic evaluation of vascular lesions that turned out to be more significant pathologic disease. “Trust your clinical insight because this will serve you in the long term,” he said.
4. Set realistic expectations. Patients with unrealistically high expectations are likely to express dissatisfaction with their treatment results, “no matter how good of a job you do,” Dr. Jalian said. “In addition to safely treating the patient, we strive for patient satisfaction, because with these elective procedures we’re trying to give a patient a result they’re looking for. But our No. 1 job is also to be realistic about the results we can obtain. If someone comes in wanting treatment with a skin-tightening device but clearly needs a face-lift because they have too much laxity, your job is to tell them that this is not the appropriate device for them. Learn the art of saying no. If handled correctly, the patient will often thank you before she heads out the door. Ultimately, honesty is the best policy. I may say something like, ‘I’m not telling you the answer you want to hear, I’m telling you the truth.’ That often goes over well.”
5. Use proper anesthesia. Patients come to you for results, but they’re also likely to remember how well you controlled their pain during procedures. Strategies favored by Dr. Jalian include applying extra topical anesthetic to “hot spots” and splitting up treatment sessions when tackling a large area. “Consider using adjunctive analgesics such as oral medications and nitrous oxide,” he added. Other options, he said, are cooling techniques and distraction techniques, such as the use of a stress ball, consideration of the gate control theory of pain, and “talkesthesia”(using conversation to distract the patient).
6. Obtain proper informed consent. A lack of informed consent ranks as a common reason why doctors get sued. “This happens when a physician fails to inform the patient of all medically reasonable alternatives and their risks, even for noninvasive procedures prior to administering treatment,” Dr. Jalian said. “All patients have the right to an informed consent prior to any treatment. It doesn’t necessarily have to be in a written form, but it’s important to at least have a discussion and document it for all procedures, including medical and cosmetic procedures and oral and topical treatments. Keep it simple. A written consent is ineffective if the patient does not understand material about the procedure.” Avoid the use of excessive medical terms. For example, use bruising instead of purpura, redness instead of erythema, and drooping instead of ptosis.
7. Lower the laser treatment density for darker skin types. According to Dr. Jalian, several clinical studies have demonstrated that lower densities are associated with less postinflammatory hyperpigmentation in Asian and Black patients, without sacrificing clinical outcomes. “Density determines how ‘aggressive’ a treatment is,” he said. “The greater the density, the more downtime is required.”
8. Have a vascular occlusion emergency kit on hand. At a minimum, the kit should contain at least 1,500 units of hyaluronidase, aspirin, timolol/acetazolamide, a Snellen chart, steroids, and an EpiPen.
9. Use standardized photography. Even the slightest change in lighting can manipulate your results. According to Dr. Jalian, standardized photos enable you to monitor patient progress, minimize liability, and can serve as a marketing tool “so that you can capitalize on your talent.”
10. Consider combination treatments. He combines lasers based on target and depth. For example, prior to resurfacing he often performs a pass or two with a color laser such as intense pulsed light. “Depending on what’s being done, we’ll do soft-tissue augmentation before or after treatment with certain lasers,” Dr. Jalian added. “If you’re performing a toxin treatment on the same day as a laser procedure, do not treat the lower face or neck. Do the laser procedure first and limit that to the upper third of the face.”
He reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM ASLMS 2021
Expert shares her tips for an effective cosmetic consultation
The way Kelly Stankiewicz, MD, sees it,
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve walked into a room and thought the patient would say they’re concerned about one thing, but they’re concerned about something totally different,” Dr. Stankiewicz, a dermatologist in private practice in Park City, Utah, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “The first question I ask is, ‘What would you like to improve?’ ‘What’s bothering you?’ ‘What would you like to make look better?’ Frequently, it’s not what you think.”
Next, she tries to get a sense of their lifestyle by asking patients about their occupation, hobbies, and outdoor activities they may engage in. “Here in Park City, it’s very sunny most all the time, so treatments need to be tailored to when those outdoor activities are being done, or perhaps they can be avoided for a period of time,” she said. “This gives you an idea of what kind of downtime people will tolerate. I also like to hear about their history of cosmetic procedures. If someone has had a lot of cosmetic procedures done, you can talk with them on a more detailed level. If someone is completely unaware of treatment options, you have to keep it simple.”
Dr. Stankiewicz also reviews their personal history of cosmetic procedures when considering safety of treatment. “For instance, if somebody has had a neck lift, you want to be very cautious doing any ablative procedures along the jawline,” she said. “I also like to know if anyone has had any reactions to dermal fillers or neuromodulators that they did not like. It’s very helpful to hear from patients what’s worked for them and what hasn’t. I also like to keep my ear open for pricing concerns. Not everyone will bring up the pricing issues, but sometimes they will, and it’s an important piece of information. Lastly, it’s important to look for any warning signs like irrational behavior or unrealistic expectations. These are patients you want to try to avoid treating.”
She shared four other key components to an effective cosmetic consultation, including the examination itself, which she prefers to separate from the discussion portion of the visit. “I lean the patient back in the exam chair and shine the light on their skin, which is important for evaluating for conditions you may not have discussed that could be easily improved,” Dr. Stankiewicz said.
“If the patient is concerned about pigmented lesions, I’ll pull out my dermatoscope to make sure there isn’t any concern for skin cancer. After the examination, I’ll sit the patient up again so that there is a very distinct start and finish to the examination portion of my cosmetic consultation.”
Surgery vs. noninvasive treatments
Step three in her consultative process is to review treatment options with patients. “I never hold back if surgery is their best treatment option,” she said. “I don’t perform surgery, but I have a list of people I can refer them to.”
Once she addresses the potential for surgery, she reviews noninvasive treatment options, including topical products, injectables, lasers, and chemical peels. “Everyone who comes in for a cosmetic consultation leaves with some sort of topical recommendation, even if it’s as simple as a sunscreen I think they would like or a prescription for generic tretinoin,” she said. “I always present options in a framework starting with those that require lower downtime, higher number of treatment options, and lower cost. Then I move up the scale to tell them more about treatments that require higher downtime, a lower number of treatments, but have a higher cost.”
Step four in her consultative process involves discussing her final treatment recommendations. She’ll say something like, “I’ve been through all these options with you and my final recommendation is X,” and the patient walks away with a clear understanding of the recommendations, she said. “When I leave the room after giving my final recommendation, I’ll write everything down outside of the room, or I’ll have a member of my staff write down everything I’ve said outside the room.”
Finally, she and her staff record all the relevant information for the patient as a customized handout, including the treatment options discussed, how many will be required, whether they have to come in early for numbing cream or not, and the per treatment price tag. “Once we’ve written down everything we’ve discussed, I’ll circle or I’ll star my recommended treatment,” Dr. Stankiewicz said. They also have a handout for topical products, and she checks off the topical products that she discussed with the patient. The third handout she provides to patients is a recommended skin care regimen.
Dr. Stankiewicz reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
The way Kelly Stankiewicz, MD, sees it,
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve walked into a room and thought the patient would say they’re concerned about one thing, but they’re concerned about something totally different,” Dr. Stankiewicz, a dermatologist in private practice in Park City, Utah, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “The first question I ask is, ‘What would you like to improve?’ ‘What’s bothering you?’ ‘What would you like to make look better?’ Frequently, it’s not what you think.”
Next, she tries to get a sense of their lifestyle by asking patients about their occupation, hobbies, and outdoor activities they may engage in. “Here in Park City, it’s very sunny most all the time, so treatments need to be tailored to when those outdoor activities are being done, or perhaps they can be avoided for a period of time,” she said. “This gives you an idea of what kind of downtime people will tolerate. I also like to hear about their history of cosmetic procedures. If someone has had a lot of cosmetic procedures done, you can talk with them on a more detailed level. If someone is completely unaware of treatment options, you have to keep it simple.”
Dr. Stankiewicz also reviews their personal history of cosmetic procedures when considering safety of treatment. “For instance, if somebody has had a neck lift, you want to be very cautious doing any ablative procedures along the jawline,” she said. “I also like to know if anyone has had any reactions to dermal fillers or neuromodulators that they did not like. It’s very helpful to hear from patients what’s worked for them and what hasn’t. I also like to keep my ear open for pricing concerns. Not everyone will bring up the pricing issues, but sometimes they will, and it’s an important piece of information. Lastly, it’s important to look for any warning signs like irrational behavior or unrealistic expectations. These are patients you want to try to avoid treating.”
She shared four other key components to an effective cosmetic consultation, including the examination itself, which she prefers to separate from the discussion portion of the visit. “I lean the patient back in the exam chair and shine the light on their skin, which is important for evaluating for conditions you may not have discussed that could be easily improved,” Dr. Stankiewicz said.
“If the patient is concerned about pigmented lesions, I’ll pull out my dermatoscope to make sure there isn’t any concern for skin cancer. After the examination, I’ll sit the patient up again so that there is a very distinct start and finish to the examination portion of my cosmetic consultation.”
Surgery vs. noninvasive treatments
Step three in her consultative process is to review treatment options with patients. “I never hold back if surgery is their best treatment option,” she said. “I don’t perform surgery, but I have a list of people I can refer them to.”
Once she addresses the potential for surgery, she reviews noninvasive treatment options, including topical products, injectables, lasers, and chemical peels. “Everyone who comes in for a cosmetic consultation leaves with some sort of topical recommendation, even if it’s as simple as a sunscreen I think they would like or a prescription for generic tretinoin,” she said. “I always present options in a framework starting with those that require lower downtime, higher number of treatment options, and lower cost. Then I move up the scale to tell them more about treatments that require higher downtime, a lower number of treatments, but have a higher cost.”
Step four in her consultative process involves discussing her final treatment recommendations. She’ll say something like, “I’ve been through all these options with you and my final recommendation is X,” and the patient walks away with a clear understanding of the recommendations, she said. “When I leave the room after giving my final recommendation, I’ll write everything down outside of the room, or I’ll have a member of my staff write down everything I’ve said outside the room.”
Finally, she and her staff record all the relevant information for the patient as a customized handout, including the treatment options discussed, how many will be required, whether they have to come in early for numbing cream or not, and the per treatment price tag. “Once we’ve written down everything we’ve discussed, I’ll circle or I’ll star my recommended treatment,” Dr. Stankiewicz said. They also have a handout for topical products, and she checks off the topical products that she discussed with the patient. The third handout she provides to patients is a recommended skin care regimen.
Dr. Stankiewicz reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
The way Kelly Stankiewicz, MD, sees it,
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve walked into a room and thought the patient would say they’re concerned about one thing, but they’re concerned about something totally different,” Dr. Stankiewicz, a dermatologist in private practice in Park City, Utah, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “The first question I ask is, ‘What would you like to improve?’ ‘What’s bothering you?’ ‘What would you like to make look better?’ Frequently, it’s not what you think.”
Next, she tries to get a sense of their lifestyle by asking patients about their occupation, hobbies, and outdoor activities they may engage in. “Here in Park City, it’s very sunny most all the time, so treatments need to be tailored to when those outdoor activities are being done, or perhaps they can be avoided for a period of time,” she said. “This gives you an idea of what kind of downtime people will tolerate. I also like to hear about their history of cosmetic procedures. If someone has had a lot of cosmetic procedures done, you can talk with them on a more detailed level. If someone is completely unaware of treatment options, you have to keep it simple.”
Dr. Stankiewicz also reviews their personal history of cosmetic procedures when considering safety of treatment. “For instance, if somebody has had a neck lift, you want to be very cautious doing any ablative procedures along the jawline,” she said. “I also like to know if anyone has had any reactions to dermal fillers or neuromodulators that they did not like. It’s very helpful to hear from patients what’s worked for them and what hasn’t. I also like to keep my ear open for pricing concerns. Not everyone will bring up the pricing issues, but sometimes they will, and it’s an important piece of information. Lastly, it’s important to look for any warning signs like irrational behavior or unrealistic expectations. These are patients you want to try to avoid treating.”
She shared four other key components to an effective cosmetic consultation, including the examination itself, which she prefers to separate from the discussion portion of the visit. “I lean the patient back in the exam chair and shine the light on their skin, which is important for evaluating for conditions you may not have discussed that could be easily improved,” Dr. Stankiewicz said.
“If the patient is concerned about pigmented lesions, I’ll pull out my dermatoscope to make sure there isn’t any concern for skin cancer. After the examination, I’ll sit the patient up again so that there is a very distinct start and finish to the examination portion of my cosmetic consultation.”
Surgery vs. noninvasive treatments
Step three in her consultative process is to review treatment options with patients. “I never hold back if surgery is their best treatment option,” she said. “I don’t perform surgery, but I have a list of people I can refer them to.”
Once she addresses the potential for surgery, she reviews noninvasive treatment options, including topical products, injectables, lasers, and chemical peels. “Everyone who comes in for a cosmetic consultation leaves with some sort of topical recommendation, even if it’s as simple as a sunscreen I think they would like or a prescription for generic tretinoin,” she said. “I always present options in a framework starting with those that require lower downtime, higher number of treatment options, and lower cost. Then I move up the scale to tell them more about treatments that require higher downtime, a lower number of treatments, but have a higher cost.”
Step four in her consultative process involves discussing her final treatment recommendations. She’ll say something like, “I’ve been through all these options with you and my final recommendation is X,” and the patient walks away with a clear understanding of the recommendations, she said. “When I leave the room after giving my final recommendation, I’ll write everything down outside of the room, or I’ll have a member of my staff write down everything I’ve said outside the room.”
Finally, she and her staff record all the relevant information for the patient as a customized handout, including the treatment options discussed, how many will be required, whether they have to come in early for numbing cream or not, and the per treatment price tag. “Once we’ve written down everything we’ve discussed, I’ll circle or I’ll star my recommended treatment,” Dr. Stankiewicz said. They also have a handout for topical products, and she checks off the topical products that she discussed with the patient. The third handout she provides to patients is a recommended skin care regimen.
Dr. Stankiewicz reported having no relevant financial disclosures.
FROM ASLMS 2021
Pilot study: Hybrid laser found effective for treating genitourinary syndrome of menopause
, results from a pilot trial showed.
“The genitourinary syndrome of menopause causes suffering in breast cancer survivors and postmenopausal women,” Jill S. Waibel, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. A common side effect for breast cancer survivors is early onset of menopause that is brought on by treatment, specifically aromatase-inhibitor therapies, she noted.
The symptoms of GSM include discomfort during sex, impaired sexual function, burning or sensation or irritation of the genital area, vaginal constriction, frequent urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, and vaginal laxity, said Dr. Waibel, owner and medical director of the Miami Dermatology and Laser Institute. Nonhormonal treatments have included OTC vaginal lubricants, OTC moisturizers, low-dose vaginal estrogen – which increases the risk of breast cancer – and systemic estrogen therapy, which also can increase the risk of breast and endometrial cancer. “So, we need a healthy, nondrug option,” she said.
The objective of the pilot study was to determine the safety and efficacy of the diVa hybrid fractional laser as a treatment for symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause, early menopause after breast cancer, or vaginal atrophy. The laser applies tunable nonablative (1,470-nm) and ablative (2,940-nm) wavelengths to the same microscopic treatment zone to maximize results and reduce downtime. The device features a motorized precision guidance system and calibrated rotation for homogeneous pulsing.
“The 2,940-nm wavelength is used to ablate to a depth of 0-800 micrometers while the 1,470-nm wavelength is used to coagulate the epithelium and the lamina propria at a depth of 100-700 micrometers,” said Dr. Waibel, who is also subsection chief of dermatology at Baptist Hospital of Miami. “This combination is used for epithelial tissue to heal quickly and the lamina propria to remodel slowly over time, laying down more collagen in tissue.” Each procedure is delivered via a single-use dilator, which expands the vaginal canal for increased treatment area. “The tip length is 5.5 cm and the diameter is 1 cm,” she said. “The clear tip acts as a hygienic barrier between the tip and the handpiece.”
Study participants included 25 women between the ages of 40 and 70 with early menopause after breast cancer or vaginal atrophy: 20 in the treatment arm and 5 in the sham-treatment arm. Dr. Waibel performed three procedures 2 weeks apart. An ob.gyn. assessed the primary endpoints, which included the Vaginal Health Index Scale (VHIS), the Vaginal Maturation Index (VMI), the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire, and the Day-to-Day Impact of Vaginal Aging (DIVA) questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were histology and a satisfaction questionnaire.
Of the women in the treated group, there were data available for 19 at 3 months follow-up and 17 at 6 months follow-up. Based on the results in these patients, there were statistically significant improvements in nearly all domains of the FSFI treatment arm at 3 and 6 months when compared to baseline, especially arousal (P values of .05 at 3 months and .01 at 6 months) and lubrication (P values of .009 at three months and .001 at 6 months).
Between 3 and 6 months, patients in the treatment arm experienced improvements in four dimensions of the DIVA questionnaire: daily activities (P value of .01 at 3 months to .010 at 6 months), emotional well-being (P value of .06 at 3 months to .014 at 6 months), sexual function (P value of .30 at 3 months to .003 at 6 months), and self-concept/body image (P value of .002 at 3 months to .001 at 6 months).
As for satisfaction, a majority of those in the treatment arm were “somewhat satisfied” with the treatment and would “somewhat likely” repeat and recommend the treatment to friends and family, Dr. Waibel said. Results among the women in the control arm, who were also surveyed, were in the similar range, she noted. (No other results for women in the control arm were available.)
Following treatments, histology revealed that the collagen was denser, fibroblasts were more dense, and vascularity was more notable. No adverse events were observed. “The hybrid fractional laser is safe and effective for treating GSM, early menopause after breast cancer, or vaginal atrophy,” Dr. Waibel concluded. Further studies are important to improve the understanding of “laser dosimetry, frequency of treatments, and longevity of effect. Collaboration between ob.gyns. and dermatologists is important as we learn about laser therapy in GSM.”
Dr. Waibel disclosed that she is a member of the advisory board of Sciton, which manufactures the diVa laser. She has also conducted clinical trials for many other device and pharmaceutical companies.
, results from a pilot trial showed.
“The genitourinary syndrome of menopause causes suffering in breast cancer survivors and postmenopausal women,” Jill S. Waibel, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. A common side effect for breast cancer survivors is early onset of menopause that is brought on by treatment, specifically aromatase-inhibitor therapies, she noted.
The symptoms of GSM include discomfort during sex, impaired sexual function, burning or sensation or irritation of the genital area, vaginal constriction, frequent urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, and vaginal laxity, said Dr. Waibel, owner and medical director of the Miami Dermatology and Laser Institute. Nonhormonal treatments have included OTC vaginal lubricants, OTC moisturizers, low-dose vaginal estrogen – which increases the risk of breast cancer – and systemic estrogen therapy, which also can increase the risk of breast and endometrial cancer. “So, we need a healthy, nondrug option,” she said.
The objective of the pilot study was to determine the safety and efficacy of the diVa hybrid fractional laser as a treatment for symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause, early menopause after breast cancer, or vaginal atrophy. The laser applies tunable nonablative (1,470-nm) and ablative (2,940-nm) wavelengths to the same microscopic treatment zone to maximize results and reduce downtime. The device features a motorized precision guidance system and calibrated rotation for homogeneous pulsing.
“The 2,940-nm wavelength is used to ablate to a depth of 0-800 micrometers while the 1,470-nm wavelength is used to coagulate the epithelium and the lamina propria at a depth of 100-700 micrometers,” said Dr. Waibel, who is also subsection chief of dermatology at Baptist Hospital of Miami. “This combination is used for epithelial tissue to heal quickly and the lamina propria to remodel slowly over time, laying down more collagen in tissue.” Each procedure is delivered via a single-use dilator, which expands the vaginal canal for increased treatment area. “The tip length is 5.5 cm and the diameter is 1 cm,” she said. “The clear tip acts as a hygienic barrier between the tip and the handpiece.”
Study participants included 25 women between the ages of 40 and 70 with early menopause after breast cancer or vaginal atrophy: 20 in the treatment arm and 5 in the sham-treatment arm. Dr. Waibel performed three procedures 2 weeks apart. An ob.gyn. assessed the primary endpoints, which included the Vaginal Health Index Scale (VHIS), the Vaginal Maturation Index (VMI), the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire, and the Day-to-Day Impact of Vaginal Aging (DIVA) questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were histology and a satisfaction questionnaire.
Of the women in the treated group, there were data available for 19 at 3 months follow-up and 17 at 6 months follow-up. Based on the results in these patients, there were statistically significant improvements in nearly all domains of the FSFI treatment arm at 3 and 6 months when compared to baseline, especially arousal (P values of .05 at 3 months and .01 at 6 months) and lubrication (P values of .009 at three months and .001 at 6 months).
Between 3 and 6 months, patients in the treatment arm experienced improvements in four dimensions of the DIVA questionnaire: daily activities (P value of .01 at 3 months to .010 at 6 months), emotional well-being (P value of .06 at 3 months to .014 at 6 months), sexual function (P value of .30 at 3 months to .003 at 6 months), and self-concept/body image (P value of .002 at 3 months to .001 at 6 months).
As for satisfaction, a majority of those in the treatment arm were “somewhat satisfied” with the treatment and would “somewhat likely” repeat and recommend the treatment to friends and family, Dr. Waibel said. Results among the women in the control arm, who were also surveyed, were in the similar range, she noted. (No other results for women in the control arm were available.)
Following treatments, histology revealed that the collagen was denser, fibroblasts were more dense, and vascularity was more notable. No adverse events were observed. “The hybrid fractional laser is safe and effective for treating GSM, early menopause after breast cancer, or vaginal atrophy,” Dr. Waibel concluded. Further studies are important to improve the understanding of “laser dosimetry, frequency of treatments, and longevity of effect. Collaboration between ob.gyns. and dermatologists is important as we learn about laser therapy in GSM.”
Dr. Waibel disclosed that she is a member of the advisory board of Sciton, which manufactures the diVa laser. She has also conducted clinical trials for many other device and pharmaceutical companies.
, results from a pilot trial showed.
“The genitourinary syndrome of menopause causes suffering in breast cancer survivors and postmenopausal women,” Jill S. Waibel, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. A common side effect for breast cancer survivors is early onset of menopause that is brought on by treatment, specifically aromatase-inhibitor therapies, she noted.
The symptoms of GSM include discomfort during sex, impaired sexual function, burning or sensation or irritation of the genital area, vaginal constriction, frequent urinary tract infections, urinary incontinence, and vaginal laxity, said Dr. Waibel, owner and medical director of the Miami Dermatology and Laser Institute. Nonhormonal treatments have included OTC vaginal lubricants, OTC moisturizers, low-dose vaginal estrogen – which increases the risk of breast cancer – and systemic estrogen therapy, which also can increase the risk of breast and endometrial cancer. “So, we need a healthy, nondrug option,” she said.
The objective of the pilot study was to determine the safety and efficacy of the diVa hybrid fractional laser as a treatment for symptoms of genitourinary syndrome of menopause, early menopause after breast cancer, or vaginal atrophy. The laser applies tunable nonablative (1,470-nm) and ablative (2,940-nm) wavelengths to the same microscopic treatment zone to maximize results and reduce downtime. The device features a motorized precision guidance system and calibrated rotation for homogeneous pulsing.
“The 2,940-nm wavelength is used to ablate to a depth of 0-800 micrometers while the 1,470-nm wavelength is used to coagulate the epithelium and the lamina propria at a depth of 100-700 micrometers,” said Dr. Waibel, who is also subsection chief of dermatology at Baptist Hospital of Miami. “This combination is used for epithelial tissue to heal quickly and the lamina propria to remodel slowly over time, laying down more collagen in tissue.” Each procedure is delivered via a single-use dilator, which expands the vaginal canal for increased treatment area. “The tip length is 5.5 cm and the diameter is 1 cm,” she said. “The clear tip acts as a hygienic barrier between the tip and the handpiece.”
Study participants included 25 women between the ages of 40 and 70 with early menopause after breast cancer or vaginal atrophy: 20 in the treatment arm and 5 in the sham-treatment arm. Dr. Waibel performed three procedures 2 weeks apart. An ob.gyn. assessed the primary endpoints, which included the Vaginal Health Index Scale (VHIS), the Vaginal Maturation Index (VMI), the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) questionnaire, and the Day-to-Day Impact of Vaginal Aging (DIVA) questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were histology and a satisfaction questionnaire.
Of the women in the treated group, there were data available for 19 at 3 months follow-up and 17 at 6 months follow-up. Based on the results in these patients, there were statistically significant improvements in nearly all domains of the FSFI treatment arm at 3 and 6 months when compared to baseline, especially arousal (P values of .05 at 3 months and .01 at 6 months) and lubrication (P values of .009 at three months and .001 at 6 months).
Between 3 and 6 months, patients in the treatment arm experienced improvements in four dimensions of the DIVA questionnaire: daily activities (P value of .01 at 3 months to .010 at 6 months), emotional well-being (P value of .06 at 3 months to .014 at 6 months), sexual function (P value of .30 at 3 months to .003 at 6 months), and self-concept/body image (P value of .002 at 3 months to .001 at 6 months).
As for satisfaction, a majority of those in the treatment arm were “somewhat satisfied” with the treatment and would “somewhat likely” repeat and recommend the treatment to friends and family, Dr. Waibel said. Results among the women in the control arm, who were also surveyed, were in the similar range, she noted. (No other results for women in the control arm were available.)
Following treatments, histology revealed that the collagen was denser, fibroblasts were more dense, and vascularity was more notable. No adverse events were observed. “The hybrid fractional laser is safe and effective for treating GSM, early menopause after breast cancer, or vaginal atrophy,” Dr. Waibel concluded. Further studies are important to improve the understanding of “laser dosimetry, frequency of treatments, and longevity of effect. Collaboration between ob.gyns. and dermatologists is important as we learn about laser therapy in GSM.”
Dr. Waibel disclosed that she is a member of the advisory board of Sciton, which manufactures the diVa laser. She has also conducted clinical trials for many other device and pharmaceutical companies.
FROM ASLMS 2021
Cellular senescence, skin aging, and cosmeceuticals
I just completed the third edition of my Cosmetic Dermatology textbook (McGraw Hill), which will come out later this year. Although writing it is a huge effort, I really enjoy all the basic science. While I was working on the book, I was most surprised by the .
Right now, it is too early, and we don’t know enough yet, to have cosmeceuticals that affect cellular senescence and autophagy. But, it’s not too early to learn about this research, to avoid falling prey to any pseudoscience that invariably ends up affecting cosmeceuticals on the market. The following is a brief primer on cellular senescence, skin aging, and cosmeceuticals; it represents what we currently know.
Cell phases
Keratinocytes and fibroblasts go through five different phases: stem, proliferation, differentiation, senescence, and apoptosis. The difference between apoptotic cells and senescent cells is that apoptotic cells are not viable and are eliminated, while senescent cells, even though they have gone into cell cycle arrest, remain functional and are not eliminated from the skin.
What are senescent cells?
Senescent cells have lost the ability to proliferate but have not undergone apoptosis. Senescent human skin fibroblasts in cell culture lose the youthful spindlelike shape and become enlarged and flattened.1 Their lysosomes and mitochondria lose functionality.2 The presence of senescent cells is associated with increased aging and seems to speed aging.
Senescent cells and skin aging
Senescent cells are increased in the age-related phenotype3 because of an age-related decline of senescent cell removal systems, such as the immune system4 and the autophagy-lysosomal pathway.5 Senescent cells are deleterious because they develop into a senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP), which is believed to be one of the major causes of aging. SASP cells communicate with nearby cells using proinflammatory cytokines, which include catabolic modulators such as Matrix metalloproteinases. They are known to release growth factors, cytokines, chemokines, matrix-modeling enzymes, lipids, and extracellular vesicles. The last are lipid bilayer-lined vesicles that can transport functional RNA and microRNA and facilitate other modes of communication between cells.6
The SASP is likely a natural tumor suppressive mode employed by cells to prevent cells with cancerous mutations from undergoing replication;7 however, when it comes to aging, the deleterious effects of SASP outweigh the beneficial effects. For example, SASP contributes to a prolonged state of inflammation, known as “inflammaging,”8 which is detrimental to the skin’s appearance. Human fibroblasts that have assumed the SASP secrete proinflammatory cytokines and MMPs and release reactive oxygen species,9,10 resulting in degradation of the surrounding extracellular matrix (ECM). Loss of the ECM leads to fibroblast compaction and reduced DNA synthesis, all caused by SASPs.9
What causes cellular senescence?
Activation of the nuclear factor-erythroid 2-related transcription factor 2 (NRF2) induces cellular senescence via direct targeting of certain ECM genes. NRF2 is a key regulator of the skin’s antioxidant defense system, which controls the transcription of genes encoding reactive oxygen species–detoxifying enzymes and various other antioxidant proteins.11 Loss of mitochondrial autophagy also induces senescence, as do activation of the TP53 gene, inactivity of SIRT-1, and short telomeres.
Cellular senescence and skin aging
Timely clearance of senescent cells before they create too much damage postpones the onset and severity of age-related diseases and extends the life span of mice.12,6 Antiaging treatments should focus on decreasing the number of senescent cells and reverting senescent cells to the more juvenile forms: proliferating or differentiating cells as an approach to prevent skin aging.13 Restoration of the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis has been shown to revert SASP back to a juvenile status. Normalization of the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis is a prerequisite to reverse senescence.14
Cellular senescence, autophagy, the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis, and cosmeceuticals
Autophagy is the important process of organelles, like mitochondria,15 self-digesting their cytoplasmic material into lysosomes for degradation. Mitochondrial autophagy is very important in slowing the aging process because damaged mitochondria generate free radicals. As you can imagine, much research is focused on this area, but it is too early for any research to translate to efficacious cosmeceuticals.
Conclusion
To summarize, activation of sirtuin-1 (SIRT-1) has been shown to extend the lifespan of mammals, as does caloric restriction.16 This extension occurs because SIRT-1 decreases senescence and activates autophagy.
Although we do not yet know whether topical skincare products could affect senescence or autophagy, there are data to show that oral resveratrol16 and melatonin17 activate SIRT-1 and increase autophagy. I am closely watching this research and will let you know if there are any similar data on topical cosmeceuticals targeting senescence or autophagy. Stay tuned!
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Papadopoulou A et al. Biogerontology. 2020 Dec;21(6):695-708.
2. López-Otin C et al. Cell. 2013 June 6;153, 1194–217.
3. Yoon J E et al. Theranostics. 2018 Sep 9;8(17):4620-32.
4. Rodier F, Campisi J. J Cell Biol. 2011 Feb 21;192(4):547-56.
5. Dutta D et al. Circ Res. 2012 Apr 13;110(8):1125-38.
6. Terlecki-Zaniewicz L et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2019 Dec;139(12):2425-36.e5.
7. Campisi J et al. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007 Sep;8(9):729-40.
8. Franceschi C and Campisi J. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014 Jun;69 Suppl 1:S4-9.
9. Nelson G et al. Aging Cell. 2012 Apr;11(2):345-9.
10. Passos JF et al. PLoS Biol. 2007 May;5(5):e110.
11. Hiebert P et al. Dev Cell. 2018 Jul 16;46(2):145-61.e10.
12. Baker DJ et al. Nature. 2016 Feb 11:530(7589):184-9.
13. Mavrogonatou E et al. Matrix Biol. 2019 Jan;75-76:27-42.
14. Park JT et al. Ageing Res Rev. 2018 Nov;47:176-82.
15. Levine B and Kroemer G. Cell. 2019 Jan 10;176(1-2):11-42.
16. Morselli E et al. Cell Death Dis. 2010;1(1):e10.
17. Lee JH et al. Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 15;7(11):12075-88.
I just completed the third edition of my Cosmetic Dermatology textbook (McGraw Hill), which will come out later this year. Although writing it is a huge effort, I really enjoy all the basic science. While I was working on the book, I was most surprised by the .
Right now, it is too early, and we don’t know enough yet, to have cosmeceuticals that affect cellular senescence and autophagy. But, it’s not too early to learn about this research, to avoid falling prey to any pseudoscience that invariably ends up affecting cosmeceuticals on the market. The following is a brief primer on cellular senescence, skin aging, and cosmeceuticals; it represents what we currently know.
Cell phases
Keratinocytes and fibroblasts go through five different phases: stem, proliferation, differentiation, senescence, and apoptosis. The difference between apoptotic cells and senescent cells is that apoptotic cells are not viable and are eliminated, while senescent cells, even though they have gone into cell cycle arrest, remain functional and are not eliminated from the skin.
What are senescent cells?
Senescent cells have lost the ability to proliferate but have not undergone apoptosis. Senescent human skin fibroblasts in cell culture lose the youthful spindlelike shape and become enlarged and flattened.1 Their lysosomes and mitochondria lose functionality.2 The presence of senescent cells is associated with increased aging and seems to speed aging.
Senescent cells and skin aging
Senescent cells are increased in the age-related phenotype3 because of an age-related decline of senescent cell removal systems, such as the immune system4 and the autophagy-lysosomal pathway.5 Senescent cells are deleterious because they develop into a senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP), which is believed to be one of the major causes of aging. SASP cells communicate with nearby cells using proinflammatory cytokines, which include catabolic modulators such as Matrix metalloproteinases. They are known to release growth factors, cytokines, chemokines, matrix-modeling enzymes, lipids, and extracellular vesicles. The last are lipid bilayer-lined vesicles that can transport functional RNA and microRNA and facilitate other modes of communication between cells.6
The SASP is likely a natural tumor suppressive mode employed by cells to prevent cells with cancerous mutations from undergoing replication;7 however, when it comes to aging, the deleterious effects of SASP outweigh the beneficial effects. For example, SASP contributes to a prolonged state of inflammation, known as “inflammaging,”8 which is detrimental to the skin’s appearance. Human fibroblasts that have assumed the SASP secrete proinflammatory cytokines and MMPs and release reactive oxygen species,9,10 resulting in degradation of the surrounding extracellular matrix (ECM). Loss of the ECM leads to fibroblast compaction and reduced DNA synthesis, all caused by SASPs.9
What causes cellular senescence?
Activation of the nuclear factor-erythroid 2-related transcription factor 2 (NRF2) induces cellular senescence via direct targeting of certain ECM genes. NRF2 is a key regulator of the skin’s antioxidant defense system, which controls the transcription of genes encoding reactive oxygen species–detoxifying enzymes and various other antioxidant proteins.11 Loss of mitochondrial autophagy also induces senescence, as do activation of the TP53 gene, inactivity of SIRT-1, and short telomeres.
Cellular senescence and skin aging
Timely clearance of senescent cells before they create too much damage postpones the onset and severity of age-related diseases and extends the life span of mice.12,6 Antiaging treatments should focus on decreasing the number of senescent cells and reverting senescent cells to the more juvenile forms: proliferating or differentiating cells as an approach to prevent skin aging.13 Restoration of the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis has been shown to revert SASP back to a juvenile status. Normalization of the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis is a prerequisite to reverse senescence.14
Cellular senescence, autophagy, the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis, and cosmeceuticals
Autophagy is the important process of organelles, like mitochondria,15 self-digesting their cytoplasmic material into lysosomes for degradation. Mitochondrial autophagy is very important in slowing the aging process because damaged mitochondria generate free radicals. As you can imagine, much research is focused on this area, but it is too early for any research to translate to efficacious cosmeceuticals.
Conclusion
To summarize, activation of sirtuin-1 (SIRT-1) has been shown to extend the lifespan of mammals, as does caloric restriction.16 This extension occurs because SIRT-1 decreases senescence and activates autophagy.
Although we do not yet know whether topical skincare products could affect senescence or autophagy, there are data to show that oral resveratrol16 and melatonin17 activate SIRT-1 and increase autophagy. I am closely watching this research and will let you know if there are any similar data on topical cosmeceuticals targeting senescence or autophagy. Stay tuned!
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Papadopoulou A et al. Biogerontology. 2020 Dec;21(6):695-708.
2. López-Otin C et al. Cell. 2013 June 6;153, 1194–217.
3. Yoon J E et al. Theranostics. 2018 Sep 9;8(17):4620-32.
4. Rodier F, Campisi J. J Cell Biol. 2011 Feb 21;192(4):547-56.
5. Dutta D et al. Circ Res. 2012 Apr 13;110(8):1125-38.
6. Terlecki-Zaniewicz L et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2019 Dec;139(12):2425-36.e5.
7. Campisi J et al. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007 Sep;8(9):729-40.
8. Franceschi C and Campisi J. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014 Jun;69 Suppl 1:S4-9.
9. Nelson G et al. Aging Cell. 2012 Apr;11(2):345-9.
10. Passos JF et al. PLoS Biol. 2007 May;5(5):e110.
11. Hiebert P et al. Dev Cell. 2018 Jul 16;46(2):145-61.e10.
12. Baker DJ et al. Nature. 2016 Feb 11:530(7589):184-9.
13. Mavrogonatou E et al. Matrix Biol. 2019 Jan;75-76:27-42.
14. Park JT et al. Ageing Res Rev. 2018 Nov;47:176-82.
15. Levine B and Kroemer G. Cell. 2019 Jan 10;176(1-2):11-42.
16. Morselli E et al. Cell Death Dis. 2010;1(1):e10.
17. Lee JH et al. Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 15;7(11):12075-88.
I just completed the third edition of my Cosmetic Dermatology textbook (McGraw Hill), which will come out later this year. Although writing it is a huge effort, I really enjoy all the basic science. While I was working on the book, I was most surprised by the .
Right now, it is too early, and we don’t know enough yet, to have cosmeceuticals that affect cellular senescence and autophagy. But, it’s not too early to learn about this research, to avoid falling prey to any pseudoscience that invariably ends up affecting cosmeceuticals on the market. The following is a brief primer on cellular senescence, skin aging, and cosmeceuticals; it represents what we currently know.
Cell phases
Keratinocytes and fibroblasts go through five different phases: stem, proliferation, differentiation, senescence, and apoptosis. The difference between apoptotic cells and senescent cells is that apoptotic cells are not viable and are eliminated, while senescent cells, even though they have gone into cell cycle arrest, remain functional and are not eliminated from the skin.
What are senescent cells?
Senescent cells have lost the ability to proliferate but have not undergone apoptosis. Senescent human skin fibroblasts in cell culture lose the youthful spindlelike shape and become enlarged and flattened.1 Their lysosomes and mitochondria lose functionality.2 The presence of senescent cells is associated with increased aging and seems to speed aging.
Senescent cells and skin aging
Senescent cells are increased in the age-related phenotype3 because of an age-related decline of senescent cell removal systems, such as the immune system4 and the autophagy-lysosomal pathway.5 Senescent cells are deleterious because they develop into a senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP), which is believed to be one of the major causes of aging. SASP cells communicate with nearby cells using proinflammatory cytokines, which include catabolic modulators such as Matrix metalloproteinases. They are known to release growth factors, cytokines, chemokines, matrix-modeling enzymes, lipids, and extracellular vesicles. The last are lipid bilayer-lined vesicles that can transport functional RNA and microRNA and facilitate other modes of communication between cells.6
The SASP is likely a natural tumor suppressive mode employed by cells to prevent cells with cancerous mutations from undergoing replication;7 however, when it comes to aging, the deleterious effects of SASP outweigh the beneficial effects. For example, SASP contributes to a prolonged state of inflammation, known as “inflammaging,”8 which is detrimental to the skin’s appearance. Human fibroblasts that have assumed the SASP secrete proinflammatory cytokines and MMPs and release reactive oxygen species,9,10 resulting in degradation of the surrounding extracellular matrix (ECM). Loss of the ECM leads to fibroblast compaction and reduced DNA synthesis, all caused by SASPs.9
What causes cellular senescence?
Activation of the nuclear factor-erythroid 2-related transcription factor 2 (NRF2) induces cellular senescence via direct targeting of certain ECM genes. NRF2 is a key regulator of the skin’s antioxidant defense system, which controls the transcription of genes encoding reactive oxygen species–detoxifying enzymes and various other antioxidant proteins.11 Loss of mitochondrial autophagy also induces senescence, as do activation of the TP53 gene, inactivity of SIRT-1, and short telomeres.
Cellular senescence and skin aging
Timely clearance of senescent cells before they create too much damage postpones the onset and severity of age-related diseases and extends the life span of mice.12,6 Antiaging treatments should focus on decreasing the number of senescent cells and reverting senescent cells to the more juvenile forms: proliferating or differentiating cells as an approach to prevent skin aging.13 Restoration of the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis has been shown to revert SASP back to a juvenile status. Normalization of the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis is a prerequisite to reverse senescence.14
Cellular senescence, autophagy, the lysosomal-mitochondrial axis, and cosmeceuticals
Autophagy is the important process of organelles, like mitochondria,15 self-digesting their cytoplasmic material into lysosomes for degradation. Mitochondrial autophagy is very important in slowing the aging process because damaged mitochondria generate free radicals. As you can imagine, much research is focused on this area, but it is too early for any research to translate to efficacious cosmeceuticals.
Conclusion
To summarize, activation of sirtuin-1 (SIRT-1) has been shown to extend the lifespan of mammals, as does caloric restriction.16 This extension occurs because SIRT-1 decreases senescence and activates autophagy.
Although we do not yet know whether topical skincare products could affect senescence or autophagy, there are data to show that oral resveratrol16 and melatonin17 activate SIRT-1 and increase autophagy. I am closely watching this research and will let you know if there are any similar data on topical cosmeceuticals targeting senescence or autophagy. Stay tuned!
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Papadopoulou A et al. Biogerontology. 2020 Dec;21(6):695-708.
2. López-Otin C et al. Cell. 2013 June 6;153, 1194–217.
3. Yoon J E et al. Theranostics. 2018 Sep 9;8(17):4620-32.
4. Rodier F, Campisi J. J Cell Biol. 2011 Feb 21;192(4):547-56.
5. Dutta D et al. Circ Res. 2012 Apr 13;110(8):1125-38.
6. Terlecki-Zaniewicz L et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2019 Dec;139(12):2425-36.e5.
7. Campisi J et al. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2007 Sep;8(9):729-40.
8. Franceschi C and Campisi J. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2014 Jun;69 Suppl 1:S4-9.
9. Nelson G et al. Aging Cell. 2012 Apr;11(2):345-9.
10. Passos JF et al. PLoS Biol. 2007 May;5(5):e110.
11. Hiebert P et al. Dev Cell. 2018 Jul 16;46(2):145-61.e10.
12. Baker DJ et al. Nature. 2016 Feb 11:530(7589):184-9.
13. Mavrogonatou E et al. Matrix Biol. 2019 Jan;75-76:27-42.
14. Park JT et al. Ageing Res Rev. 2018 Nov;47:176-82.
15. Levine B and Kroemer G. Cell. 2019 Jan 10;176(1-2):11-42.
16. Morselli E et al. Cell Death Dis. 2010;1(1):e10.
17. Lee JH et al. Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 15;7(11):12075-88.
One year after a single RAP treatment, patients give the results high marks
One year after a single treatment of cellulite with the Rapid Acoustic Pulse (RAP) device, 42 out of 43 patients said that they felt good about the results, an interim analysis from a multicenter study showed.
“I think this speaks to the duration of improvement” associated with this treatment, lead study author Elizabeth L. Tanzi, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.
The study is an extension of a prospective pivotal clinical trial that Dr. Tanzi first presented during late-breaking abstract session at the 2020 virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. For the trial, she and her colleagues at four sites evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the RAP device in 62 women who were treated with a single, rapid acoustic pulse treatment comprised of 1-2 minutes on each identified dimple or large ridge of cellulite. In February 2021, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the device for the short-term improvement in the appearance of cellulite.
“The high peak pressure and fast repetition rate of this device will exploit the viscoelastic tissue compared to other acoustic wave devices that are on the market,” said Dr. Tanzi, associate clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “Those compressed pulses from electronic filtering and reflector shape eliminate cavitation, heat, and pain. So, what we see physically is fiber septa disruption, as well as other nonthermal physical effects.”
She and her colleagues used a specific photography and fixed lighting setup to record the treated areas at baseline, 12 weeks, and 52 weeks, and administered a patient satisfaction questionnaire at 12 and 52 weeks. Prior to treatment, the investigators marked the dimples and ridges intended for treatment. After placing a hydrogel dressing, it took 45-60 minutes to treat both buttocks and thighs with the RAP device. “It was completely noninvasive,” said Dr. Tanzi, who practices in Chevy Chase, Md. “There was no anesthesia used: no incisions and no needles.”
Among 57 patients who were evaluated at 12 weeks, the pain score on a scale of 0-10 was 2.4, while 61.5% strongly agreed and 35.9% agreed that their cellulite appeared improved. In addition, three blinded assessors were able to correctly identify the treated thigh 96% of the time and physician-graded Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale assessments showed 90% improvement of cellulite.
Follow-up analysis
For the current subject satisfaction analysis, the investigators evaluated results from 43 patients in the trial who were followed for at least 52 weeks (a mean of 60 weeks). Of the 43 patients, 30 (69.8%) strongly agreed and 13 (30.2%) agreed that their cellulite “appears improved.” In addition, 29 (67.4%) strongly agreed, 13 (30.2%) agreed, and 1 (2.3%) disagreed with the statement “I feel there is good improvement” of their cellulite.
“Currently, we are evaluating the blinded assessors’ view of these patients and not just going with [findings from] the patient satisfaction survey, but I think these are encouraging results,” Dr. Tanzi said. “We found that 42 out of 43 patients said, ‘yes; I feel that there was good improvement of the area at 52 weeks.’ ”
Dr. Tanzi disclosed that she is a member of the speakers bureau for Eucerin. She is a member of the advisory board for Allergan, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Pulse Biosciences, Sciton, and Soliton. Soliton markets the RAP device.
One year after a single treatment of cellulite with the Rapid Acoustic Pulse (RAP) device, 42 out of 43 patients said that they felt good about the results, an interim analysis from a multicenter study showed.
“I think this speaks to the duration of improvement” associated with this treatment, lead study author Elizabeth L. Tanzi, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.
The study is an extension of a prospective pivotal clinical trial that Dr. Tanzi first presented during late-breaking abstract session at the 2020 virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. For the trial, she and her colleagues at four sites evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the RAP device in 62 women who were treated with a single, rapid acoustic pulse treatment comprised of 1-2 minutes on each identified dimple or large ridge of cellulite. In February 2021, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the device for the short-term improvement in the appearance of cellulite.
“The high peak pressure and fast repetition rate of this device will exploit the viscoelastic tissue compared to other acoustic wave devices that are on the market,” said Dr. Tanzi, associate clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “Those compressed pulses from electronic filtering and reflector shape eliminate cavitation, heat, and pain. So, what we see physically is fiber septa disruption, as well as other nonthermal physical effects.”
She and her colleagues used a specific photography and fixed lighting setup to record the treated areas at baseline, 12 weeks, and 52 weeks, and administered a patient satisfaction questionnaire at 12 and 52 weeks. Prior to treatment, the investigators marked the dimples and ridges intended for treatment. After placing a hydrogel dressing, it took 45-60 minutes to treat both buttocks and thighs with the RAP device. “It was completely noninvasive,” said Dr. Tanzi, who practices in Chevy Chase, Md. “There was no anesthesia used: no incisions and no needles.”
Among 57 patients who were evaluated at 12 weeks, the pain score on a scale of 0-10 was 2.4, while 61.5% strongly agreed and 35.9% agreed that their cellulite appeared improved. In addition, three blinded assessors were able to correctly identify the treated thigh 96% of the time and physician-graded Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale assessments showed 90% improvement of cellulite.
Follow-up analysis
For the current subject satisfaction analysis, the investigators evaluated results from 43 patients in the trial who were followed for at least 52 weeks (a mean of 60 weeks). Of the 43 patients, 30 (69.8%) strongly agreed and 13 (30.2%) agreed that their cellulite “appears improved.” In addition, 29 (67.4%) strongly agreed, 13 (30.2%) agreed, and 1 (2.3%) disagreed with the statement “I feel there is good improvement” of their cellulite.
“Currently, we are evaluating the blinded assessors’ view of these patients and not just going with [findings from] the patient satisfaction survey, but I think these are encouraging results,” Dr. Tanzi said. “We found that 42 out of 43 patients said, ‘yes; I feel that there was good improvement of the area at 52 weeks.’ ”
Dr. Tanzi disclosed that she is a member of the speakers bureau for Eucerin. She is a member of the advisory board for Allergan, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Pulse Biosciences, Sciton, and Soliton. Soliton markets the RAP device.
One year after a single treatment of cellulite with the Rapid Acoustic Pulse (RAP) device, 42 out of 43 patients said that they felt good about the results, an interim analysis from a multicenter study showed.
“I think this speaks to the duration of improvement” associated with this treatment, lead study author Elizabeth L. Tanzi, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.
The study is an extension of a prospective pivotal clinical trial that Dr. Tanzi first presented during late-breaking abstract session at the 2020 virtual annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. For the trial, she and her colleagues at four sites evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the RAP device in 62 women who were treated with a single, rapid acoustic pulse treatment comprised of 1-2 minutes on each identified dimple or large ridge of cellulite. In February 2021, the Food and Drug Administration cleared the device for the short-term improvement in the appearance of cellulite.
“The high peak pressure and fast repetition rate of this device will exploit the viscoelastic tissue compared to other acoustic wave devices that are on the market,” said Dr. Tanzi, associate clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “Those compressed pulses from electronic filtering and reflector shape eliminate cavitation, heat, and pain. So, what we see physically is fiber septa disruption, as well as other nonthermal physical effects.”
She and her colleagues used a specific photography and fixed lighting setup to record the treated areas at baseline, 12 weeks, and 52 weeks, and administered a patient satisfaction questionnaire at 12 and 52 weeks. Prior to treatment, the investigators marked the dimples and ridges intended for treatment. After placing a hydrogel dressing, it took 45-60 minutes to treat both buttocks and thighs with the RAP device. “It was completely noninvasive,” said Dr. Tanzi, who practices in Chevy Chase, Md. “There was no anesthesia used: no incisions and no needles.”
Among 57 patients who were evaluated at 12 weeks, the pain score on a scale of 0-10 was 2.4, while 61.5% strongly agreed and 35.9% agreed that their cellulite appeared improved. In addition, three blinded assessors were able to correctly identify the treated thigh 96% of the time and physician-graded Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale assessments showed 90% improvement of cellulite.
Follow-up analysis
For the current subject satisfaction analysis, the investigators evaluated results from 43 patients in the trial who were followed for at least 52 weeks (a mean of 60 weeks). Of the 43 patients, 30 (69.8%) strongly agreed and 13 (30.2%) agreed that their cellulite “appears improved.” In addition, 29 (67.4%) strongly agreed, 13 (30.2%) agreed, and 1 (2.3%) disagreed with the statement “I feel there is good improvement” of their cellulite.
“Currently, we are evaluating the blinded assessors’ view of these patients and not just going with [findings from] the patient satisfaction survey, but I think these are encouraging results,” Dr. Tanzi said. “We found that 42 out of 43 patients said, ‘yes; I feel that there was good improvement of the area at 52 weeks.’ ”
Dr. Tanzi disclosed that she is a member of the speakers bureau for Eucerin. She is a member of the advisory board for Allergan, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Pulse Biosciences, Sciton, and Soliton. Soliton markets the RAP device.
FROM ASLMS 2021
COVID-19 Vaccine Reactions in Dermatology: “Filling” in the Gaps
As we marked the 1-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 100 million Americans had received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, heralding some sense of relief and enabling us to envision a return to something resembling life before lockdown.1 Amid these breakthroughs and vaccination campaigns forging ahead worldwide, we saw new questions and problems arise. Vaccine hesitancy was already an issue in many segments of society where misinformation and mistrust of the medical establishment have served as barriers to the progress of public health. Once reports of adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination—such as those linked to use of facial fillers—made news headlines, many in the dermatology community began facing inquiries from patients questioning if they should wait to receive the vaccine or skip it entirely. As dermatologists, we must be informed and prepared to address these situations, to manage adverse reactions when they arise, and to encourage and promote vaccination during this critical time for public health in our society.
Cutaneous Vaccine Reactions and Facial Fillers
As public COVID-19 vaccinations move forward, dermatologic side effects, which were first noted during clinical trials, have received amplified attention, despite the fact that these cutaneous reactions—including localized injection-site redness and swelling, generalized urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and even facial filler reactions—have been reported as relatively minor and self-limited.2 The excipient polyethylene glycol has been suspected as a possible etiology of vaccine-related allergic and hypersensitivity reactions, suggesting care be taken in those who are patch-test positive or have a history of allergy to polyethylene glycol–containing products (eg, penicillin, laxatives, makeup, certain dermal fillers).2,3 Although rare, facial and lip swelling reactions in those with a prior history of facial fillers in COVID-19 vaccine trials have drawn particular public concern and potential vaccine hesitancy given that more than 2.7 million Americans seek treatment with dermal fillers annually. There has been continued demand for these treatments during the pandemic, particularly due to aesthetic sensitivity surrounding video conferencing.4
Release of trial data from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine prompted a discourse around safety and recommended protocols for filler procedures in the community of aesthetic medicine, as 3 participants in the experimental arm—all of whom had a history of treatment with facial filler injections—were reported to have facial or lip swelling shortly following vaccination. Two of these cases were considered to be serious adverse events due to extensive facial swelling, with the participants having received filler injections 6 months and 2 weeks prior to vaccination, respectively.5 A third participant experienced lip swelling only, which according to the US Food and Drug Administration briefing document was considered “medically significant” but not a serious adverse event, with unknown timing of the most recent filler injection. In all cases, symptom onset began 1 or 2 days following vaccination, and all resolved with either no or minimal intervention.6 The US Food and Drug Administration briefing document does not detail which type of fillers each participant had received, but subsequent reports indicated hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. Of note, one patient in the placebo arm of the trial also developed progressive periorbital and facial edema in the setting of known filler injections performed 5 weeks prior, requiring treatment with corticosteroids and barring her from receiving a second injection in the trial.7
After public vaccination started, additional reports have emerged of facial edema occurring following administration of both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.2,8,9 In one series, 4 cases of facial swelling were reported in patients who had HA filler placed more than 1 year prior to vaccination.9 The first patient, who had a history of HA fillers in the temples and cheeks, developed moderate periorbital swelling 2 days following her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Another patient who had received a series of filler injections over the last 3 years experienced facial swelling 24 hours after her second dose of the Moderna vaccine and also reported a similar reaction in the past following an upper respiratory tract infection. The third patient developed perioral and infraorbital edema 18 hours after her first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The fourth patient developed inflammation in filler-treated areas 10 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and notably had a history of filler reaction to an unknown trigger in 2019 that was treated with hyaluronidase, intralesional steroids, and 5-fluorouracil. All cases of facial edema reportedly resolved.9
The observed adverse events have been proposed as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTRs) to facial fillers and are suspected to be triggered by the COVID-19 spike protein and subsequent immunogenic response. This reaction is not unique to the COVID-19 vaccines; in fact, many inflammatory stimuli such as sinus infections, flulike illnesses, facial injury, dental procedures, and exposure to certain medications and chemotherapeutics have triggered DTRs in filler patients, especially in those with genetic or immunologic risk factors including certain human leukocyte antigen subtypes or autoimmune disorders.3
Counseling Patients and Reducing Risks
As reports of DTRs to facial fillers after COVID-19 vaccination continue to emerge, it is not surprising that patients may become confused by potential side effects and postpone vaccination as a result. This evolving situation has called upon aesthetic physicians to adapt our practice and prepare our patients. Most importantly, we must continue to follow the data and integrate evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine–related counseling into our office visits. It is paramount to encourage vaccination and inform patients that these rare adverse events are both temporary and treatable. Given the currently available data, patients with a history of treatment with dermal fillers should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine; however, we may provide suggestions to lessen the likelihood of adverse reactions and ease patient concerns. For example, it may be helpful to consider a time frame between vaccination and filler procedures that is longer than 2 weeks, just as would be advised for those having dental procedures or with recent infections, and potentially longer windows for those with risk factors such as prior sensitivity to dermal fillers, autoimmune disorders, or those on immunomodulatory medications. Dilution of fillers with saline or lidocaine or use of non-HA fillers also may be suggested around the time of vaccination to mitigate the risk of DTRs.3
Managing Vaccine Reactions
If facial swelling does occur despite these precautions and lasts longer than 48 hours, treatment with antihistamines, steroids, and/or hyaluronidase has been successful in vaccine trial and posttrial patients, both alone or in combination, and are likely to resolve edema promptly without altering the effectiveness of the vaccine.3,5,9 Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors such as lisinopril more recently have been recommended for treatment of facial edema following COVID-19 vaccination,9 but questions remain regarding the true efficacy in this scenario given that the majority of swelling reactions resolve without this treatment. Additionally, there were no controls to indicate treatment with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor demonstrated an actual impact. Dermatologists generally are wary of adding medications of questionable utility that are associated with potential side effects and drug reactions, given that we often are tasked with managing the consequences of such mistakes. Thus, to avoid additional harm in the setting of insufficient evidence, as was seen following widespread use of hydroxychloroquine at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, well-structured studies are required before such interventions can be recommended.
If symptoms arise following the first vaccine injection, they can be managed if needed while patients are reassured and advised to obtain their second dose, with pretreatment considerations including antihistamines and instruction to present to the emergency department if a more severe reaction is suspected.2 In a larger sense, we also can contribute to the collective knowledge, growth, and preparedness of the medical community by reporting cases of adverse events to vaccine reporting systems and registries, such as the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe After Vaccination Health Checker, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Dermatology Registry.
Final Thoughts
As dermatologists, we now find ourselves in the familiar role of balancing the aesthetic goals of our patients with our primary mission of public health and safety at a time when their health and well-being is particularly vulnerable. Adverse reactions will continue to occur as larger segments of the world’s population become vaccinated. Meanwhile, we must continue to manage symptoms, dispel myths, emphasize that any dermatologic risk posed by the COVID-19 vaccines is far outweighed by the benefits of immunization, and promote health and education, looking ahead to life beyond the pandemic.
- Ritchie H, Ortiz-Ospina E, Beltekian D, et al. Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccinations. Our World in Data website. Accessed May 10, 2021. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
- McMahon DE, Amerson E, Rosenbach M, et al. Cutaneous reactions reported after Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination: a registry-based study of 414 cases [published online April 7, 2021]. J Am Acad Dermatol. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.03.092
- Rice SM, Ferree SD, Mesinkovska NA, et al. The art of prevention: COVID-19 vaccine preparedness for the dermatologist. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2021;7:209-212. doi:10.1016/j.ijwd.2021.01.007
- Rice SM, Siegel JA, Libby T, et al. Zooming into cosmetic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic: the provider’s perspective. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2021;7:213-216.
- FDA Briefing Document: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. US Department of Health and Human Services; 2020. Accessed May 11, 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download
- Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine may cause swelling, inflammation in those with facial fillers. American Society of Plastic Surgeons website. Published December 27, 2020. Accessed May 11, 2021. http://www.plasticsurgery.org/for-medical-professionals/publications/psn-extra/news/modernas-covid19-vaccine-may-cause-swelling-inflammation-in-those-with-facial-fillers
- Munavalli GG, Guthridge R, Knutsen-Larson S, et al. COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 virus spike protein-related delayed inflammatory reaction to hyaluronic acid dermal fillers: a challenging clinical conundrum in diagnosis and treatment [published online February 9, 2021]. Arch Dermatol Res. doi:10.1007/s00403-021-02190-6
- Schlessinger J. Update on COVID-19 vaccines and dermal fillers. Practical Dermatol. February 2021:46-47. Accessed May 10, 2021. https://practicaldermatology.com/articles/2021-feb/update-on-covid-19-vaccines-and-dermal-fillers/pdf
- Munavalli GG, Knutsen-Larson S, Lupo MP, et al. Oral angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for treatment of delayed inflammatory reaction to dermal hyaluronic acid fillers following COVID-19 vaccination—a model for inhibition of angiotensin II-induced cutaneous inflammation. JAAD Case Rep. 2021;10:63-68. doi:10.1016/j.jdcr.2021.02.018
As we marked the 1-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 100 million Americans had received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, heralding some sense of relief and enabling us to envision a return to something resembling life before lockdown.1 Amid these breakthroughs and vaccination campaigns forging ahead worldwide, we saw new questions and problems arise. Vaccine hesitancy was already an issue in many segments of society where misinformation and mistrust of the medical establishment have served as barriers to the progress of public health. Once reports of adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination—such as those linked to use of facial fillers—made news headlines, many in the dermatology community began facing inquiries from patients questioning if they should wait to receive the vaccine or skip it entirely. As dermatologists, we must be informed and prepared to address these situations, to manage adverse reactions when they arise, and to encourage and promote vaccination during this critical time for public health in our society.
Cutaneous Vaccine Reactions and Facial Fillers
As public COVID-19 vaccinations move forward, dermatologic side effects, which were first noted during clinical trials, have received amplified attention, despite the fact that these cutaneous reactions—including localized injection-site redness and swelling, generalized urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and even facial filler reactions—have been reported as relatively minor and self-limited.2 The excipient polyethylene glycol has been suspected as a possible etiology of vaccine-related allergic and hypersensitivity reactions, suggesting care be taken in those who are patch-test positive or have a history of allergy to polyethylene glycol–containing products (eg, penicillin, laxatives, makeup, certain dermal fillers).2,3 Although rare, facial and lip swelling reactions in those with a prior history of facial fillers in COVID-19 vaccine trials have drawn particular public concern and potential vaccine hesitancy given that more than 2.7 million Americans seek treatment with dermal fillers annually. There has been continued demand for these treatments during the pandemic, particularly due to aesthetic sensitivity surrounding video conferencing.4
Release of trial data from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine prompted a discourse around safety and recommended protocols for filler procedures in the community of aesthetic medicine, as 3 participants in the experimental arm—all of whom had a history of treatment with facial filler injections—were reported to have facial or lip swelling shortly following vaccination. Two of these cases were considered to be serious adverse events due to extensive facial swelling, with the participants having received filler injections 6 months and 2 weeks prior to vaccination, respectively.5 A third participant experienced lip swelling only, which according to the US Food and Drug Administration briefing document was considered “medically significant” but not a serious adverse event, with unknown timing of the most recent filler injection. In all cases, symptom onset began 1 or 2 days following vaccination, and all resolved with either no or minimal intervention.6 The US Food and Drug Administration briefing document does not detail which type of fillers each participant had received, but subsequent reports indicated hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. Of note, one patient in the placebo arm of the trial also developed progressive periorbital and facial edema in the setting of known filler injections performed 5 weeks prior, requiring treatment with corticosteroids and barring her from receiving a second injection in the trial.7
After public vaccination started, additional reports have emerged of facial edema occurring following administration of both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.2,8,9 In one series, 4 cases of facial swelling were reported in patients who had HA filler placed more than 1 year prior to vaccination.9 The first patient, who had a history of HA fillers in the temples and cheeks, developed moderate periorbital swelling 2 days following her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Another patient who had received a series of filler injections over the last 3 years experienced facial swelling 24 hours after her second dose of the Moderna vaccine and also reported a similar reaction in the past following an upper respiratory tract infection. The third patient developed perioral and infraorbital edema 18 hours after her first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The fourth patient developed inflammation in filler-treated areas 10 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and notably had a history of filler reaction to an unknown trigger in 2019 that was treated with hyaluronidase, intralesional steroids, and 5-fluorouracil. All cases of facial edema reportedly resolved.9
The observed adverse events have been proposed as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTRs) to facial fillers and are suspected to be triggered by the COVID-19 spike protein and subsequent immunogenic response. This reaction is not unique to the COVID-19 vaccines; in fact, many inflammatory stimuli such as sinus infections, flulike illnesses, facial injury, dental procedures, and exposure to certain medications and chemotherapeutics have triggered DTRs in filler patients, especially in those with genetic or immunologic risk factors including certain human leukocyte antigen subtypes or autoimmune disorders.3
Counseling Patients and Reducing Risks
As reports of DTRs to facial fillers after COVID-19 vaccination continue to emerge, it is not surprising that patients may become confused by potential side effects and postpone vaccination as a result. This evolving situation has called upon aesthetic physicians to adapt our practice and prepare our patients. Most importantly, we must continue to follow the data and integrate evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine–related counseling into our office visits. It is paramount to encourage vaccination and inform patients that these rare adverse events are both temporary and treatable. Given the currently available data, patients with a history of treatment with dermal fillers should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine; however, we may provide suggestions to lessen the likelihood of adverse reactions and ease patient concerns. For example, it may be helpful to consider a time frame between vaccination and filler procedures that is longer than 2 weeks, just as would be advised for those having dental procedures or with recent infections, and potentially longer windows for those with risk factors such as prior sensitivity to dermal fillers, autoimmune disorders, or those on immunomodulatory medications. Dilution of fillers with saline or lidocaine or use of non-HA fillers also may be suggested around the time of vaccination to mitigate the risk of DTRs.3
Managing Vaccine Reactions
If facial swelling does occur despite these precautions and lasts longer than 48 hours, treatment with antihistamines, steroids, and/or hyaluronidase has been successful in vaccine trial and posttrial patients, both alone or in combination, and are likely to resolve edema promptly without altering the effectiveness of the vaccine.3,5,9 Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors such as lisinopril more recently have been recommended for treatment of facial edema following COVID-19 vaccination,9 but questions remain regarding the true efficacy in this scenario given that the majority of swelling reactions resolve without this treatment. Additionally, there were no controls to indicate treatment with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor demonstrated an actual impact. Dermatologists generally are wary of adding medications of questionable utility that are associated with potential side effects and drug reactions, given that we often are tasked with managing the consequences of such mistakes. Thus, to avoid additional harm in the setting of insufficient evidence, as was seen following widespread use of hydroxychloroquine at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, well-structured studies are required before such interventions can be recommended.
If symptoms arise following the first vaccine injection, they can be managed if needed while patients are reassured and advised to obtain their second dose, with pretreatment considerations including antihistamines and instruction to present to the emergency department if a more severe reaction is suspected.2 In a larger sense, we also can contribute to the collective knowledge, growth, and preparedness of the medical community by reporting cases of adverse events to vaccine reporting systems and registries, such as the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe After Vaccination Health Checker, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Dermatology Registry.
Final Thoughts
As dermatologists, we now find ourselves in the familiar role of balancing the aesthetic goals of our patients with our primary mission of public health and safety at a time when their health and well-being is particularly vulnerable. Adverse reactions will continue to occur as larger segments of the world’s population become vaccinated. Meanwhile, we must continue to manage symptoms, dispel myths, emphasize that any dermatologic risk posed by the COVID-19 vaccines is far outweighed by the benefits of immunization, and promote health and education, looking ahead to life beyond the pandemic.
As we marked the 1-year anniversary of the COVID-19 pandemic, nearly 100 million Americans had received their first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, heralding some sense of relief and enabling us to envision a return to something resembling life before lockdown.1 Amid these breakthroughs and vaccination campaigns forging ahead worldwide, we saw new questions and problems arise. Vaccine hesitancy was already an issue in many segments of society where misinformation and mistrust of the medical establishment have served as barriers to the progress of public health. Once reports of adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination—such as those linked to use of facial fillers—made news headlines, many in the dermatology community began facing inquiries from patients questioning if they should wait to receive the vaccine or skip it entirely. As dermatologists, we must be informed and prepared to address these situations, to manage adverse reactions when they arise, and to encourage and promote vaccination during this critical time for public health in our society.
Cutaneous Vaccine Reactions and Facial Fillers
As public COVID-19 vaccinations move forward, dermatologic side effects, which were first noted during clinical trials, have received amplified attention, despite the fact that these cutaneous reactions—including localized injection-site redness and swelling, generalized urticarial and morbilliform eruptions, and even facial filler reactions—have been reported as relatively minor and self-limited.2 The excipient polyethylene glycol has been suspected as a possible etiology of vaccine-related allergic and hypersensitivity reactions, suggesting care be taken in those who are patch-test positive or have a history of allergy to polyethylene glycol–containing products (eg, penicillin, laxatives, makeup, certain dermal fillers).2,3 Although rare, facial and lip swelling reactions in those with a prior history of facial fillers in COVID-19 vaccine trials have drawn particular public concern and potential vaccine hesitancy given that more than 2.7 million Americans seek treatment with dermal fillers annually. There has been continued demand for these treatments during the pandemic, particularly due to aesthetic sensitivity surrounding video conferencing.4
Release of trial data from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine prompted a discourse around safety and recommended protocols for filler procedures in the community of aesthetic medicine, as 3 participants in the experimental arm—all of whom had a history of treatment with facial filler injections—were reported to have facial or lip swelling shortly following vaccination. Two of these cases were considered to be serious adverse events due to extensive facial swelling, with the participants having received filler injections 6 months and 2 weeks prior to vaccination, respectively.5 A third participant experienced lip swelling only, which according to the US Food and Drug Administration briefing document was considered “medically significant” but not a serious adverse event, with unknown timing of the most recent filler injection. In all cases, symptom onset began 1 or 2 days following vaccination, and all resolved with either no or minimal intervention.6 The US Food and Drug Administration briefing document does not detail which type of fillers each participant had received, but subsequent reports indicated hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. Of note, one patient in the placebo arm of the trial also developed progressive periorbital and facial edema in the setting of known filler injections performed 5 weeks prior, requiring treatment with corticosteroids and barring her from receiving a second injection in the trial.7
After public vaccination started, additional reports have emerged of facial edema occurring following administration of both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines.2,8,9 In one series, 4 cases of facial swelling were reported in patients who had HA filler placed more than 1 year prior to vaccination.9 The first patient, who had a history of HA fillers in the temples and cheeks, developed moderate periorbital swelling 2 days following her second dose of the Pfizer vaccine. Another patient who had received a series of filler injections over the last 3 years experienced facial swelling 24 hours after her second dose of the Moderna vaccine and also reported a similar reaction in the past following an upper respiratory tract infection. The third patient developed perioral and infraorbital edema 18 hours after her first dose of the Moderna vaccine. The fourth patient developed inflammation in filler-treated areas 10 days after the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine and notably had a history of filler reaction to an unknown trigger in 2019 that was treated with hyaluronidase, intralesional steroids, and 5-fluorouracil. All cases of facial edema reportedly resolved.9
The observed adverse events have been proposed as delayed-type hypersensitivity reactions (DTRs) to facial fillers and are suspected to be triggered by the COVID-19 spike protein and subsequent immunogenic response. This reaction is not unique to the COVID-19 vaccines; in fact, many inflammatory stimuli such as sinus infections, flulike illnesses, facial injury, dental procedures, and exposure to certain medications and chemotherapeutics have triggered DTRs in filler patients, especially in those with genetic or immunologic risk factors including certain human leukocyte antigen subtypes or autoimmune disorders.3
Counseling Patients and Reducing Risks
As reports of DTRs to facial fillers after COVID-19 vaccination continue to emerge, it is not surprising that patients may become confused by potential side effects and postpone vaccination as a result. This evolving situation has called upon aesthetic physicians to adapt our practice and prepare our patients. Most importantly, we must continue to follow the data and integrate evidence-based COVID-19 vaccine–related counseling into our office visits. It is paramount to encourage vaccination and inform patients that these rare adverse events are both temporary and treatable. Given the currently available data, patients with a history of treatment with dermal fillers should not be discouraged from receiving the vaccine; however, we may provide suggestions to lessen the likelihood of adverse reactions and ease patient concerns. For example, it may be helpful to consider a time frame between vaccination and filler procedures that is longer than 2 weeks, just as would be advised for those having dental procedures or with recent infections, and potentially longer windows for those with risk factors such as prior sensitivity to dermal fillers, autoimmune disorders, or those on immunomodulatory medications. Dilution of fillers with saline or lidocaine or use of non-HA fillers also may be suggested around the time of vaccination to mitigate the risk of DTRs.3
Managing Vaccine Reactions
If facial swelling does occur despite these precautions and lasts longer than 48 hours, treatment with antihistamines, steroids, and/or hyaluronidase has been successful in vaccine trial and posttrial patients, both alone or in combination, and are likely to resolve edema promptly without altering the effectiveness of the vaccine.3,5,9 Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors such as lisinopril more recently have been recommended for treatment of facial edema following COVID-19 vaccination,9 but questions remain regarding the true efficacy in this scenario given that the majority of swelling reactions resolve without this treatment. Additionally, there were no controls to indicate treatment with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor demonstrated an actual impact. Dermatologists generally are wary of adding medications of questionable utility that are associated with potential side effects and drug reactions, given that we often are tasked with managing the consequences of such mistakes. Thus, to avoid additional harm in the setting of insufficient evidence, as was seen following widespread use of hydroxychloroquine at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, well-structured studies are required before such interventions can be recommended.
If symptoms arise following the first vaccine injection, they can be managed if needed while patients are reassured and advised to obtain their second dose, with pretreatment considerations including antihistamines and instruction to present to the emergency department if a more severe reaction is suspected.2 In a larger sense, we also can contribute to the collective knowledge, growth, and preparedness of the medical community by reporting cases of adverse events to vaccine reporting systems and registries, such as the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s V-Safe After Vaccination Health Checker, and the American Academy of Dermatology’s COVID-19 Dermatology Registry.
Final Thoughts
As dermatologists, we now find ourselves in the familiar role of balancing the aesthetic goals of our patients with our primary mission of public health and safety at a time when their health and well-being is particularly vulnerable. Adverse reactions will continue to occur as larger segments of the world’s population become vaccinated. Meanwhile, we must continue to manage symptoms, dispel myths, emphasize that any dermatologic risk posed by the COVID-19 vaccines is far outweighed by the benefits of immunization, and promote health and education, looking ahead to life beyond the pandemic.
- Ritchie H, Ortiz-Ospina E, Beltekian D, et al. Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccinations. Our World in Data website. Accessed May 10, 2021. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
- McMahon DE, Amerson E, Rosenbach M, et al. Cutaneous reactions reported after Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination: a registry-based study of 414 cases [published online April 7, 2021]. J Am Acad Dermatol. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.03.092
- Rice SM, Ferree SD, Mesinkovska NA, et al. The art of prevention: COVID-19 vaccine preparedness for the dermatologist. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2021;7:209-212. doi:10.1016/j.ijwd.2021.01.007
- Rice SM, Siegel JA, Libby T, et al. Zooming into cosmetic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic: the provider’s perspective. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2021;7:213-216.
- FDA Briefing Document: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. US Department of Health and Human Services; 2020. Accessed May 11, 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download
- Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine may cause swelling, inflammation in those with facial fillers. American Society of Plastic Surgeons website. Published December 27, 2020. Accessed May 11, 2021. http://www.plasticsurgery.org/for-medical-professionals/publications/psn-extra/news/modernas-covid19-vaccine-may-cause-swelling-inflammation-in-those-with-facial-fillers
- Munavalli GG, Guthridge R, Knutsen-Larson S, et al. COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 virus spike protein-related delayed inflammatory reaction to hyaluronic acid dermal fillers: a challenging clinical conundrum in diagnosis and treatment [published online February 9, 2021]. Arch Dermatol Res. doi:10.1007/s00403-021-02190-6
- Schlessinger J. Update on COVID-19 vaccines and dermal fillers. Practical Dermatol. February 2021:46-47. Accessed May 10, 2021. https://practicaldermatology.com/articles/2021-feb/update-on-covid-19-vaccines-and-dermal-fillers/pdf
- Munavalli GG, Knutsen-Larson S, Lupo MP, et al. Oral angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for treatment of delayed inflammatory reaction to dermal hyaluronic acid fillers following COVID-19 vaccination—a model for inhibition of angiotensin II-induced cutaneous inflammation. JAAD Case Rep. 2021;10:63-68. doi:10.1016/j.jdcr.2021.02.018
- Ritchie H, Ortiz-Ospina E, Beltekian D, et al. Coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccinations. Our World in Data website. Accessed May 10, 2021. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
- McMahon DE, Amerson E, Rosenbach M, et al. Cutaneous reactions reported after Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination: a registry-based study of 414 cases [published online April 7, 2021]. J Am Acad Dermatol. doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2021.03.092
- Rice SM, Ferree SD, Mesinkovska NA, et al. The art of prevention: COVID-19 vaccine preparedness for the dermatologist. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2021;7:209-212. doi:10.1016/j.ijwd.2021.01.007
- Rice SM, Siegel JA, Libby T, et al. Zooming into cosmetic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic: the provider’s perspective. Int J Womens Dermatol. 2021;7:213-216.
- FDA Briefing Document: Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. US Department of Health and Human Services; 2020. Accessed May 11, 2021. https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download
- Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine may cause swelling, inflammation in those with facial fillers. American Society of Plastic Surgeons website. Published December 27, 2020. Accessed May 11, 2021. http://www.plasticsurgery.org/for-medical-professionals/publications/psn-extra/news/modernas-covid19-vaccine-may-cause-swelling-inflammation-in-those-with-facial-fillers
- Munavalli GG, Guthridge R, Knutsen-Larson S, et al. COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 virus spike protein-related delayed inflammatory reaction to hyaluronic acid dermal fillers: a challenging clinical conundrum in diagnosis and treatment [published online February 9, 2021]. Arch Dermatol Res. doi:10.1007/s00403-021-02190-6
- Schlessinger J. Update on COVID-19 vaccines and dermal fillers. Practical Dermatol. February 2021:46-47. Accessed May 10, 2021. https://practicaldermatology.com/articles/2021-feb/update-on-covid-19-vaccines-and-dermal-fillers/pdf
- Munavalli GG, Knutsen-Larson S, Lupo MP, et al. Oral angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for treatment of delayed inflammatory reaction to dermal hyaluronic acid fillers following COVID-19 vaccination—a model for inhibition of angiotensin II-induced cutaneous inflammation. JAAD Case Rep. 2021;10:63-68. doi:10.1016/j.jdcr.2021.02.018
How early can laser treatment for port wine stains in infants be initiated?
without any complications, results from a single-center study showed.
“The current modality of choice for the treatment of port wine birthmarks is pulsed dye laser,” Chelsea Grimes Fidai, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “When performed by a highly trained expert at efficient frequencies, PDL is a safe, effective treatment that is successful in the majority of patients. We know that earlier treatment yields maximal clearance. However, just how early can you initiate treatment?”
To find out, Dr. Fidai, Roy G. Geronemus, MD, and colleagues at the Laser and Skin Surgery Center of New York, conducted a retrospective chart review of 39 infants with port wine birthmarks who were treated with a 595-nm PDL between 2015 and 2020 at the center. Of the 39 infants, the average age at first treatment was 18 days, with a range from 5 to 29 days. The youngest patient was born prematurely at 35 weeks’ gestation and presented for his first treatment even before his expected due date. Most (74%) had facial lesions with the remaining distributed on the trunk or extremities. The average number of treatments was 15 over the course of 15 months.
The initial settings chosen for facial lesions were a 10-mm spot size, a fluence of 8.0 J/cm2, and a 1.5-millisecond pulse duration. For body lesions, the typical initial settings were a 12-mm spot size, a fluence of 6.7 J/cm2, and 1.5-millisecond pulse duration. Corneal eye shields were placed for all cases with port wine birthmarks approaching the eyelid. “We do recommend a treatment interval of every 2-3 weeks, with longer intervals for patients of darker skin type until the child is 2 years old, at which time the interval is increased to every 3-6 months,” said Dr. Fidai.
Patients in the study experienced the expected short-term side effects of erythema, edema, purpura, and mild transient postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, but there were no cases of atrophy, scarring, infection, or permanent pigmentary change.
“Families seeking early treatment of port wine birthmarks can be reassured that it can be safely initiated within the first few days after birth,” Dr. Fidai concluded. “This procedure can be quickly and confidently performed as an in-office procedure without any complications. The early intervention allows for treatment without general anesthesia and it maximizes the chance of significant clearance as early in life as possible.”
During a question-and-answer session, the abstract section chair, Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, PhD, expressed concern about the effect of PDL on developing infants. “We do repeated treatments at this young age without any type of anesthesia,” said Dr. Wolkerstorfer, a dermatologist at the Netherlands Institute for Pigment Disorders, department of dermatology, University of Amsterdam.
“Will that influence the development of the child, especially when I hear there might be 15 or 20 treatments done within the first year of life? I think this is a problem where we need to ask the experts in the field of pain management in children, like pediatric anesthesiologists, to find the right way, because I think that the results that you showed are fantastic. I don’t think we can achieve that at a later age, although there’s no direct comparison at this moment.”
Dr. Fidai said that she understood the concern, but pointed to a 2020 article by Dr. Geronemus and colleagues that assessed treatment tolerance and parental perspective of outpatient PDL treatment for port-wine birthmarks without general anesthesia in infants and toddlers. “The kids recover pretty quickly after the treatment,” she said. “There has never been any longstanding issue from the parents’ perspective.”
Dr. Fidai reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Geronemus disclosed having financial conflicts with numerous device and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Lumenis and InCyte and equipment from Humeca and PerfAction Technologies. He has also received grant funding from Novartis and InCyte and he is a member of InCyte’s advisory board.
without any complications, results from a single-center study showed.
“The current modality of choice for the treatment of port wine birthmarks is pulsed dye laser,” Chelsea Grimes Fidai, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “When performed by a highly trained expert at efficient frequencies, PDL is a safe, effective treatment that is successful in the majority of patients. We know that earlier treatment yields maximal clearance. However, just how early can you initiate treatment?”
To find out, Dr. Fidai, Roy G. Geronemus, MD, and colleagues at the Laser and Skin Surgery Center of New York, conducted a retrospective chart review of 39 infants with port wine birthmarks who were treated with a 595-nm PDL between 2015 and 2020 at the center. Of the 39 infants, the average age at first treatment was 18 days, with a range from 5 to 29 days. The youngest patient was born prematurely at 35 weeks’ gestation and presented for his first treatment even before his expected due date. Most (74%) had facial lesions with the remaining distributed on the trunk or extremities. The average number of treatments was 15 over the course of 15 months.
The initial settings chosen for facial lesions were a 10-mm spot size, a fluence of 8.0 J/cm2, and a 1.5-millisecond pulse duration. For body lesions, the typical initial settings were a 12-mm spot size, a fluence of 6.7 J/cm2, and 1.5-millisecond pulse duration. Corneal eye shields were placed for all cases with port wine birthmarks approaching the eyelid. “We do recommend a treatment interval of every 2-3 weeks, with longer intervals for patients of darker skin type until the child is 2 years old, at which time the interval is increased to every 3-6 months,” said Dr. Fidai.
Patients in the study experienced the expected short-term side effects of erythema, edema, purpura, and mild transient postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, but there were no cases of atrophy, scarring, infection, or permanent pigmentary change.
“Families seeking early treatment of port wine birthmarks can be reassured that it can be safely initiated within the first few days after birth,” Dr. Fidai concluded. “This procedure can be quickly and confidently performed as an in-office procedure without any complications. The early intervention allows for treatment without general anesthesia and it maximizes the chance of significant clearance as early in life as possible.”
During a question-and-answer session, the abstract section chair, Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, PhD, expressed concern about the effect of PDL on developing infants. “We do repeated treatments at this young age without any type of anesthesia,” said Dr. Wolkerstorfer, a dermatologist at the Netherlands Institute for Pigment Disorders, department of dermatology, University of Amsterdam.
“Will that influence the development of the child, especially when I hear there might be 15 or 20 treatments done within the first year of life? I think this is a problem where we need to ask the experts in the field of pain management in children, like pediatric anesthesiologists, to find the right way, because I think that the results that you showed are fantastic. I don’t think we can achieve that at a later age, although there’s no direct comparison at this moment.”
Dr. Fidai said that she understood the concern, but pointed to a 2020 article by Dr. Geronemus and colleagues that assessed treatment tolerance and parental perspective of outpatient PDL treatment for port-wine birthmarks without general anesthesia in infants and toddlers. “The kids recover pretty quickly after the treatment,” she said. “There has never been any longstanding issue from the parents’ perspective.”
Dr. Fidai reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Geronemus disclosed having financial conflicts with numerous device and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Lumenis and InCyte and equipment from Humeca and PerfAction Technologies. He has also received grant funding from Novartis and InCyte and he is a member of InCyte’s advisory board.
without any complications, results from a single-center study showed.
“The current modality of choice for the treatment of port wine birthmarks is pulsed dye laser,” Chelsea Grimes Fidai, MD, said during the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “When performed by a highly trained expert at efficient frequencies, PDL is a safe, effective treatment that is successful in the majority of patients. We know that earlier treatment yields maximal clearance. However, just how early can you initiate treatment?”
To find out, Dr. Fidai, Roy G. Geronemus, MD, and colleagues at the Laser and Skin Surgery Center of New York, conducted a retrospective chart review of 39 infants with port wine birthmarks who were treated with a 595-nm PDL between 2015 and 2020 at the center. Of the 39 infants, the average age at first treatment was 18 days, with a range from 5 to 29 days. The youngest patient was born prematurely at 35 weeks’ gestation and presented for his first treatment even before his expected due date. Most (74%) had facial lesions with the remaining distributed on the trunk or extremities. The average number of treatments was 15 over the course of 15 months.
The initial settings chosen for facial lesions were a 10-mm spot size, a fluence of 8.0 J/cm2, and a 1.5-millisecond pulse duration. For body lesions, the typical initial settings were a 12-mm spot size, a fluence of 6.7 J/cm2, and 1.5-millisecond pulse duration. Corneal eye shields were placed for all cases with port wine birthmarks approaching the eyelid. “We do recommend a treatment interval of every 2-3 weeks, with longer intervals for patients of darker skin type until the child is 2 years old, at which time the interval is increased to every 3-6 months,” said Dr. Fidai.
Patients in the study experienced the expected short-term side effects of erythema, edema, purpura, and mild transient postinflammatory hyperpigmentation, but there were no cases of atrophy, scarring, infection, or permanent pigmentary change.
“Families seeking early treatment of port wine birthmarks can be reassured that it can be safely initiated within the first few days after birth,” Dr. Fidai concluded. “This procedure can be quickly and confidently performed as an in-office procedure without any complications. The early intervention allows for treatment without general anesthesia and it maximizes the chance of significant clearance as early in life as possible.”
During a question-and-answer session, the abstract section chair, Albert Wolkerstorfer, MD, PhD, expressed concern about the effect of PDL on developing infants. “We do repeated treatments at this young age without any type of anesthesia,” said Dr. Wolkerstorfer, a dermatologist at the Netherlands Institute for Pigment Disorders, department of dermatology, University of Amsterdam.
“Will that influence the development of the child, especially when I hear there might be 15 or 20 treatments done within the first year of life? I think this is a problem where we need to ask the experts in the field of pain management in children, like pediatric anesthesiologists, to find the right way, because I think that the results that you showed are fantastic. I don’t think we can achieve that at a later age, although there’s no direct comparison at this moment.”
Dr. Fidai said that she understood the concern, but pointed to a 2020 article by Dr. Geronemus and colleagues that assessed treatment tolerance and parental perspective of outpatient PDL treatment for port-wine birthmarks without general anesthesia in infants and toddlers. “The kids recover pretty quickly after the treatment,” she said. “There has never been any longstanding issue from the parents’ perspective.”
Dr. Fidai reported having no financial disclosures. Dr. Geronemus disclosed having financial conflicts with numerous device and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Wolkerstorfer disclosed that he has received consulting fees from Lumenis and InCyte and equipment from Humeca and PerfAction Technologies. He has also received grant funding from Novartis and InCyte and he is a member of InCyte’s advisory board.
FROM ASLMS 2021
One treatment with a 1,060-nm diode laser helped reduce unwanted fat
A a small single-center study showed.
Nonsurgical fat reduction was the third-most common nonsurgical aesthetic procedure in the United States in 2018 and includes lasers, high-intensity focused ultrasound, radiofrequency, photobiomodulation therapy, and cryolipolysis, according to 2018 data from the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.
“Our study is unique because we used a 1,060-nm diode laser with integrated skin cooling to evaluate the efficacy and safety of its use for the reduction of unwanted fat of the abdomen and flanks,” lead study author Alison S. Kang, MD, told this news organization following the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the data were presented. “A 1,060-nm laser works by delivering controlled thermal energy between 42 °C and 47 °C, temperatures at which adipocytes are permanently destroyed,” she explained.
Dr. Kang and Suzanne Kilmer, MD, both of the Laser & Skin Surgery Center of Northern California, Sacramento, enrolled 28 women and 2 men into the study. Each study participant received a single treatment with Venus Bliss, a 1,060-nm diode laser with four laser applicators and a built-in skin-cooling mechanism. Half received treatment of the flanks delivered at up to 1.4 watts per cm2 on each diode for 25 minutes, while the other 15 received treatment of the abdomen with the same energy settings. Photos and ultrasound images were taken at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks, and the investigators administered a satisfaction questionnaire upon study exit. The primary endpoint was efficacy, defined as the percentage of correctly identified posttreatment photographs by three blinded reviewers (one plastic surgeon and two dermatologists). Secondary endpoints of interest were change in adipose thickness on ultrasound, subject satisfaction, and adverse events.
After losing 1 patient to follow-up, 29 completed the study. Dr. Kang reported that the blinded evaluators could identify the pretreatment image, compared with the posttreatment image in an average of 67% of patients. Between baseline and 12 weeks, the ultrasound images showed an average reduction in the adipose layer of 9% on the abdomen and 7% on the flank, while the average self-reported pain score based on the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale was 2 out of 10 among those in the abdomen treatment group and 2.6 out of 10 among those in the flank treatment group.
In addition, 76% of subjects stated they were “satisfied” to “very satisfied” with the treatment, and 79% stated that they would recommend this treatment to a friend. The most common posttreatment responses in both groups were erythema and trace edema, but no serious or permanent adverse events were observed.
Dr. Kang acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size. “Only one treatment was performed in our study, so it is unclear if multiple treatments will improve efficacy or if multiple treatments will have no effect on efficacy,” she said.
The work won a “best of session early career-clinical” abstract award from the ASLMS.
The study was funded by Venus Concept, the manufacturer of the Venus Bliss laser. Dr. Kang reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Kilmer has received grants and honoraria from Venus Concept.
[email protected]
A a small single-center study showed.
Nonsurgical fat reduction was the third-most common nonsurgical aesthetic procedure in the United States in 2018 and includes lasers, high-intensity focused ultrasound, radiofrequency, photobiomodulation therapy, and cryolipolysis, according to 2018 data from the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.
“Our study is unique because we used a 1,060-nm diode laser with integrated skin cooling to evaluate the efficacy and safety of its use for the reduction of unwanted fat of the abdomen and flanks,” lead study author Alison S. Kang, MD, told this news organization following the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the data were presented. “A 1,060-nm laser works by delivering controlled thermal energy between 42 °C and 47 °C, temperatures at which adipocytes are permanently destroyed,” she explained.
Dr. Kang and Suzanne Kilmer, MD, both of the Laser & Skin Surgery Center of Northern California, Sacramento, enrolled 28 women and 2 men into the study. Each study participant received a single treatment with Venus Bliss, a 1,060-nm diode laser with four laser applicators and a built-in skin-cooling mechanism. Half received treatment of the flanks delivered at up to 1.4 watts per cm2 on each diode for 25 minutes, while the other 15 received treatment of the abdomen with the same energy settings. Photos and ultrasound images were taken at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks, and the investigators administered a satisfaction questionnaire upon study exit. The primary endpoint was efficacy, defined as the percentage of correctly identified posttreatment photographs by three blinded reviewers (one plastic surgeon and two dermatologists). Secondary endpoints of interest were change in adipose thickness on ultrasound, subject satisfaction, and adverse events.
After losing 1 patient to follow-up, 29 completed the study. Dr. Kang reported that the blinded evaluators could identify the pretreatment image, compared with the posttreatment image in an average of 67% of patients. Between baseline and 12 weeks, the ultrasound images showed an average reduction in the adipose layer of 9% on the abdomen and 7% on the flank, while the average self-reported pain score based on the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale was 2 out of 10 among those in the abdomen treatment group and 2.6 out of 10 among those in the flank treatment group.
In addition, 76% of subjects stated they were “satisfied” to “very satisfied” with the treatment, and 79% stated that they would recommend this treatment to a friend. The most common posttreatment responses in both groups were erythema and trace edema, but no serious or permanent adverse events were observed.
Dr. Kang acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size. “Only one treatment was performed in our study, so it is unclear if multiple treatments will improve efficacy or if multiple treatments will have no effect on efficacy,” she said.
The work won a “best of session early career-clinical” abstract award from the ASLMS.
The study was funded by Venus Concept, the manufacturer of the Venus Bliss laser. Dr. Kang reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Kilmer has received grants and honoraria from Venus Concept.
[email protected]
A a small single-center study showed.
Nonsurgical fat reduction was the third-most common nonsurgical aesthetic procedure in the United States in 2018 and includes lasers, high-intensity focused ultrasound, radiofrequency, photobiomodulation therapy, and cryolipolysis, according to 2018 data from the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.
“Our study is unique because we used a 1,060-nm diode laser with integrated skin cooling to evaluate the efficacy and safety of its use for the reduction of unwanted fat of the abdomen and flanks,” lead study author Alison S. Kang, MD, told this news organization following the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where the data were presented. “A 1,060-nm laser works by delivering controlled thermal energy between 42 °C and 47 °C, temperatures at which adipocytes are permanently destroyed,” she explained.
Dr. Kang and Suzanne Kilmer, MD, both of the Laser & Skin Surgery Center of Northern California, Sacramento, enrolled 28 women and 2 men into the study. Each study participant received a single treatment with Venus Bliss, a 1,060-nm diode laser with four laser applicators and a built-in skin-cooling mechanism. Half received treatment of the flanks delivered at up to 1.4 watts per cm2 on each diode for 25 minutes, while the other 15 received treatment of the abdomen with the same energy settings. Photos and ultrasound images were taken at baseline, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks, and the investigators administered a satisfaction questionnaire upon study exit. The primary endpoint was efficacy, defined as the percentage of correctly identified posttreatment photographs by three blinded reviewers (one plastic surgeon and two dermatologists). Secondary endpoints of interest were change in adipose thickness on ultrasound, subject satisfaction, and adverse events.
After losing 1 patient to follow-up, 29 completed the study. Dr. Kang reported that the blinded evaluators could identify the pretreatment image, compared with the posttreatment image in an average of 67% of patients. Between baseline and 12 weeks, the ultrasound images showed an average reduction in the adipose layer of 9% on the abdomen and 7% on the flank, while the average self-reported pain score based on the Wong-Baker FACES Pain Rating Scale was 2 out of 10 among those in the abdomen treatment group and 2.6 out of 10 among those in the flank treatment group.
In addition, 76% of subjects stated they were “satisfied” to “very satisfied” with the treatment, and 79% stated that they would recommend this treatment to a friend. The most common posttreatment responses in both groups were erythema and trace edema, but no serious or permanent adverse events were observed.
Dr. Kang acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its small sample size. “Only one treatment was performed in our study, so it is unclear if multiple treatments will improve efficacy or if multiple treatments will have no effect on efficacy,” she said.
The work won a “best of session early career-clinical” abstract award from the ASLMS.
The study was funded by Venus Concept, the manufacturer of the Venus Bliss laser. Dr. Kang reported having no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Kilmer has received grants and honoraria from Venus Concept.
[email protected]
FROM ASLMS 2021