User login
Dermatologists and the history of skin care and beauty devices: Part 4
In this series on the role dermatologists have played in the history of skin care, I have covered dermatologists who developed cosmeceutical ingredients, dermatologists who consulted for the skin care industry, and those who developed a novel and successful skin care line. In this column, part 4 of the series, I will continue to discuss
Dermatologists and Stiefel Laboratories
The Stiefel Medicinal Soap Company, founded in 1847, later became Stiefel Laboratories and was sold to GlaxoSmithKline in 2009. Stiefel Laboratories made many contributions over the years to the field of dermatology as chronicled in the excellent book, “Skin Saga” written by Charles Stiefel and published in 2018. The company was first known for soaps and groundbreaking products, such as “Freckle Soap” that sped epidermal turnover, resulting in a more even toned complexion.
Many dermatologists were involved in developing products and providing advice to the company. Herman Sharlit, MD, in New York, had the idea for a moisturizing soap (Oilatum), a detergent soap (Acne Aid detergent soap), and a coal tar soap (Polytar). Eugene Farber, MD, who was professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, consulted for Stiefel Laboratories and helped them identify and develop many products over the years.1 Stiefel Labs came out with the first facial scrub called Brasivol, an abrasive cream with aluminum oxide particles – the predecessor to modern day microdermabrasion. This facial scrub was conceived by dermatologist Rose Saperstein, MD, Los Angeles, who published a report2 on this in 1960 and also received a patent for it in 1963.3 Brasivol became the company’s first million dollar product.1
Stiefel Laboratories worked with many dermatologists to help them develop their ideas. They included Cleveland White, MD, who patented a highly absorbent foot and body powder known as Zeasorb powder. William Pace, MD, was a Canadian dermatologist who patented an acne treatment containing benzoyl peroxide and sulfur that Stiefel Labs marketed as Sulfoxyl Lotion. Dr. Pace is lovingly referred to as “the father of benzoyl peroxide” because his idea led Stiefel Labs to develop more benzoyl peroxide products. Benzoyl peroxide remains the most popular OTC ingredient to treat acne.
Comedone extractors
Many dermatologists have developed ways to extract comedones. There are publications on using paper clips,4,5safety pins,6 and medicine droppers,7 but some dermatologists have developed special comedone extractors, which include the following: Jay Schamberg, MD, developed a comedone extractor with a loop at each end. He disapproved of cutting a comedone, so did not include a needle or scalpel in his extractor.8
- Leonard Savitt, MD,9 attached a scalpel to one end of the Schamberg extractor.
- Alan Shalita, MD, developed a comedone extractor with a large, keyhole-shaped extracting orifice that made the tool easier to clean.10
The Saalfield comedone extractor combines a fixed pointed blade at one end and a small spoon-shaped expressor foot at the other end. (However, I have not been able to determine if Saalfield was a dermatologist.)
Dermatologist who developed methods for lesion excisions
Robert Segal, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, invented the Dermablade. Although this is technically not a beauty device, I am including it because it has made the removal of unsightly moles and lesions much easier. He holds six patents on this device.
Dermatologists developed dermabrasion and microneedling
Ernst Kromayer, MD,11 a dermatologist in Germany, first described microneedling in 1905 when he mounted dental burrs on motor-driven flexible cord equipment to treat scars. Abner Kurtin, MD, a New York dermatologist, learned about Dr. Kromayer’s technique and modified it using stainless wireless brushes. Dr. Kurtin is known as the “father of dermabrasion.” His work was noted by Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel, MD, who moved to New York City and began using the technique. Dr. Carrel’s protege, New York dermatologist, Norman Orentreich, MD, began using hypodermic needles instead of wire brushes. Microneedling has gained much popularity over the last decade and has been combined with platelet rich plasma injections.
Dermatologist-developed injection to shrink fat
Adam Rotunda, MD, was a dermatology resident at the University of California, Los Angeles, when he and his professor Michael Kolodney, MD, PhD, had the idea to develop deoxycholate as an injectable to reduce fat deposits. They filed a patent in 2004, conducted clinical trials, and it worked! In 2009, the patent for deoxycholic acid (ATX-10), marketed as Kybella, was granted. The rights to the drug were purchased by Aestherx, which later became Kythera Biopharmaceuticals. Kybella received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015, and 6 months later, Kythera was acquired by Allergan.
Development of FDA-approved drugs to improve skin appearance
In 2004, dermatologists Stuart Shanler, MD, and Andrew Ondo, MD, filed a patent for the use of topical oxymetazoline for the treatment of the erythema of rosacea. They published their observations in 2007, noting that oxymetazoline improved facial flushing and erythema.11 Dr. Shanler then teamed up with dermatologist Neal Walker, MD, to form a start-up pharmaceutical company, Vicept Therapeutics, and took this compound through phase 2 clinical trials, while Dr. Shanler filed additional patents on oxymetazoline compositions and their uses. Once they successfully demonstrated the efficacy of topical oxymetazoline for rosacea, Allergan acquired the rights of the drug, successfully completed the phase 3 clinical trials, and Rhofade was approved by the FDA in 2017. It is the only topical drug invented and developed by a dermatologist to receive FDA approval since tretinoin (Renova) was developed by Albert Kligman, MD, and approved by the FDA for the improvement in appearance of fine wrinkling, mottled hyperpigmentation and roughness associated with photodamage in 1992.
The development of lasers
The last dermatologist I will discuss in this history series is R. Rox Anderson, MD, professor of dermatology at Harvard University, and director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It is impossible to list all his contributions in such a limited space. It would take a book. Building on efforts pioneered by Leon Goldman, MD, Dr. Anderson and his associates pioneered the use of lasers in dermatology and invented the idea of photothermolysis when they filed a patent on using light to remove hair in 1995.Dieter Manstein, MD, PhD,Dr. Anderson and others filed many patents that led to devices such as hair removal lasers, resurfacing lasers, and Fraxel lasers. They also made discoveries related to using cold to shrink fat. One of their inventions is known as CoolSculpting. They were so influential in the development of cosmetic dermatology that it is hard to imagine the field without their contributions.
This concludes my four-part series on the history of dermatologists’ role in the development of the skin care industry. I hope I have not forgotten anyone; if I did, I apologize. I have asked for ideas on Dermchat, Facebook and LinkedIn. Feel free to reach out if I missed one of your contributions. I will be giving lectures on this topic in the future and would be happy to include anyone I missed.
As the year 2020 ends, I want to say, Happy 50th Anniversary Dermatology News! I hope you enjoyed this historical series in honor of this anniversary.
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 dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Stiefel, CW. (n.d.). Skin Saga: How a Tiny Family Soap Business Evolved Over Six Generations Into the #1 Dermatology Company in the World. United States: Smart Business Network.
2. Saperstein, RB. Arch Dermatol. 1960 Apr;81:601.
3. Saperstein, RB, and Stiefel, WK (1963). U.S. Patent No. 3,092,111. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
4. George DE et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006 Feb;54(2):326.
5. Cvancara JL, Meffert JJ. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999 Mar;40(3):477-8.
6. Mukhtar M., Sharma R. Int J Dermatol. 2004 Dec;43(12):967-8.
7. Shellow, H. JAMA. 1951;147(18):1777.
8. Wright CS. Arch Dermatol. 1961;84(3):515.
9. Savitt LE. Arch Dermatol. 1961 Apr;83:660-1.
10. Shalita AR, Harris H. Arch Dermatol. 1972 May;105(5):759-60.
11. Shanler SD, Ondo AL. Arch Dermatol. 2007 Nov;143(11):1369-71.
In this series on the role dermatologists have played in the history of skin care, I have covered dermatologists who developed cosmeceutical ingredients, dermatologists who consulted for the skin care industry, and those who developed a novel and successful skin care line. In this column, part 4 of the series, I will continue to discuss
Dermatologists and Stiefel Laboratories
The Stiefel Medicinal Soap Company, founded in 1847, later became Stiefel Laboratories and was sold to GlaxoSmithKline in 2009. Stiefel Laboratories made many contributions over the years to the field of dermatology as chronicled in the excellent book, “Skin Saga” written by Charles Stiefel and published in 2018. The company was first known for soaps and groundbreaking products, such as “Freckle Soap” that sped epidermal turnover, resulting in a more even toned complexion.
Many dermatologists were involved in developing products and providing advice to the company. Herman Sharlit, MD, in New York, had the idea for a moisturizing soap (Oilatum), a detergent soap (Acne Aid detergent soap), and a coal tar soap (Polytar). Eugene Farber, MD, who was professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, consulted for Stiefel Laboratories and helped them identify and develop many products over the years.1 Stiefel Labs came out with the first facial scrub called Brasivol, an abrasive cream with aluminum oxide particles – the predecessor to modern day microdermabrasion. This facial scrub was conceived by dermatologist Rose Saperstein, MD, Los Angeles, who published a report2 on this in 1960 and also received a patent for it in 1963.3 Brasivol became the company’s first million dollar product.1
Stiefel Laboratories worked with many dermatologists to help them develop their ideas. They included Cleveland White, MD, who patented a highly absorbent foot and body powder known as Zeasorb powder. William Pace, MD, was a Canadian dermatologist who patented an acne treatment containing benzoyl peroxide and sulfur that Stiefel Labs marketed as Sulfoxyl Lotion. Dr. Pace is lovingly referred to as “the father of benzoyl peroxide” because his idea led Stiefel Labs to develop more benzoyl peroxide products. Benzoyl peroxide remains the most popular OTC ingredient to treat acne.
Comedone extractors
Many dermatologists have developed ways to extract comedones. There are publications on using paper clips,4,5safety pins,6 and medicine droppers,7 but some dermatologists have developed special comedone extractors, which include the following: Jay Schamberg, MD, developed a comedone extractor with a loop at each end. He disapproved of cutting a comedone, so did not include a needle or scalpel in his extractor.8
- Leonard Savitt, MD,9 attached a scalpel to one end of the Schamberg extractor.
- Alan Shalita, MD, developed a comedone extractor with a large, keyhole-shaped extracting orifice that made the tool easier to clean.10
The Saalfield comedone extractor combines a fixed pointed blade at one end and a small spoon-shaped expressor foot at the other end. (However, I have not been able to determine if Saalfield was a dermatologist.)
Dermatologist who developed methods for lesion excisions
Robert Segal, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, invented the Dermablade. Although this is technically not a beauty device, I am including it because it has made the removal of unsightly moles and lesions much easier. He holds six patents on this device.
Dermatologists developed dermabrasion and microneedling
Ernst Kromayer, MD,11 a dermatologist in Germany, first described microneedling in 1905 when he mounted dental burrs on motor-driven flexible cord equipment to treat scars. Abner Kurtin, MD, a New York dermatologist, learned about Dr. Kromayer’s technique and modified it using stainless wireless brushes. Dr. Kurtin is known as the “father of dermabrasion.” His work was noted by Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel, MD, who moved to New York City and began using the technique. Dr. Carrel’s protege, New York dermatologist, Norman Orentreich, MD, began using hypodermic needles instead of wire brushes. Microneedling has gained much popularity over the last decade and has been combined with platelet rich plasma injections.
Dermatologist-developed injection to shrink fat
Adam Rotunda, MD, was a dermatology resident at the University of California, Los Angeles, when he and his professor Michael Kolodney, MD, PhD, had the idea to develop deoxycholate as an injectable to reduce fat deposits. They filed a patent in 2004, conducted clinical trials, and it worked! In 2009, the patent for deoxycholic acid (ATX-10), marketed as Kybella, was granted. The rights to the drug were purchased by Aestherx, which later became Kythera Biopharmaceuticals. Kybella received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015, and 6 months later, Kythera was acquired by Allergan.
Development of FDA-approved drugs to improve skin appearance
In 2004, dermatologists Stuart Shanler, MD, and Andrew Ondo, MD, filed a patent for the use of topical oxymetazoline for the treatment of the erythema of rosacea. They published their observations in 2007, noting that oxymetazoline improved facial flushing and erythema.11 Dr. Shanler then teamed up with dermatologist Neal Walker, MD, to form a start-up pharmaceutical company, Vicept Therapeutics, and took this compound through phase 2 clinical trials, while Dr. Shanler filed additional patents on oxymetazoline compositions and their uses. Once they successfully demonstrated the efficacy of topical oxymetazoline for rosacea, Allergan acquired the rights of the drug, successfully completed the phase 3 clinical trials, and Rhofade was approved by the FDA in 2017. It is the only topical drug invented and developed by a dermatologist to receive FDA approval since tretinoin (Renova) was developed by Albert Kligman, MD, and approved by the FDA for the improvement in appearance of fine wrinkling, mottled hyperpigmentation and roughness associated with photodamage in 1992.
The development of lasers
The last dermatologist I will discuss in this history series is R. Rox Anderson, MD, professor of dermatology at Harvard University, and director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It is impossible to list all his contributions in such a limited space. It would take a book. Building on efforts pioneered by Leon Goldman, MD, Dr. Anderson and his associates pioneered the use of lasers in dermatology and invented the idea of photothermolysis when they filed a patent on using light to remove hair in 1995.Dieter Manstein, MD, PhD,Dr. Anderson and others filed many patents that led to devices such as hair removal lasers, resurfacing lasers, and Fraxel lasers. They also made discoveries related to using cold to shrink fat. One of their inventions is known as CoolSculpting. They were so influential in the development of cosmetic dermatology that it is hard to imagine the field without their contributions.
This concludes my four-part series on the history of dermatologists’ role in the development of the skin care industry. I hope I have not forgotten anyone; if I did, I apologize. I have asked for ideas on Dermchat, Facebook and LinkedIn. Feel free to reach out if I missed one of your contributions. I will be giving lectures on this topic in the future and would be happy to include anyone I missed.
As the year 2020 ends, I want to say, Happy 50th Anniversary Dermatology News! I hope you enjoyed this historical series in honor of this anniversary.
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 dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Stiefel, CW. (n.d.). Skin Saga: How a Tiny Family Soap Business Evolved Over Six Generations Into the #1 Dermatology Company in the World. United States: Smart Business Network.
2. Saperstein, RB. Arch Dermatol. 1960 Apr;81:601.
3. Saperstein, RB, and Stiefel, WK (1963). U.S. Patent No. 3,092,111. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
4. George DE et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006 Feb;54(2):326.
5. Cvancara JL, Meffert JJ. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999 Mar;40(3):477-8.
6. Mukhtar M., Sharma R. Int J Dermatol. 2004 Dec;43(12):967-8.
7. Shellow, H. JAMA. 1951;147(18):1777.
8. Wright CS. Arch Dermatol. 1961;84(3):515.
9. Savitt LE. Arch Dermatol. 1961 Apr;83:660-1.
10. Shalita AR, Harris H. Arch Dermatol. 1972 May;105(5):759-60.
11. Shanler SD, Ondo AL. Arch Dermatol. 2007 Nov;143(11):1369-71.
In this series on the role dermatologists have played in the history of skin care, I have covered dermatologists who developed cosmeceutical ingredients, dermatologists who consulted for the skin care industry, and those who developed a novel and successful skin care line. In this column, part 4 of the series, I will continue to discuss
Dermatologists and Stiefel Laboratories
The Stiefel Medicinal Soap Company, founded in 1847, later became Stiefel Laboratories and was sold to GlaxoSmithKline in 2009. Stiefel Laboratories made many contributions over the years to the field of dermatology as chronicled in the excellent book, “Skin Saga” written by Charles Stiefel and published in 2018. The company was first known for soaps and groundbreaking products, such as “Freckle Soap” that sped epidermal turnover, resulting in a more even toned complexion.
Many dermatologists were involved in developing products and providing advice to the company. Herman Sharlit, MD, in New York, had the idea for a moisturizing soap (Oilatum), a detergent soap (Acne Aid detergent soap), and a coal tar soap (Polytar). Eugene Farber, MD, who was professor and chairman of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, consulted for Stiefel Laboratories and helped them identify and develop many products over the years.1 Stiefel Labs came out with the first facial scrub called Brasivol, an abrasive cream with aluminum oxide particles – the predecessor to modern day microdermabrasion. This facial scrub was conceived by dermatologist Rose Saperstein, MD, Los Angeles, who published a report2 on this in 1960 and also received a patent for it in 1963.3 Brasivol became the company’s first million dollar product.1
Stiefel Laboratories worked with many dermatologists to help them develop their ideas. They included Cleveland White, MD, who patented a highly absorbent foot and body powder known as Zeasorb powder. William Pace, MD, was a Canadian dermatologist who patented an acne treatment containing benzoyl peroxide and sulfur that Stiefel Labs marketed as Sulfoxyl Lotion. Dr. Pace is lovingly referred to as “the father of benzoyl peroxide” because his idea led Stiefel Labs to develop more benzoyl peroxide products. Benzoyl peroxide remains the most popular OTC ingredient to treat acne.
Comedone extractors
Many dermatologists have developed ways to extract comedones. There are publications on using paper clips,4,5safety pins,6 and medicine droppers,7 but some dermatologists have developed special comedone extractors, which include the following: Jay Schamberg, MD, developed a comedone extractor with a loop at each end. He disapproved of cutting a comedone, so did not include a needle or scalpel in his extractor.8
- Leonard Savitt, MD,9 attached a scalpel to one end of the Schamberg extractor.
- Alan Shalita, MD, developed a comedone extractor with a large, keyhole-shaped extracting orifice that made the tool easier to clean.10
The Saalfield comedone extractor combines a fixed pointed blade at one end and a small spoon-shaped expressor foot at the other end. (However, I have not been able to determine if Saalfield was a dermatologist.)
Dermatologist who developed methods for lesion excisions
Robert Segal, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, invented the Dermablade. Although this is technically not a beauty device, I am including it because it has made the removal of unsightly moles and lesions much easier. He holds six patents on this device.
Dermatologists developed dermabrasion and microneedling
Ernst Kromayer, MD,11 a dermatologist in Germany, first described microneedling in 1905 when he mounted dental burrs on motor-driven flexible cord equipment to treat scars. Abner Kurtin, MD, a New York dermatologist, learned about Dr. Kromayer’s technique and modified it using stainless wireless brushes. Dr. Kurtin is known as the “father of dermabrasion.” His work was noted by Nobel Laureate Alexis Carrel, MD, who moved to New York City and began using the technique. Dr. Carrel’s protege, New York dermatologist, Norman Orentreich, MD, began using hypodermic needles instead of wire brushes. Microneedling has gained much popularity over the last decade and has been combined with platelet rich plasma injections.
Dermatologist-developed injection to shrink fat
Adam Rotunda, MD, was a dermatology resident at the University of California, Los Angeles, when he and his professor Michael Kolodney, MD, PhD, had the idea to develop deoxycholate as an injectable to reduce fat deposits. They filed a patent in 2004, conducted clinical trials, and it worked! In 2009, the patent for deoxycholic acid (ATX-10), marketed as Kybella, was granted. The rights to the drug were purchased by Aestherx, which later became Kythera Biopharmaceuticals. Kybella received Food and Drug Administration approval in 2015, and 6 months later, Kythera was acquired by Allergan.
Development of FDA-approved drugs to improve skin appearance
In 2004, dermatologists Stuart Shanler, MD, and Andrew Ondo, MD, filed a patent for the use of topical oxymetazoline for the treatment of the erythema of rosacea. They published their observations in 2007, noting that oxymetazoline improved facial flushing and erythema.11 Dr. Shanler then teamed up with dermatologist Neal Walker, MD, to form a start-up pharmaceutical company, Vicept Therapeutics, and took this compound through phase 2 clinical trials, while Dr. Shanler filed additional patents on oxymetazoline compositions and their uses. Once they successfully demonstrated the efficacy of topical oxymetazoline for rosacea, Allergan acquired the rights of the drug, successfully completed the phase 3 clinical trials, and Rhofade was approved by the FDA in 2017. It is the only topical drug invented and developed by a dermatologist to receive FDA approval since tretinoin (Renova) was developed by Albert Kligman, MD, and approved by the FDA for the improvement in appearance of fine wrinkling, mottled hyperpigmentation and roughness associated with photodamage in 1992.
The development of lasers
The last dermatologist I will discuss in this history series is R. Rox Anderson, MD, professor of dermatology at Harvard University, and director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. It is impossible to list all his contributions in such a limited space. It would take a book. Building on efforts pioneered by Leon Goldman, MD, Dr. Anderson and his associates pioneered the use of lasers in dermatology and invented the idea of photothermolysis when they filed a patent on using light to remove hair in 1995.Dieter Manstein, MD, PhD,Dr. Anderson and others filed many patents that led to devices such as hair removal lasers, resurfacing lasers, and Fraxel lasers. They also made discoveries related to using cold to shrink fat. One of their inventions is known as CoolSculpting. They were so influential in the development of cosmetic dermatology that it is hard to imagine the field without their contributions.
This concludes my four-part series on the history of dermatologists’ role in the development of the skin care industry. I hope I have not forgotten anyone; if I did, I apologize. I have asked for ideas on Dermchat, Facebook and LinkedIn. Feel free to reach out if I missed one of your contributions. I will be giving lectures on this topic in the future and would be happy to include anyone I missed.
As the year 2020 ends, I want to say, Happy 50th Anniversary Dermatology News! I hope you enjoyed this historical series in honor of this anniversary.
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 dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Stiefel, CW. (n.d.). Skin Saga: How a Tiny Family Soap Business Evolved Over Six Generations Into the #1 Dermatology Company in the World. United States: Smart Business Network.
2. Saperstein, RB. Arch Dermatol. 1960 Apr;81:601.
3. Saperstein, RB, and Stiefel, WK (1963). U.S. Patent No. 3,092,111. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
4. George DE et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006 Feb;54(2):326.
5. Cvancara JL, Meffert JJ. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1999 Mar;40(3):477-8.
6. Mukhtar M., Sharma R. Int J Dermatol. 2004 Dec;43(12):967-8.
7. Shellow, H. JAMA. 1951;147(18):1777.
8. Wright CS. Arch Dermatol. 1961;84(3):515.
9. Savitt LE. Arch Dermatol. 1961 Apr;83:660-1.
10. Shalita AR, Harris H. Arch Dermatol. 1972 May;105(5):759-60.
11. Shanler SD, Ondo AL. Arch Dermatol. 2007 Nov;143(11):1369-71.
Dermatologists’ role in the development of the skin care industry
This is the third in a series of columns discussing the important roles that dermatologists have played in the skin care industry.
Norman Orentreich, MD
Dr. Orentreich was a successful New York City dermatologist and the first to perform hair transplants. This new technique brought him fame and notoriety and arguably made him the first “celebrity dermatologist.” (He was also a member of the original advisory board of Dermatology News, at that time Skin & Allergy News, in January 1970.) Dr. Orentreich was a seminal figure in the trend to link the cosmetic industry and dermatology. In August 1967, Vogue magazine1 published an article on him, titled “Can Great Skin be Created?” This popular article caught the attention of Leonard Lauder, of Estée Lauder, who recruited Dr. Orentreich to help create the skin care line Clinique. Clinique was intended to be a brand with a medical look that promoted its products as “allergy tested,” with packaging that has an antiseptic look and beauty counter salespeople wearing white coats.
Dr. Orentreich’s input into the development of a skin type–based skin care line was fundamental to the development of this brand. The four-question questionnaire with an iconic plastic lever that customers slide left or right instantly provided them with an assessment of their skin type at the beauty counter, with one of four skin types: Very Dry to Dry Skin (Skin Type 1), Dry Combination (Skin Type 2), Combination Oily (Skin Type 3), and Oily (Skin Type 4).
Although this skin-typing system was not scientifically accurate (there is no scientific definition of combination skin), it was reminiscent of the system developed by cosmetic company tycoon Helena Rubinstein in the 1940s that classified people into four skin types: oily, dry, combination, and sensitive. Clinique became a blockbuster skin care brand and was one of the first developed by a dermatologist – although Dr. Orentreich did not put his name on it.
In 1972, Dr. Orentreich filed a patent2 for an exfoliating pad for the skin that later became known as the “Buf-Puf.” I heard years ago that he got the idea from the machines used to buff the floors in the hospital. The buffing pad had a hole in the center where the machine attached. Dr. Orentreich purportedly thought “I wonder what they do with the cut-out centers?” He looked into this, and subsequently used the centers to create the Buf-Puf. I cannot find a reference for this, but I love this story and hope it’s true. If any readers have any knowledge of this, please let me know, so I can amend my story if it is incorrect.
Almay
Almay, an amalgamation of the founders’ names, Alfred and Fanny May Woititz, was the first hypoallergenic brand, established in 1931, and the first to provide hypoallergenic cosmetics, long before Clinique. In addition, the company was the first skin care brand to become available by prescription only (as it was initially), fully disclose all individual ingredients in its products (well before this became mandatory in 1976), provide totally fragrance-free products, develop a hypoallergenic fragrance – and provide patch tests and other materials to physicians to identify contact allergens.
Over 90 years, the company was also the first among skin care brands to do the following:
- Provide custom formulations to individuals proven to be allergic to a specific ingredient, through their physicians.
- Perform a full range of premarket safety testing on all products for allergy and irritation, and test all its products for comedogenicity.
- Formulate cosmetics for use around the eye area (eye shadows and eyeliners) specifically for contact lens wearers.
- Formulate hypoallergenic regimens for specific skin types in the mass market.
- Provide a specific cosmetic regimen for acne-prone women, including a silicone-based makeup and active ingredients for treatment in cosmetics and skin care.
I recently interviewed Stanley Levy, MD, who was one of the consultants to Almay, and practices in Chapel Hill, N.C., where he has an academic niche related to skin care formulation and safety. He told me how Almay provided patch test materials to dermatologists to help identify contact dermatitis to cosmetic ingredients, and described Almay’s relationship with the dermatology field as follows: “From the outset, Almay was linked to dermatology. In 1930, a chemist and pharmacist in New York City, Al Woititz, was looking to compound cosmetics for his wife suffering from cosmetic allergies, Fannie May. He enlisted the counsel of the preeminent dermatologic expert in contact dermatitis at the time, Dr. Marion Sulzberger, to suggest ingredients to avoid. [Dr. Sulzberger was also a member of the original Dermatology News editorial advisory board.] Soon, dermatologists around New York City were recommending these formulations. This led to a product line free of the known allergens and a fledgling company trademarked as Almay. For the past 90 years, [the company] has kept a close relationship with dermatologists, well before that was the norm.”
The Almay research overseen by Dr. Levy and others contributed greatly to our understanding of the allergenicity of skin care.
Albert Kligman, MD
The turning point for the interface of dermatology with the cosmetic industry was the shift from a safety-based approach (hypoallergenic and noncomedogenic) to an emphasis on efficacy claims in the 1980s. Part of the impetus for this was the Dr. Kligman’s observation that retinoids could improve photoaging.
Dr. Kligman, a well-known dermatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, showed that retinoids were an effective treatment for acne. For more about this, listen to my interview on the Dermatology Weekly podcast, with James Leyden, MD, about his work at the University of Pennsylvania with Dr. Kligman on the development of oral and topical retinoids. During Dr. Kligman’s research on acne, he noticed that wrinkles improved after treatment with tretinoin, and in 1986, he and Dr. Leyden (and several other authors) published the first article about tretinoin’s use for photoaged skin.3 This led to a double-blind study4 conducted by John J. Voorhees, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and coauthors that showed statistically significant improvement of photoaged skin when treated with topical tretinoin. Dr. Voorhees and his group did many more studies on retinoids5,6 and photoaging7 – so many that, at one time, he was (and maybe still is) the most widely published dermatologist in the United States. These studies showed that, not only did prescription tretinoin improve the appearance of wrinkles, but so did over-the-counter retinol.8 Retinoids remain the most efficacious prescription and cosmeceutical ingredients to treat wrinkled skin.
When studies conducted by Dr. Kligman, Dr. Voorhees, and by Barbara Gilcrest, MD, 9,10 showed that retinoids improved wrinkles, a major change in the focus in the skin care industry occurred.
During the same time period, the studies on alpha hydroxy acids by Chérie Ditre, MD, Eugene Van Scott, MD, and colleages11,12; and studies by Sheldon Pinnell, MD, on Vitamin C (see part 1 of this series) all demonstrated the efficacy of cosmetic ingredients on photoaged skin. This triggered a major change in how skin care products were marketed, with an efficacy approach rather than a safety approach.
With the shift from safety (hypoallergenic and noncomedogenic issues) to efficacy claims in the 1980s, and as nondrug active ingredients like retinol were shown to have biologic effects, the lines between the Food and Drug Administration’s definition of a drug versus a cosmetic became blurred. In 1984, Dr. Kligman suggested a new classification for the ingredients that fell in the middle, proposing the term “cosmeceutical” and thus, the concept of a cosmeceutical was introduced. To this day, cosmeceutical is not an official definition and the FDA has yet to deal with it as a quasi-drug category. FDA regulations as to what constitutes a drug versus a cosmetic date back to the 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Once marketing focused on efficacy, many companies made outrageous claims. During the second half of the 1980s, the FDA issued some warning letters to some companies in an effort to control these claims.
Now efficacy claims abound and we, as dermatologists, should be the experts who back up these claims with scientific data. As the cosmeceutical market has evolved and grown, consumers are bewildered by the myriad of active ingredients being promoted and the number of products in the marketplace. As dermatologic innovation has led to more efficacious active ingredients, our patients look to us as knowledgeable and credible sources of information and for recommendations about the best skin care routines for their skin issues. This is all reflected in the fact that physician-dispensed skin care is becoming the fastest growing segment in this market. It is incumbent upon dermatologists to be knowledgeable and conversant about skin care products and skin care routines, and is particularly true for those of us who sell skin care products in our offices.
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, Burt’s Bees, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Vogue Magazine, 1967 Aug 15. “Can Great Skin be Created?”
2. https://patents.google.com/patent/US3910284.
3. Kligman AM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1986 Oct;15(4 Pt 2):836-59.
4. Weiss JS et al. JAMA. 1988 Jan 22-29;259(4):527-32.
5. Goldfarb MT et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989 Sep;21(3 Pt 2):645-50.
6. Ellis CN et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1990 Oct;23(4 Pt 1):629-37.
7. Kang S; Voorhees JJ. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1998 Aug;39(2 Pt 3):S55-61.
8. Kafi R et al. Arch Dermatol. 2007 May;143(5):606-12.
9. Gilchrest BA. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989 Sep;21(3 Pt 2):610-3.
10. Bhawan J et al. Arch Dermatol. 1991 May;127(5):666-72.
11. Griffin TD et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996 Feb;34(2 Pt 1):196-203.
12. Ditre CM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996 Feb;34(2 Pt 1):187-95.
This is the third in a series of columns discussing the important roles that dermatologists have played in the skin care industry.
Norman Orentreich, MD
Dr. Orentreich was a successful New York City dermatologist and the first to perform hair transplants. This new technique brought him fame and notoriety and arguably made him the first “celebrity dermatologist.” (He was also a member of the original advisory board of Dermatology News, at that time Skin & Allergy News, in January 1970.) Dr. Orentreich was a seminal figure in the trend to link the cosmetic industry and dermatology. In August 1967, Vogue magazine1 published an article on him, titled “Can Great Skin be Created?” This popular article caught the attention of Leonard Lauder, of Estée Lauder, who recruited Dr. Orentreich to help create the skin care line Clinique. Clinique was intended to be a brand with a medical look that promoted its products as “allergy tested,” with packaging that has an antiseptic look and beauty counter salespeople wearing white coats.
Dr. Orentreich’s input into the development of a skin type–based skin care line was fundamental to the development of this brand. The four-question questionnaire with an iconic plastic lever that customers slide left or right instantly provided them with an assessment of their skin type at the beauty counter, with one of four skin types: Very Dry to Dry Skin (Skin Type 1), Dry Combination (Skin Type 2), Combination Oily (Skin Type 3), and Oily (Skin Type 4).
Although this skin-typing system was not scientifically accurate (there is no scientific definition of combination skin), it was reminiscent of the system developed by cosmetic company tycoon Helena Rubinstein in the 1940s that classified people into four skin types: oily, dry, combination, and sensitive. Clinique became a blockbuster skin care brand and was one of the first developed by a dermatologist – although Dr. Orentreich did not put his name on it.
In 1972, Dr. Orentreich filed a patent2 for an exfoliating pad for the skin that later became known as the “Buf-Puf.” I heard years ago that he got the idea from the machines used to buff the floors in the hospital. The buffing pad had a hole in the center where the machine attached. Dr. Orentreich purportedly thought “I wonder what they do with the cut-out centers?” He looked into this, and subsequently used the centers to create the Buf-Puf. I cannot find a reference for this, but I love this story and hope it’s true. If any readers have any knowledge of this, please let me know, so I can amend my story if it is incorrect.
Almay
Almay, an amalgamation of the founders’ names, Alfred and Fanny May Woititz, was the first hypoallergenic brand, established in 1931, and the first to provide hypoallergenic cosmetics, long before Clinique. In addition, the company was the first skin care brand to become available by prescription only (as it was initially), fully disclose all individual ingredients in its products (well before this became mandatory in 1976), provide totally fragrance-free products, develop a hypoallergenic fragrance – and provide patch tests and other materials to physicians to identify contact allergens.
Over 90 years, the company was also the first among skin care brands to do the following:
- Provide custom formulations to individuals proven to be allergic to a specific ingredient, through their physicians.
- Perform a full range of premarket safety testing on all products for allergy and irritation, and test all its products for comedogenicity.
- Formulate cosmetics for use around the eye area (eye shadows and eyeliners) specifically for contact lens wearers.
- Formulate hypoallergenic regimens for specific skin types in the mass market.
- Provide a specific cosmetic regimen for acne-prone women, including a silicone-based makeup and active ingredients for treatment in cosmetics and skin care.
I recently interviewed Stanley Levy, MD, who was one of the consultants to Almay, and practices in Chapel Hill, N.C., where he has an academic niche related to skin care formulation and safety. He told me how Almay provided patch test materials to dermatologists to help identify contact dermatitis to cosmetic ingredients, and described Almay’s relationship with the dermatology field as follows: “From the outset, Almay was linked to dermatology. In 1930, a chemist and pharmacist in New York City, Al Woititz, was looking to compound cosmetics for his wife suffering from cosmetic allergies, Fannie May. He enlisted the counsel of the preeminent dermatologic expert in contact dermatitis at the time, Dr. Marion Sulzberger, to suggest ingredients to avoid. [Dr. Sulzberger was also a member of the original Dermatology News editorial advisory board.] Soon, dermatologists around New York City were recommending these formulations. This led to a product line free of the known allergens and a fledgling company trademarked as Almay. For the past 90 years, [the company] has kept a close relationship with dermatologists, well before that was the norm.”
The Almay research overseen by Dr. Levy and others contributed greatly to our understanding of the allergenicity of skin care.
Albert Kligman, MD
The turning point for the interface of dermatology with the cosmetic industry was the shift from a safety-based approach (hypoallergenic and noncomedogenic) to an emphasis on efficacy claims in the 1980s. Part of the impetus for this was the Dr. Kligman’s observation that retinoids could improve photoaging.
Dr. Kligman, a well-known dermatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, showed that retinoids were an effective treatment for acne. For more about this, listen to my interview on the Dermatology Weekly podcast, with James Leyden, MD, about his work at the University of Pennsylvania with Dr. Kligman on the development of oral and topical retinoids. During Dr. Kligman’s research on acne, he noticed that wrinkles improved after treatment with tretinoin, and in 1986, he and Dr. Leyden (and several other authors) published the first article about tretinoin’s use for photoaged skin.3 This led to a double-blind study4 conducted by John J. Voorhees, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and coauthors that showed statistically significant improvement of photoaged skin when treated with topical tretinoin. Dr. Voorhees and his group did many more studies on retinoids5,6 and photoaging7 – so many that, at one time, he was (and maybe still is) the most widely published dermatologist in the United States. These studies showed that, not only did prescription tretinoin improve the appearance of wrinkles, but so did over-the-counter retinol.8 Retinoids remain the most efficacious prescription and cosmeceutical ingredients to treat wrinkled skin.
When studies conducted by Dr. Kligman, Dr. Voorhees, and by Barbara Gilcrest, MD, 9,10 showed that retinoids improved wrinkles, a major change in the focus in the skin care industry occurred.
During the same time period, the studies on alpha hydroxy acids by Chérie Ditre, MD, Eugene Van Scott, MD, and colleages11,12; and studies by Sheldon Pinnell, MD, on Vitamin C (see part 1 of this series) all demonstrated the efficacy of cosmetic ingredients on photoaged skin. This triggered a major change in how skin care products were marketed, with an efficacy approach rather than a safety approach.
With the shift from safety (hypoallergenic and noncomedogenic issues) to efficacy claims in the 1980s, and as nondrug active ingredients like retinol were shown to have biologic effects, the lines between the Food and Drug Administration’s definition of a drug versus a cosmetic became blurred. In 1984, Dr. Kligman suggested a new classification for the ingredients that fell in the middle, proposing the term “cosmeceutical” and thus, the concept of a cosmeceutical was introduced. To this day, cosmeceutical is not an official definition and the FDA has yet to deal with it as a quasi-drug category. FDA regulations as to what constitutes a drug versus a cosmetic date back to the 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Once marketing focused on efficacy, many companies made outrageous claims. During the second half of the 1980s, the FDA issued some warning letters to some companies in an effort to control these claims.
Now efficacy claims abound and we, as dermatologists, should be the experts who back up these claims with scientific data. As the cosmeceutical market has evolved and grown, consumers are bewildered by the myriad of active ingredients being promoted and the number of products in the marketplace. As dermatologic innovation has led to more efficacious active ingredients, our patients look to us as knowledgeable and credible sources of information and for recommendations about the best skin care routines for their skin issues. This is all reflected in the fact that physician-dispensed skin care is becoming the fastest growing segment in this market. It is incumbent upon dermatologists to be knowledgeable and conversant about skin care products and skin care routines, and is particularly true for those of us who sell skin care products in our offices.
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, Burt’s Bees, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Vogue Magazine, 1967 Aug 15. “Can Great Skin be Created?”
2. https://patents.google.com/patent/US3910284.
3. Kligman AM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1986 Oct;15(4 Pt 2):836-59.
4. Weiss JS et al. JAMA. 1988 Jan 22-29;259(4):527-32.
5. Goldfarb MT et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989 Sep;21(3 Pt 2):645-50.
6. Ellis CN et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1990 Oct;23(4 Pt 1):629-37.
7. Kang S; Voorhees JJ. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1998 Aug;39(2 Pt 3):S55-61.
8. Kafi R et al. Arch Dermatol. 2007 May;143(5):606-12.
9. Gilchrest BA. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989 Sep;21(3 Pt 2):610-3.
10. Bhawan J et al. Arch Dermatol. 1991 May;127(5):666-72.
11. Griffin TD et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996 Feb;34(2 Pt 1):196-203.
12. Ditre CM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996 Feb;34(2 Pt 1):187-95.
This is the third in a series of columns discussing the important roles that dermatologists have played in the skin care industry.
Norman Orentreich, MD
Dr. Orentreich was a successful New York City dermatologist and the first to perform hair transplants. This new technique brought him fame and notoriety and arguably made him the first “celebrity dermatologist.” (He was also a member of the original advisory board of Dermatology News, at that time Skin & Allergy News, in January 1970.) Dr. Orentreich was a seminal figure in the trend to link the cosmetic industry and dermatology. In August 1967, Vogue magazine1 published an article on him, titled “Can Great Skin be Created?” This popular article caught the attention of Leonard Lauder, of Estée Lauder, who recruited Dr. Orentreich to help create the skin care line Clinique. Clinique was intended to be a brand with a medical look that promoted its products as “allergy tested,” with packaging that has an antiseptic look and beauty counter salespeople wearing white coats.
Dr. Orentreich’s input into the development of a skin type–based skin care line was fundamental to the development of this brand. The four-question questionnaire with an iconic plastic lever that customers slide left or right instantly provided them with an assessment of their skin type at the beauty counter, with one of four skin types: Very Dry to Dry Skin (Skin Type 1), Dry Combination (Skin Type 2), Combination Oily (Skin Type 3), and Oily (Skin Type 4).
Although this skin-typing system was not scientifically accurate (there is no scientific definition of combination skin), it was reminiscent of the system developed by cosmetic company tycoon Helena Rubinstein in the 1940s that classified people into four skin types: oily, dry, combination, and sensitive. Clinique became a blockbuster skin care brand and was one of the first developed by a dermatologist – although Dr. Orentreich did not put his name on it.
In 1972, Dr. Orentreich filed a patent2 for an exfoliating pad for the skin that later became known as the “Buf-Puf.” I heard years ago that he got the idea from the machines used to buff the floors in the hospital. The buffing pad had a hole in the center where the machine attached. Dr. Orentreich purportedly thought “I wonder what they do with the cut-out centers?” He looked into this, and subsequently used the centers to create the Buf-Puf. I cannot find a reference for this, but I love this story and hope it’s true. If any readers have any knowledge of this, please let me know, so I can amend my story if it is incorrect.
Almay
Almay, an amalgamation of the founders’ names, Alfred and Fanny May Woititz, was the first hypoallergenic brand, established in 1931, and the first to provide hypoallergenic cosmetics, long before Clinique. In addition, the company was the first skin care brand to become available by prescription only (as it was initially), fully disclose all individual ingredients in its products (well before this became mandatory in 1976), provide totally fragrance-free products, develop a hypoallergenic fragrance – and provide patch tests and other materials to physicians to identify contact allergens.
Over 90 years, the company was also the first among skin care brands to do the following:
- Provide custom formulations to individuals proven to be allergic to a specific ingredient, through their physicians.
- Perform a full range of premarket safety testing on all products for allergy and irritation, and test all its products for comedogenicity.
- Formulate cosmetics for use around the eye area (eye shadows and eyeliners) specifically for contact lens wearers.
- Formulate hypoallergenic regimens for specific skin types in the mass market.
- Provide a specific cosmetic regimen for acne-prone women, including a silicone-based makeup and active ingredients for treatment in cosmetics and skin care.
I recently interviewed Stanley Levy, MD, who was one of the consultants to Almay, and practices in Chapel Hill, N.C., where he has an academic niche related to skin care formulation and safety. He told me how Almay provided patch test materials to dermatologists to help identify contact dermatitis to cosmetic ingredients, and described Almay’s relationship with the dermatology field as follows: “From the outset, Almay was linked to dermatology. In 1930, a chemist and pharmacist in New York City, Al Woititz, was looking to compound cosmetics for his wife suffering from cosmetic allergies, Fannie May. He enlisted the counsel of the preeminent dermatologic expert in contact dermatitis at the time, Dr. Marion Sulzberger, to suggest ingredients to avoid. [Dr. Sulzberger was also a member of the original Dermatology News editorial advisory board.] Soon, dermatologists around New York City were recommending these formulations. This led to a product line free of the known allergens and a fledgling company trademarked as Almay. For the past 90 years, [the company] has kept a close relationship with dermatologists, well before that was the norm.”
The Almay research overseen by Dr. Levy and others contributed greatly to our understanding of the allergenicity of skin care.
Albert Kligman, MD
The turning point for the interface of dermatology with the cosmetic industry was the shift from a safety-based approach (hypoallergenic and noncomedogenic) to an emphasis on efficacy claims in the 1980s. Part of the impetus for this was the Dr. Kligman’s observation that retinoids could improve photoaging.
Dr. Kligman, a well-known dermatologist at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, showed that retinoids were an effective treatment for acne. For more about this, listen to my interview on the Dermatology Weekly podcast, with James Leyden, MD, about his work at the University of Pennsylvania with Dr. Kligman on the development of oral and topical retinoids. During Dr. Kligman’s research on acne, he noticed that wrinkles improved after treatment with tretinoin, and in 1986, he and Dr. Leyden (and several other authors) published the first article about tretinoin’s use for photoaged skin.3 This led to a double-blind study4 conducted by John J. Voorhees, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and coauthors that showed statistically significant improvement of photoaged skin when treated with topical tretinoin. Dr. Voorhees and his group did many more studies on retinoids5,6 and photoaging7 – so many that, at one time, he was (and maybe still is) the most widely published dermatologist in the United States. These studies showed that, not only did prescription tretinoin improve the appearance of wrinkles, but so did over-the-counter retinol.8 Retinoids remain the most efficacious prescription and cosmeceutical ingredients to treat wrinkled skin.
When studies conducted by Dr. Kligman, Dr. Voorhees, and by Barbara Gilcrest, MD, 9,10 showed that retinoids improved wrinkles, a major change in the focus in the skin care industry occurred.
During the same time period, the studies on alpha hydroxy acids by Chérie Ditre, MD, Eugene Van Scott, MD, and colleages11,12; and studies by Sheldon Pinnell, MD, on Vitamin C (see part 1 of this series) all demonstrated the efficacy of cosmetic ingredients on photoaged skin. This triggered a major change in how skin care products were marketed, with an efficacy approach rather than a safety approach.
With the shift from safety (hypoallergenic and noncomedogenic issues) to efficacy claims in the 1980s, and as nondrug active ingredients like retinol were shown to have biologic effects, the lines between the Food and Drug Administration’s definition of a drug versus a cosmetic became blurred. In 1984, Dr. Kligman suggested a new classification for the ingredients that fell in the middle, proposing the term “cosmeceutical” and thus, the concept of a cosmeceutical was introduced. To this day, cosmeceutical is not an official definition and the FDA has yet to deal with it as a quasi-drug category. FDA regulations as to what constitutes a drug versus a cosmetic date back to the 1938 Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
Once marketing focused on efficacy, many companies made outrageous claims. During the second half of the 1980s, the FDA issued some warning letters to some companies in an effort to control these claims.
Now efficacy claims abound and we, as dermatologists, should be the experts who back up these claims with scientific data. As the cosmeceutical market has evolved and grown, consumers are bewildered by the myriad of active ingredients being promoted and the number of products in the marketplace. As dermatologic innovation has led to more efficacious active ingredients, our patients look to us as knowledgeable and credible sources of information and for recommendations about the best skin care routines for their skin issues. This is all reflected in the fact that physician-dispensed skin care is becoming the fastest growing segment in this market. It is incumbent upon dermatologists to be knowledgeable and conversant about skin care products and skin care routines, and is particularly true for those of us who sell skin care products in our offices.
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, Burt’s Bees, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Vogue Magazine, 1967 Aug 15. “Can Great Skin be Created?”
2. https://patents.google.com/patent/US3910284.
3. Kligman AM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1986 Oct;15(4 Pt 2):836-59.
4. Weiss JS et al. JAMA. 1988 Jan 22-29;259(4):527-32.
5. Goldfarb MT et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989 Sep;21(3 Pt 2):645-50.
6. Ellis CN et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1990 Oct;23(4 Pt 1):629-37.
7. Kang S; Voorhees JJ. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1998 Aug;39(2 Pt 3):S55-61.
8. Kafi R et al. Arch Dermatol. 2007 May;143(5):606-12.
9. Gilchrest BA. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989 Sep;21(3 Pt 2):610-3.
10. Bhawan J et al. Arch Dermatol. 1991 May;127(5):666-72.
11. Griffin TD et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996 Feb;34(2 Pt 1):196-203.
12. Ditre CM et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1996 Feb;34(2 Pt 1):187-95.
More on the history of dermatologists and skin care
The history of dermatologist-developed skin care continues as more dermatologists become interested in developing a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice. A report in July 2020 showed that physician-dispensed skin care is the largest growing segment of the skin care business with a projected compound annual growth rate of 9.9% from 2020 to 2027. I have not seen national sales numbers since this July report, but we have noticed a large increase in online sales for the doctors using my Skin Type Solutions System. This is most likely because, in a national crisis, the self-care and beauty business segments often see growth. So as you can see, dermatologist-dispensed skin care is becoming a major player in national skin care sales. Let’s get back to the story of how this came to be the case.
Peter Elias, MD. Dr. Elias is professor in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. In 1996, Dr. Elias published a landmark paper in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology demonstrating that a 1:1:1 ratio of ceramides, fatty acids, and cholesterol is required to repair a damaged skin barrier. He filed multiple patents for using these lipids in moisturizers as early as 1992. His lipid research has stood the test of time, and this paper is still frequently cited. Dr. Elias has authored over 500 peer reviewed articles on the skin barrier, has edited or coauthored three books on skin barrier science, and developed EpiCeram, a product that utilizes ceramide, the fatty acid linoleic acid, and cholesterol. EpiCeram is the only barrier repair moisturizer approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is available by prescription only.
Kathy Fields, MD, and Katie Rodan, MD. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan met at Stanford (Calif.) University. In the 1980s, these entrepreneurial dermatologists realized that patients did not understand the role of preventing acne rather than just treating it. As dermatologists, they knew that a consistent daily routine to prevent acne was much more effective than waiting for an outbreak and spot-treating lesions. They took an already available OTC medication – benzoyl peroxide – and educated consumers through infomercials that they needed to stay ahead of acne instead of waiting for a breakout. Using infomercials to sell skin care, selling skin care kits, and educating patients about the need to prevent acne rather than spot treat it was very unusual at the time. As we all know, reeducating your patients is a huge challenge. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan changed consumers thinking in a genius way that continues to resonate today by choosing a brand name to make their point: Proactiv. Their simple 3-step acne kit encouraged patients to be proactive about their acne and encouraged compliance. (Patients love exact skin care steps as demonstrated again by the success of the skin care line from plastic surgeon Suzan Obagi, MD, which became available around 1988).
Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan first offered Proactiv to Neutrogena, which turned it down. This early disappointment did not deter them and ended up benefiting them because this gave them the idea to do infomercials. Guthy Renker agreed to market and distribute the product, and the first Proactiv infomercial appeared on TV in 1995. It quickly became popular and is still one of the best selling skin care lines of all time. It’s important to note that the “overnight success” of Proactiv took at least a decade of effort.
Dr. Rodan and Dr. Fields started a new skin care line called Rodan and Fields in 2002, which was sold in department stores. This was at a time when department stores were losing market share of the skin care business, and Dr. Rodan and Dr. Fields wisely relaunched in 2007 using a direct sales model similar to Mary Kay and Avon. Their ability to encourage and motivate their team is apparent in the enthusiasm seen in their sales consultants.
Heather Woolery Lloyd, MD. Dr. Woolery Lloyd got her medical degree at the University of Miami where she also completed her dermatology residency. Her interest in skin of color led to her appointment as director of Ethnic Skin Care at the University of Miami, the country’s first cosmetic ethnic skin care department at a major university. She spent years lecturing around the world on skin of color issues and performing clinical trials before she developed the “Specific Beauty” skin care line for melanin rich skin types. Specific Beauty was acquired by Guthy Renker and is available online. It is the most popular dermatologist developed skin care line for skin of color.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, other dermatologists threw their hats into the ring and came out with skin care lines – some successful and some not. Unfortunately, many skin care lines at that time were based on “pseudoscience” and exaggerated claims, which fueled the fire of those who felt dermatologists should steer clear of these entrepreneurial pursuits. A debate about the ethics of doctors retailing skin care began, and the controversy led to this 2010 statement by the American Medical Association: “In-office sale of health-related products by physicians presents a financial conflict of interest, risks placing undue pressure on the patient, and threatens to erode patient trust and undermine the primary obligation of physicians to serve the interests of their patients before their own.”
Many dermatologists dropped out of the AMA as a result because they felt the organization was no longer representing dermatologist’s interests. After all, we know skin care science better than anyone, and many dermatologists were insulted by the suggestion that we would place our personal financial gain over the best interests of our patients.
This is a perfect example of how the actions of a few unscrupulous dermatologists can affect the entire specialty. I like to focus on the ethical entrepreneurial dermatologists who made great contributions to the skin care industry based on science, efficacy, and patient education and encourage the ethical among us to provide this science-based information to our patients to protect them from pseudoscience-based opportunists. It is obvious that I believe that dermatologists have a responsibility to provide medical advice on skin care to their patients. If not us, who will do it as ethically as we will? But I plead with those of you out there who are promoting foolish stem cell–containing creams and other impossible technologies to remember that you are hurting the credibility of our entire dermatology profession.
In my next column, I will discuss dermatologists who have played a significant role behind the scenes in the development of the skin care industry.
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, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
Castanedo-Tardan MP, Baumann L. Clin Dermatol. Jul-Aug 2009;27(4):355-8.
Gormley DE. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Jul;135(7):765-6.
Miller RC. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Mar;135(3):255-6.
Virtual Mentor. 2010;12(12):925-7.
The history of dermatologist-developed skin care continues as more dermatologists become interested in developing a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice. A report in July 2020 showed that physician-dispensed skin care is the largest growing segment of the skin care business with a projected compound annual growth rate of 9.9% from 2020 to 2027. I have not seen national sales numbers since this July report, but we have noticed a large increase in online sales for the doctors using my Skin Type Solutions System. This is most likely because, in a national crisis, the self-care and beauty business segments often see growth. So as you can see, dermatologist-dispensed skin care is becoming a major player in national skin care sales. Let’s get back to the story of how this came to be the case.
Peter Elias, MD. Dr. Elias is professor in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. In 1996, Dr. Elias published a landmark paper in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology demonstrating that a 1:1:1 ratio of ceramides, fatty acids, and cholesterol is required to repair a damaged skin barrier. He filed multiple patents for using these lipids in moisturizers as early as 1992. His lipid research has stood the test of time, and this paper is still frequently cited. Dr. Elias has authored over 500 peer reviewed articles on the skin barrier, has edited or coauthored three books on skin barrier science, and developed EpiCeram, a product that utilizes ceramide, the fatty acid linoleic acid, and cholesterol. EpiCeram is the only barrier repair moisturizer approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is available by prescription only.
Kathy Fields, MD, and Katie Rodan, MD. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan met at Stanford (Calif.) University. In the 1980s, these entrepreneurial dermatologists realized that patients did not understand the role of preventing acne rather than just treating it. As dermatologists, they knew that a consistent daily routine to prevent acne was much more effective than waiting for an outbreak and spot-treating lesions. They took an already available OTC medication – benzoyl peroxide – and educated consumers through infomercials that they needed to stay ahead of acne instead of waiting for a breakout. Using infomercials to sell skin care, selling skin care kits, and educating patients about the need to prevent acne rather than spot treat it was very unusual at the time. As we all know, reeducating your patients is a huge challenge. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan changed consumers thinking in a genius way that continues to resonate today by choosing a brand name to make their point: Proactiv. Their simple 3-step acne kit encouraged patients to be proactive about their acne and encouraged compliance. (Patients love exact skin care steps as demonstrated again by the success of the skin care line from plastic surgeon Suzan Obagi, MD, which became available around 1988).
Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan first offered Proactiv to Neutrogena, which turned it down. This early disappointment did not deter them and ended up benefiting them because this gave them the idea to do infomercials. Guthy Renker agreed to market and distribute the product, and the first Proactiv infomercial appeared on TV in 1995. It quickly became popular and is still one of the best selling skin care lines of all time. It’s important to note that the “overnight success” of Proactiv took at least a decade of effort.
Dr. Rodan and Dr. Fields started a new skin care line called Rodan and Fields in 2002, which was sold in department stores. This was at a time when department stores were losing market share of the skin care business, and Dr. Rodan and Dr. Fields wisely relaunched in 2007 using a direct sales model similar to Mary Kay and Avon. Their ability to encourage and motivate their team is apparent in the enthusiasm seen in their sales consultants.
Heather Woolery Lloyd, MD. Dr. Woolery Lloyd got her medical degree at the University of Miami where she also completed her dermatology residency. Her interest in skin of color led to her appointment as director of Ethnic Skin Care at the University of Miami, the country’s first cosmetic ethnic skin care department at a major university. She spent years lecturing around the world on skin of color issues and performing clinical trials before she developed the “Specific Beauty” skin care line for melanin rich skin types. Specific Beauty was acquired by Guthy Renker and is available online. It is the most popular dermatologist developed skin care line for skin of color.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, other dermatologists threw their hats into the ring and came out with skin care lines – some successful and some not. Unfortunately, many skin care lines at that time were based on “pseudoscience” and exaggerated claims, which fueled the fire of those who felt dermatologists should steer clear of these entrepreneurial pursuits. A debate about the ethics of doctors retailing skin care began, and the controversy led to this 2010 statement by the American Medical Association: “In-office sale of health-related products by physicians presents a financial conflict of interest, risks placing undue pressure on the patient, and threatens to erode patient trust and undermine the primary obligation of physicians to serve the interests of their patients before their own.”
Many dermatologists dropped out of the AMA as a result because they felt the organization was no longer representing dermatologist’s interests. After all, we know skin care science better than anyone, and many dermatologists were insulted by the suggestion that we would place our personal financial gain over the best interests of our patients.
This is a perfect example of how the actions of a few unscrupulous dermatologists can affect the entire specialty. I like to focus on the ethical entrepreneurial dermatologists who made great contributions to the skin care industry based on science, efficacy, and patient education and encourage the ethical among us to provide this science-based information to our patients to protect them from pseudoscience-based opportunists. It is obvious that I believe that dermatologists have a responsibility to provide medical advice on skin care to their patients. If not us, who will do it as ethically as we will? But I plead with those of you out there who are promoting foolish stem cell–containing creams and other impossible technologies to remember that you are hurting the credibility of our entire dermatology profession.
In my next column, I will discuss dermatologists who have played a significant role behind the scenes in the development of the skin care industry.
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, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
Castanedo-Tardan MP, Baumann L. Clin Dermatol. Jul-Aug 2009;27(4):355-8.
Gormley DE. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Jul;135(7):765-6.
Miller RC. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Mar;135(3):255-6.
Virtual Mentor. 2010;12(12):925-7.
The history of dermatologist-developed skin care continues as more dermatologists become interested in developing a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice. A report in July 2020 showed that physician-dispensed skin care is the largest growing segment of the skin care business with a projected compound annual growth rate of 9.9% from 2020 to 2027. I have not seen national sales numbers since this July report, but we have noticed a large increase in online sales for the doctors using my Skin Type Solutions System. This is most likely because, in a national crisis, the self-care and beauty business segments often see growth. So as you can see, dermatologist-dispensed skin care is becoming a major player in national skin care sales. Let’s get back to the story of how this came to be the case.
Peter Elias, MD. Dr. Elias is professor in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. In 1996, Dr. Elias published a landmark paper in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology demonstrating that a 1:1:1 ratio of ceramides, fatty acids, and cholesterol is required to repair a damaged skin barrier. He filed multiple patents for using these lipids in moisturizers as early as 1992. His lipid research has stood the test of time, and this paper is still frequently cited. Dr. Elias has authored over 500 peer reviewed articles on the skin barrier, has edited or coauthored three books on skin barrier science, and developed EpiCeram, a product that utilizes ceramide, the fatty acid linoleic acid, and cholesterol. EpiCeram is the only barrier repair moisturizer approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is available by prescription only.
Kathy Fields, MD, and Katie Rodan, MD. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan met at Stanford (Calif.) University. In the 1980s, these entrepreneurial dermatologists realized that patients did not understand the role of preventing acne rather than just treating it. As dermatologists, they knew that a consistent daily routine to prevent acne was much more effective than waiting for an outbreak and spot-treating lesions. They took an already available OTC medication – benzoyl peroxide – and educated consumers through infomercials that they needed to stay ahead of acne instead of waiting for a breakout. Using infomercials to sell skin care, selling skin care kits, and educating patients about the need to prevent acne rather than spot treat it was very unusual at the time. As we all know, reeducating your patients is a huge challenge. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan changed consumers thinking in a genius way that continues to resonate today by choosing a brand name to make their point: Proactiv. Their simple 3-step acne kit encouraged patients to be proactive about their acne and encouraged compliance. (Patients love exact skin care steps as demonstrated again by the success of the skin care line from plastic surgeon Suzan Obagi, MD, which became available around 1988).
Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan first offered Proactiv to Neutrogena, which turned it down. This early disappointment did not deter them and ended up benefiting them because this gave them the idea to do infomercials. Guthy Renker agreed to market and distribute the product, and the first Proactiv infomercial appeared on TV in 1995. It quickly became popular and is still one of the best selling skin care lines of all time. It’s important to note that the “overnight success” of Proactiv took at least a decade of effort.
Dr. Rodan and Dr. Fields started a new skin care line called Rodan and Fields in 2002, which was sold in department stores. This was at a time when department stores were losing market share of the skin care business, and Dr. Rodan and Dr. Fields wisely relaunched in 2007 using a direct sales model similar to Mary Kay and Avon. Their ability to encourage and motivate their team is apparent in the enthusiasm seen in their sales consultants.
Heather Woolery Lloyd, MD. Dr. Woolery Lloyd got her medical degree at the University of Miami where she also completed her dermatology residency. Her interest in skin of color led to her appointment as director of Ethnic Skin Care at the University of Miami, the country’s first cosmetic ethnic skin care department at a major university. She spent years lecturing around the world on skin of color issues and performing clinical trials before she developed the “Specific Beauty” skin care line for melanin rich skin types. Specific Beauty was acquired by Guthy Renker and is available online. It is the most popular dermatologist developed skin care line for skin of color.
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, other dermatologists threw their hats into the ring and came out with skin care lines – some successful and some not. Unfortunately, many skin care lines at that time were based on “pseudoscience” and exaggerated claims, which fueled the fire of those who felt dermatologists should steer clear of these entrepreneurial pursuits. A debate about the ethics of doctors retailing skin care began, and the controversy led to this 2010 statement by the American Medical Association: “In-office sale of health-related products by physicians presents a financial conflict of interest, risks placing undue pressure on the patient, and threatens to erode patient trust and undermine the primary obligation of physicians to serve the interests of their patients before their own.”
Many dermatologists dropped out of the AMA as a result because they felt the organization was no longer representing dermatologist’s interests. After all, we know skin care science better than anyone, and many dermatologists were insulted by the suggestion that we would place our personal financial gain over the best interests of our patients.
This is a perfect example of how the actions of a few unscrupulous dermatologists can affect the entire specialty. I like to focus on the ethical entrepreneurial dermatologists who made great contributions to the skin care industry based on science, efficacy, and patient education and encourage the ethical among us to provide this science-based information to our patients to protect them from pseudoscience-based opportunists. It is obvious that I believe that dermatologists have a responsibility to provide medical advice on skin care to their patients. If not us, who will do it as ethically as we will? But I plead with those of you out there who are promoting foolish stem cell–containing creams and other impossible technologies to remember that you are hurting the credibility of our entire dermatology profession.
In my next column, I will discuss dermatologists who have played a significant role behind the scenes in the development of the skin care industry.
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, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
Castanedo-Tardan MP, Baumann L. Clin Dermatol. Jul-Aug 2009;27(4):355-8.
Gormley DE. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Jul;135(7):765-6.
Miller RC. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Mar;135(3):255-6.
Virtual Mentor. 2010;12(12):925-7.
The interesting history of dermatologist-developed skin care
Those of you who have visited my dermatology practice in Miami know that the art in my office is dedicated to the history of the skin care industry. I collect
, and I have written this historical column in honor of the 50th anniversary of Dermatology News.The first doctor to market his own cosmetic product, Erasmus Wilson, MD, faced scrutiny from his colleagues. Although he had contributed much to the field of dermatology, he was criticized by other dermatologists when he promoted a hair wash. The next doctor in my story, William Pusey, MD, was criticized for helping the company that manufactured Camay soap because he allowed his name to be used in Camay advertisements. The scrutiny that these two well-respected dermatologists endured from their colleagues deterred dermatologists from entering the skin care business for decades. The professional jealousy from dermatologic colleagues left the skin care field wide open for imposters, charlatans, and nondermatologists who had no concern for efficacy and patient outcomes to flourish. This is the story of a group of brilliant entrepreneurial dermatologists and one chiropractor who misrepresented himself as a dermatologist and how they influenced skin care as we know it.
Erasmus Wilson, MD1 (1809-1884): In 1840, Erasmus Wilson2 was a physician in London who chose to specialize in dermatology at a time when that specialization was frowned upon. He was a subeditor for The Lancet and wrote several books on dermatology including “Diseases of the Skin – A Practical and Theoretical Treatise,” “Portraits of the Diseases of the Skin,” and “Student’s Book on Diseases of the Skin.” He was the first professor of dermatology in the College of Surgeons and by 1869, was the leading English-speaking dermatologist in the world. He contributed much to dermatology, including his pioneering characterizations of Demodex mites, lichen planus, exfoliative dermatitis, neurotic excoriations, and roseola. Dr. Wilson was knighted in 1881 for his good works and notable generosity. (He was known for giving his poor patients money for food, endowing chairs in dermatology, and donating a famous obelisk in London).
In 1854, Dr. Wilson wrote a book for laypeople called “Healthy Skin: A Popular Treatise on the Skin and Hair, Their Preservation and Management,” in which he advocated cleanliness and bathing, which led to the popularity of Turkish baths and bathing resorts in Europe. Despite his undeniable contributions to dermatology, he was widely criticized by his colleagues for promoting a “Hair Wash” and a turtle oil soap. I cannot find any information about whether or not he developed the hair wash and turtle soap himself, but it seems that he earned income from sales of these two products, even though he was said to have donated it all to charities.
William A. Pusey MD (1865-1940): Dr. Pusey was the first chairman of dermatology at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago. He published several books, including “Care of the Skin and Hair,” “Syphilis as a Modern Problem,” “The Principles and Practices of Dermatology,” and “History of Dermatology” among others. He is best known for his work in developing the use of x-rays (roentgen rays) and phototherapy in dermatology, and in 1907, he was the first dermatologist to describe the use of solid carbon dioxide to treat skin lesions. He was president of the American Dermatological Association in 1910, president of the Chicago Medical Society in 1918, editor of the Archives of Dermatology in 1920, and president of the American Medical Association in 1924.
In the early 1920s, skin care companies were beginning to advertise their products using endorsements from celebrities and socialites, and were making misleading claims. Dr. Pusey wanted to work with these companies to help them perform evidence-based trials so they could make scientifically correct claims. Proctor & Gamble asked Dr. Pusey to advise them on how they could advertise honestly about their new soap, “Camay.” In Dr. Pusey’s words,3 “they (Proctor & Gamble) wanted to give the public authoritative advice about the use of soap and water. They suggested that I get a group of dermatologists of my selection to examine the soap and prepare instructions for bathing and the use of soap, and, if they found this soap was of high quality, to certify to that effect.” The research was performed as he suggested, and he allowed his name to be used in the Camay soap ads from 1926 to 1929. He said that he allowed them to use his name hoping to promote the need for evidence-based research, in contrast to the skin care products endorsed by socialites and celebrities that were flooding the market around that time.
Herbert Rattner, MD, at Northwestern University, Chicago, was his friend and one of the many dermatologists who criticized Dr. Pusey for allowing his name to be used in the Camay ads. Dr. Pusey’s reply to the criticism (according to Dr. Rattner) was that Proctor & Gamble was “proposing to do what the medical profession always is criticizing commercial concerns for not doing, namely, coming to physicians for information on medical matters. Could the profession hope to have any influence with business concerns if it was always eager to criticize bad commercial practices but never willing to support good ones?”3
While Dr. Pusey felt his reasons for adding his name to the Camay ads and research were justified, many of his friends stated that in hindsight, he regretted the action because of the negative response of his colleagues. It was years before dermatologists began providing input again into the skin care industry. During that time, radio, television and print ads were rampant with misleading claims – which led the way for a dermatologic imposter to make a fortune on skin care.
John Woodbury (1851-1909): John Woodbury, a chiropractor, never went to medical school, but that did not stop him from claiming he was a dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon. In 1889, he opened the John H. Woodbury Dermatological Institute in New York City, and over the next few years, opened Woodbury Dermatological Institutes in at least 5 states and employed 25 “physicians” who were not licensed to practice medicine. He came out with face soaps, tonics, and cold creams and spent a fortune on advertising these products and his institutes. In 1901, he sold his “Woodbury Soap” to the Andrew Jergens Company for $212,500 and 10% in royalties.
Multiple lawsuits occurred from 1898 to 1907 because he continued using the Woodbury name on his own products, despite having sold the “Woodbury” trademark to Jergens. He was sued for practicing medicine without a medical license and claiming to be a dermatologist when he was not. He lost most of these lawsuits, including one in 1907 in which the court ruled that corporations may not employ unlicensed professionals to practice medicine. In 1909, John Woodbury committed suicide. The Woodbury Soap company flourished in the 1930s and 1940s, as part of Jergens, until the brand was discontinued in 1970 when Jergens was acquired by American Brands.
The next dermatologists to come along did not make the same mistakes as those of their predecessors. They all made scientific discoveries through their basic science research in the laboratory, filed patents, formed skin care companies, perfected the formulations, and conducted research trials of the final product. Their marketing focused on science and efficacy and only rarely used their names and images in advertising, allowing them to maintain their reputations in the dermatology field.
Eugene Van Scott, MD (1922-present): Dermatologist Dr. Van Scott and dermatopharmacologist Ruey Yu, PhD, filed a method patent in the early 1970s on the effectiveness of alpha hydroxy acids to treat ichthyosis. They invented the abbreviation “AHA” and have continued their work on organic acids to this day. They now have more than 125 patents, which they have licensed to 60 companies in the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries.
In 1988, 14 years after their initial publication, they founded the company they named Polystrata, which grew into today’s NeoStrata.4 Over the years, they had to defend their patents because many personal care companies used their technologies without licensing them. In 2007, they won a $41 million settlement in a patent infringement suit against Mary Kay filed in March 2005. They have both been very philanthropic in the dermatology world5 and are highly respected in the field. Among many other honors, Dr. Van Scott was named a Master Dermatologist by the American Academy of Dermatology in 1998 and received the Dermatology Foundation’s Distinguished Service Medallion in 2004.
Sheldon Pinnell, MD (1937-2013): After Dr. Pinnell completed his dermatology residency at Harvard Medical School, he spent 2 years studying collagen chemistry at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany. In 1973, he returned to Duke University where he had earned his undergraduate degree before attending Yale University. He remained at Duke for the duration of his career and was professor and chief of dermatology there for many years. Early in his career, he focused on the role of vitamin C in collagen biosynthesis and discovered some of the mechanisms by which sun exposure causes photoaging. He described the use of the first (and most popular) topically applied L-ascorbic acid (vitamin C) to prevent and treat skin aging.
Dr. Pinnell’s many discoveries include showing that the addition of ascorbic acid to fibroblast cultures increases collagen production and that topically applied L-ascorbic acid penetrates into the skin best at a pH of 2-2.5. Dr. Pinnell changed the way the world uses topical antioxidants today; he was widely respected and was a member of the American Dermatological Association and an honorary member of the Society of Investigative Dermatology. He published more than 200 scientific articles and held 10 patents. He started the skin care company Skinceuticals, based on his antioxidant technologies. It was acquired by L’Oreal in 2005.
Richard Fitzpatrick, MD (1944-2014): The dermatologist affectionately known as “Fitz” is credited with being the first to use lasers for skin resurfacing. He went to medical school at Emory University and did his dermatology residency at the University of California, Los Angeles. He authored more than 130 publications and was one of the first doctors to specialize in cosmetic dermatology. He realized that fibroblast cell cultures used to produce the collagen filler CosmoPlast (no longer on the market) generated many growth factors that could rejuvenate the skin, and in 1999, he launched the skin care brand SkinMedica. In 2000, he received a patent for fibroblast-derived growth factors used topically for antiaging – a formula he called Tissue Nutrient Solution. In 2001, the popular product TNS Recovery Complex was launched based on the patented growth factor technology. It is still the most popular growth factor technology on the market.
What can we learn from these pioneers? I have had several interesting discussions about this topic with Leonard Hoenig, MD, section editor for Reflections on Dermatology: Past, Present, and Future, in Clinics in Dermatology. (Dr. Hoenig told me the interesting story that Listerine mouthwash was named in honor of Joseph Lister but accounts vary as to whether he gave permission to do so. This makes Dr. Lister the most famous physician to endorse a personal care product.) When Dr. Hoenig and I discussed the ethics of dermatologists creating a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice, he stated my sentiments perfectly: “We should rely on professional, ethical, and legal guidelines to help us do what is right. Most importantly, we should have the best interests of our patients at heart when recommending any treatments.”
Dermatologists have unique knowledge, experience, and perspective on treating the skin with topical agents and have the true desire to improve skin health. If we do not discover, research, patent, and develop efficacious skin care products, someone else will do it – and I do not think they will do it as well as a dermatologist can.
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 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 dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Everett MA. Int J Dermatol. 1978 May;17(4):345-52.
2. Moxon RK. N Engl J Med. 1976 Apr 1;294(14):762-4.
3. Rattner H. Arch Derm Syphilol. 1937;35(1):25-66.
4. Neostrata: More than Hope, by Elaine Strauss, U.S. 1 Newspaper, Feb. 24, 1999.
5. Two legends in the field of dermatology provide $1 million gift to Temple University school of medicine’s department of dermatology, Temple University, June 5, 2015.
Those of you who have visited my dermatology practice in Miami know that the art in my office is dedicated to the history of the skin care industry. I collect
, and I have written this historical column in honor of the 50th anniversary of Dermatology News.The first doctor to market his own cosmetic product, Erasmus Wilson, MD, faced scrutiny from his colleagues. Although he had contributed much to the field of dermatology, he was criticized by other dermatologists when he promoted a hair wash. The next doctor in my story, William Pusey, MD, was criticized for helping the company that manufactured Camay soap because he allowed his name to be used in Camay advertisements. The scrutiny that these two well-respected dermatologists endured from their colleagues deterred dermatologists from entering the skin care business for decades. The professional jealousy from dermatologic colleagues left the skin care field wide open for imposters, charlatans, and nondermatologists who had no concern for efficacy and patient outcomes to flourish. This is the story of a group of brilliant entrepreneurial dermatologists and one chiropractor who misrepresented himself as a dermatologist and how they influenced skin care as we know it.
Erasmus Wilson, MD1 (1809-1884): In 1840, Erasmus Wilson2 was a physician in London who chose to specialize in dermatology at a time when that specialization was frowned upon. He was a subeditor for The Lancet and wrote several books on dermatology including “Diseases of the Skin – A Practical and Theoretical Treatise,” “Portraits of the Diseases of the Skin,” and “Student’s Book on Diseases of the Skin.” He was the first professor of dermatology in the College of Surgeons and by 1869, was the leading English-speaking dermatologist in the world. He contributed much to dermatology, including his pioneering characterizations of Demodex mites, lichen planus, exfoliative dermatitis, neurotic excoriations, and roseola. Dr. Wilson was knighted in 1881 for his good works and notable generosity. (He was known for giving his poor patients money for food, endowing chairs in dermatology, and donating a famous obelisk in London).
In 1854, Dr. Wilson wrote a book for laypeople called “Healthy Skin: A Popular Treatise on the Skin and Hair, Their Preservation and Management,” in which he advocated cleanliness and bathing, which led to the popularity of Turkish baths and bathing resorts in Europe. Despite his undeniable contributions to dermatology, he was widely criticized by his colleagues for promoting a “Hair Wash” and a turtle oil soap. I cannot find any information about whether or not he developed the hair wash and turtle soap himself, but it seems that he earned income from sales of these two products, even though he was said to have donated it all to charities.
William A. Pusey MD (1865-1940): Dr. Pusey was the first chairman of dermatology at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago. He published several books, including “Care of the Skin and Hair,” “Syphilis as a Modern Problem,” “The Principles and Practices of Dermatology,” and “History of Dermatology” among others. He is best known for his work in developing the use of x-rays (roentgen rays) and phototherapy in dermatology, and in 1907, he was the first dermatologist to describe the use of solid carbon dioxide to treat skin lesions. He was president of the American Dermatological Association in 1910, president of the Chicago Medical Society in 1918, editor of the Archives of Dermatology in 1920, and president of the American Medical Association in 1924.
In the early 1920s, skin care companies were beginning to advertise their products using endorsements from celebrities and socialites, and were making misleading claims. Dr. Pusey wanted to work with these companies to help them perform evidence-based trials so they could make scientifically correct claims. Proctor & Gamble asked Dr. Pusey to advise them on how they could advertise honestly about their new soap, “Camay.” In Dr. Pusey’s words,3 “they (Proctor & Gamble) wanted to give the public authoritative advice about the use of soap and water. They suggested that I get a group of dermatologists of my selection to examine the soap and prepare instructions for bathing and the use of soap, and, if they found this soap was of high quality, to certify to that effect.” The research was performed as he suggested, and he allowed his name to be used in the Camay soap ads from 1926 to 1929. He said that he allowed them to use his name hoping to promote the need for evidence-based research, in contrast to the skin care products endorsed by socialites and celebrities that were flooding the market around that time.
Herbert Rattner, MD, at Northwestern University, Chicago, was his friend and one of the many dermatologists who criticized Dr. Pusey for allowing his name to be used in the Camay ads. Dr. Pusey’s reply to the criticism (according to Dr. Rattner) was that Proctor & Gamble was “proposing to do what the medical profession always is criticizing commercial concerns for not doing, namely, coming to physicians for information on medical matters. Could the profession hope to have any influence with business concerns if it was always eager to criticize bad commercial practices but never willing to support good ones?”3
While Dr. Pusey felt his reasons for adding his name to the Camay ads and research were justified, many of his friends stated that in hindsight, he regretted the action because of the negative response of his colleagues. It was years before dermatologists began providing input again into the skin care industry. During that time, radio, television and print ads were rampant with misleading claims – which led the way for a dermatologic imposter to make a fortune on skin care.
John Woodbury (1851-1909): John Woodbury, a chiropractor, never went to medical school, but that did not stop him from claiming he was a dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon. In 1889, he opened the John H. Woodbury Dermatological Institute in New York City, and over the next few years, opened Woodbury Dermatological Institutes in at least 5 states and employed 25 “physicians” who were not licensed to practice medicine. He came out with face soaps, tonics, and cold creams and spent a fortune on advertising these products and his institutes. In 1901, he sold his “Woodbury Soap” to the Andrew Jergens Company for $212,500 and 10% in royalties.
Multiple lawsuits occurred from 1898 to 1907 because he continued using the Woodbury name on his own products, despite having sold the “Woodbury” trademark to Jergens. He was sued for practicing medicine without a medical license and claiming to be a dermatologist when he was not. He lost most of these lawsuits, including one in 1907 in which the court ruled that corporations may not employ unlicensed professionals to practice medicine. In 1909, John Woodbury committed suicide. The Woodbury Soap company flourished in the 1930s and 1940s, as part of Jergens, until the brand was discontinued in 1970 when Jergens was acquired by American Brands.
The next dermatologists to come along did not make the same mistakes as those of their predecessors. They all made scientific discoveries through their basic science research in the laboratory, filed patents, formed skin care companies, perfected the formulations, and conducted research trials of the final product. Their marketing focused on science and efficacy and only rarely used their names and images in advertising, allowing them to maintain their reputations in the dermatology field.
Eugene Van Scott, MD (1922-present): Dermatologist Dr. Van Scott and dermatopharmacologist Ruey Yu, PhD, filed a method patent in the early 1970s on the effectiveness of alpha hydroxy acids to treat ichthyosis. They invented the abbreviation “AHA” and have continued their work on organic acids to this day. They now have more than 125 patents, which they have licensed to 60 companies in the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries.
In 1988, 14 years after their initial publication, they founded the company they named Polystrata, which grew into today’s NeoStrata.4 Over the years, they had to defend their patents because many personal care companies used their technologies without licensing them. In 2007, they won a $41 million settlement in a patent infringement suit against Mary Kay filed in March 2005. They have both been very philanthropic in the dermatology world5 and are highly respected in the field. Among many other honors, Dr. Van Scott was named a Master Dermatologist by the American Academy of Dermatology in 1998 and received the Dermatology Foundation’s Distinguished Service Medallion in 2004.
Sheldon Pinnell, MD (1937-2013): After Dr. Pinnell completed his dermatology residency at Harvard Medical School, he spent 2 years studying collagen chemistry at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany. In 1973, he returned to Duke University where he had earned his undergraduate degree before attending Yale University. He remained at Duke for the duration of his career and was professor and chief of dermatology there for many years. Early in his career, he focused on the role of vitamin C in collagen biosynthesis and discovered some of the mechanisms by which sun exposure causes photoaging. He described the use of the first (and most popular) topically applied L-ascorbic acid (vitamin C) to prevent and treat skin aging.
Dr. Pinnell’s many discoveries include showing that the addition of ascorbic acid to fibroblast cultures increases collagen production and that topically applied L-ascorbic acid penetrates into the skin best at a pH of 2-2.5. Dr. Pinnell changed the way the world uses topical antioxidants today; he was widely respected and was a member of the American Dermatological Association and an honorary member of the Society of Investigative Dermatology. He published more than 200 scientific articles and held 10 patents. He started the skin care company Skinceuticals, based on his antioxidant technologies. It was acquired by L’Oreal in 2005.
Richard Fitzpatrick, MD (1944-2014): The dermatologist affectionately known as “Fitz” is credited with being the first to use lasers for skin resurfacing. He went to medical school at Emory University and did his dermatology residency at the University of California, Los Angeles. He authored more than 130 publications and was one of the first doctors to specialize in cosmetic dermatology. He realized that fibroblast cell cultures used to produce the collagen filler CosmoPlast (no longer on the market) generated many growth factors that could rejuvenate the skin, and in 1999, he launched the skin care brand SkinMedica. In 2000, he received a patent for fibroblast-derived growth factors used topically for antiaging – a formula he called Tissue Nutrient Solution. In 2001, the popular product TNS Recovery Complex was launched based on the patented growth factor technology. It is still the most popular growth factor technology on the market.
What can we learn from these pioneers? I have had several interesting discussions about this topic with Leonard Hoenig, MD, section editor for Reflections on Dermatology: Past, Present, and Future, in Clinics in Dermatology. (Dr. Hoenig told me the interesting story that Listerine mouthwash was named in honor of Joseph Lister but accounts vary as to whether he gave permission to do so. This makes Dr. Lister the most famous physician to endorse a personal care product.) When Dr. Hoenig and I discussed the ethics of dermatologists creating a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice, he stated my sentiments perfectly: “We should rely on professional, ethical, and legal guidelines to help us do what is right. Most importantly, we should have the best interests of our patients at heart when recommending any treatments.”
Dermatologists have unique knowledge, experience, and perspective on treating the skin with topical agents and have the true desire to improve skin health. If we do not discover, research, patent, and develop efficacious skin care products, someone else will do it – and I do not think they will do it as well as a dermatologist can.
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 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 dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Everett MA. Int J Dermatol. 1978 May;17(4):345-52.
2. Moxon RK. N Engl J Med. 1976 Apr 1;294(14):762-4.
3. Rattner H. Arch Derm Syphilol. 1937;35(1):25-66.
4. Neostrata: More than Hope, by Elaine Strauss, U.S. 1 Newspaper, Feb. 24, 1999.
5. Two legends in the field of dermatology provide $1 million gift to Temple University school of medicine’s department of dermatology, Temple University, June 5, 2015.
Those of you who have visited my dermatology practice in Miami know that the art in my office is dedicated to the history of the skin care industry. I collect
, and I have written this historical column in honor of the 50th anniversary of Dermatology News.The first doctor to market his own cosmetic product, Erasmus Wilson, MD, faced scrutiny from his colleagues. Although he had contributed much to the field of dermatology, he was criticized by other dermatologists when he promoted a hair wash. The next doctor in my story, William Pusey, MD, was criticized for helping the company that manufactured Camay soap because he allowed his name to be used in Camay advertisements. The scrutiny that these two well-respected dermatologists endured from their colleagues deterred dermatologists from entering the skin care business for decades. The professional jealousy from dermatologic colleagues left the skin care field wide open for imposters, charlatans, and nondermatologists who had no concern for efficacy and patient outcomes to flourish. This is the story of a group of brilliant entrepreneurial dermatologists and one chiropractor who misrepresented himself as a dermatologist and how they influenced skin care as we know it.
Erasmus Wilson, MD1 (1809-1884): In 1840, Erasmus Wilson2 was a physician in London who chose to specialize in dermatology at a time when that specialization was frowned upon. He was a subeditor for The Lancet and wrote several books on dermatology including “Diseases of the Skin – A Practical and Theoretical Treatise,” “Portraits of the Diseases of the Skin,” and “Student’s Book on Diseases of the Skin.” He was the first professor of dermatology in the College of Surgeons and by 1869, was the leading English-speaking dermatologist in the world. He contributed much to dermatology, including his pioneering characterizations of Demodex mites, lichen planus, exfoliative dermatitis, neurotic excoriations, and roseola. Dr. Wilson was knighted in 1881 for his good works and notable generosity. (He was known for giving his poor patients money for food, endowing chairs in dermatology, and donating a famous obelisk in London).
In 1854, Dr. Wilson wrote a book for laypeople called “Healthy Skin: A Popular Treatise on the Skin and Hair, Their Preservation and Management,” in which he advocated cleanliness and bathing, which led to the popularity of Turkish baths and bathing resorts in Europe. Despite his undeniable contributions to dermatology, he was widely criticized by his colleagues for promoting a “Hair Wash” and a turtle oil soap. I cannot find any information about whether or not he developed the hair wash and turtle soap himself, but it seems that he earned income from sales of these two products, even though he was said to have donated it all to charities.
William A. Pusey MD (1865-1940): Dr. Pusey was the first chairman of dermatology at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago. He published several books, including “Care of the Skin and Hair,” “Syphilis as a Modern Problem,” “The Principles and Practices of Dermatology,” and “History of Dermatology” among others. He is best known for his work in developing the use of x-rays (roentgen rays) and phototherapy in dermatology, and in 1907, he was the first dermatologist to describe the use of solid carbon dioxide to treat skin lesions. He was president of the American Dermatological Association in 1910, president of the Chicago Medical Society in 1918, editor of the Archives of Dermatology in 1920, and president of the American Medical Association in 1924.
In the early 1920s, skin care companies were beginning to advertise their products using endorsements from celebrities and socialites, and were making misleading claims. Dr. Pusey wanted to work with these companies to help them perform evidence-based trials so they could make scientifically correct claims. Proctor & Gamble asked Dr. Pusey to advise them on how they could advertise honestly about their new soap, “Camay.” In Dr. Pusey’s words,3 “they (Proctor & Gamble) wanted to give the public authoritative advice about the use of soap and water. They suggested that I get a group of dermatologists of my selection to examine the soap and prepare instructions for bathing and the use of soap, and, if they found this soap was of high quality, to certify to that effect.” The research was performed as he suggested, and he allowed his name to be used in the Camay soap ads from 1926 to 1929. He said that he allowed them to use his name hoping to promote the need for evidence-based research, in contrast to the skin care products endorsed by socialites and celebrities that were flooding the market around that time.
Herbert Rattner, MD, at Northwestern University, Chicago, was his friend and one of the many dermatologists who criticized Dr. Pusey for allowing his name to be used in the Camay ads. Dr. Pusey’s reply to the criticism (according to Dr. Rattner) was that Proctor & Gamble was “proposing to do what the medical profession always is criticizing commercial concerns for not doing, namely, coming to physicians for information on medical matters. Could the profession hope to have any influence with business concerns if it was always eager to criticize bad commercial practices but never willing to support good ones?”3
While Dr. Pusey felt his reasons for adding his name to the Camay ads and research were justified, many of his friends stated that in hindsight, he regretted the action because of the negative response of his colleagues. It was years before dermatologists began providing input again into the skin care industry. During that time, radio, television and print ads were rampant with misleading claims – which led the way for a dermatologic imposter to make a fortune on skin care.
John Woodbury (1851-1909): John Woodbury, a chiropractor, never went to medical school, but that did not stop him from claiming he was a dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon. In 1889, he opened the John H. Woodbury Dermatological Institute in New York City, and over the next few years, opened Woodbury Dermatological Institutes in at least 5 states and employed 25 “physicians” who were not licensed to practice medicine. He came out with face soaps, tonics, and cold creams and spent a fortune on advertising these products and his institutes. In 1901, he sold his “Woodbury Soap” to the Andrew Jergens Company for $212,500 and 10% in royalties.
Multiple lawsuits occurred from 1898 to 1907 because he continued using the Woodbury name on his own products, despite having sold the “Woodbury” trademark to Jergens. He was sued for practicing medicine without a medical license and claiming to be a dermatologist when he was not. He lost most of these lawsuits, including one in 1907 in which the court ruled that corporations may not employ unlicensed professionals to practice medicine. In 1909, John Woodbury committed suicide. The Woodbury Soap company flourished in the 1930s and 1940s, as part of Jergens, until the brand was discontinued in 1970 when Jergens was acquired by American Brands.
The next dermatologists to come along did not make the same mistakes as those of their predecessors. They all made scientific discoveries through their basic science research in the laboratory, filed patents, formed skin care companies, perfected the formulations, and conducted research trials of the final product. Their marketing focused on science and efficacy and only rarely used their names and images in advertising, allowing them to maintain their reputations in the dermatology field.
Eugene Van Scott, MD (1922-present): Dermatologist Dr. Van Scott and dermatopharmacologist Ruey Yu, PhD, filed a method patent in the early 1970s on the effectiveness of alpha hydroxy acids to treat ichthyosis. They invented the abbreviation “AHA” and have continued their work on organic acids to this day. They now have more than 125 patents, which they have licensed to 60 companies in the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries.
In 1988, 14 years after their initial publication, they founded the company they named Polystrata, which grew into today’s NeoStrata.4 Over the years, they had to defend their patents because many personal care companies used their technologies without licensing them. In 2007, they won a $41 million settlement in a patent infringement suit against Mary Kay filed in March 2005. They have both been very philanthropic in the dermatology world5 and are highly respected in the field. Among many other honors, Dr. Van Scott was named a Master Dermatologist by the American Academy of Dermatology in 1998 and received the Dermatology Foundation’s Distinguished Service Medallion in 2004.
Sheldon Pinnell, MD (1937-2013): After Dr. Pinnell completed his dermatology residency at Harvard Medical School, he spent 2 years studying collagen chemistry at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany. In 1973, he returned to Duke University where he had earned his undergraduate degree before attending Yale University. He remained at Duke for the duration of his career and was professor and chief of dermatology there for many years. Early in his career, he focused on the role of vitamin C in collagen biosynthesis and discovered some of the mechanisms by which sun exposure causes photoaging. He described the use of the first (and most popular) topically applied L-ascorbic acid (vitamin C) to prevent and treat skin aging.
Dr. Pinnell’s many discoveries include showing that the addition of ascorbic acid to fibroblast cultures increases collagen production and that topically applied L-ascorbic acid penetrates into the skin best at a pH of 2-2.5. Dr. Pinnell changed the way the world uses topical antioxidants today; he was widely respected and was a member of the American Dermatological Association and an honorary member of the Society of Investigative Dermatology. He published more than 200 scientific articles and held 10 patents. He started the skin care company Skinceuticals, based on his antioxidant technologies. It was acquired by L’Oreal in 2005.
Richard Fitzpatrick, MD (1944-2014): The dermatologist affectionately known as “Fitz” is credited with being the first to use lasers for skin resurfacing. He went to medical school at Emory University and did his dermatology residency at the University of California, Los Angeles. He authored more than 130 publications and was one of the first doctors to specialize in cosmetic dermatology. He realized that fibroblast cell cultures used to produce the collagen filler CosmoPlast (no longer on the market) generated many growth factors that could rejuvenate the skin, and in 1999, he launched the skin care brand SkinMedica. In 2000, he received a patent for fibroblast-derived growth factors used topically for antiaging – a formula he called Tissue Nutrient Solution. In 2001, the popular product TNS Recovery Complex was launched based on the patented growth factor technology. It is still the most popular growth factor technology on the market.
What can we learn from these pioneers? I have had several interesting discussions about this topic with Leonard Hoenig, MD, section editor for Reflections on Dermatology: Past, Present, and Future, in Clinics in Dermatology. (Dr. Hoenig told me the interesting story that Listerine mouthwash was named in honor of Joseph Lister but accounts vary as to whether he gave permission to do so. This makes Dr. Lister the most famous physician to endorse a personal care product.) When Dr. Hoenig and I discussed the ethics of dermatologists creating a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice, he stated my sentiments perfectly: “We should rely on professional, ethical, and legal guidelines to help us do what is right. Most importantly, we should have the best interests of our patients at heart when recommending any treatments.”
Dermatologists have unique knowledge, experience, and perspective on treating the skin with topical agents and have the true desire to improve skin health. If we do not discover, research, patent, and develop efficacious skin care products, someone else will do it – and I do not think they will do it as well as a dermatologist can.
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 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 dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Everett MA. Int J Dermatol. 1978 May;17(4):345-52.
2. Moxon RK. N Engl J Med. 1976 Apr 1;294(14):762-4.
3. Rattner H. Arch Derm Syphilol. 1937;35(1):25-66.
4. Neostrata: More than Hope, by Elaine Strauss, U.S. 1 Newspaper, Feb. 24, 1999.
5. Two legends in the field of dermatology provide $1 million gift to Temple University school of medicine’s department of dermatology, Temple University, June 5, 2015.
Is bufexamac worth the risk?
Bufexamac, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug agent used cutaneously and rectally, is well known globally as an initiator of allergic contact dermatitis. In fact, it has been removed from the European market (except Switzerland) for inducing allergic reactions, and is also banned in Japan, New Zealand, and the United States (where it was never approved).1 This column will primarily discuss recent findings in human trials and weigh in on the issue.
Antioxidant activity
. In 2003, Trommer and Neubert demonstrated that bufexamac displayed antioxidant activity in lipid models and HaCaT keratinocytes, as measured through mass spectrometry.2 In a 2005 in vitro study of the impact of 47 drugs, plant extracts and ingredients, and polysaccharides on lipid peroxidation engendered by UV irradiation, Trommer and Neubert found that bufexamac was among the drugs shown to exhibit antioxidant activity.3
Minor allergen? Worth using?
In a 2009 study on the prevalence and risk factors for allergic contact dermatitis to topical atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments, Mailhol et al. patch tested 641 children with AD using seven then-common ingredients (chlorhexidine, hexamidine, budesonide, tixocortol pivalate, bufexamac, sodium fusidate and with the current emollient used by the child). Bufexamac was identified as an allergen in only 2.5% of the 41 positive patch tests.4
To ban or not to ban
In 2012, the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended that the marketing of formulations containing bufexamac be disallowed throughout the European Union because of a tendency toward inducing severe allergic contact dermatitis.5
Given its continuing use in Australia for the local treatment of several dermatoses, Pan and Nixon, in 2012, retrospectively reviewed patch-test data at the Skin and Cancer Foundation Inc. and found 19 cases of positive reactions to bufexamac (5% petrolatum) from 451 people patch tested. In 13 of 19 patients (68%), the reaction to bufexamac was considered to be associated with the identified dermatitis. The authors concluded that allergic contact dermatitis from bufexamac exposure is underreported in the English-language literature and cautioned that physicians should consider bufexamac allergy in patients who have a history of exposure.5
Bufexamac remained available over the counter in topical formulations in Australia as of early 2019. In response, Harris et al. presented several cases of patients who experienced severe skin eruptions after using such preparations in support of their advocacy to the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia to ban its use.6
In the middle of that year, Wong et al. reported on the hospitalization of a 41-year-old administrative worker who applied a first aid cream containing bufexamac (5%), lignocaine (1%), and chlorhexidine (0.1%) to a superficial right foot abrasion and who developed facial edema and widespread polymorphic eruptions 2 hours later. The authors suggested that this case reinforced the need to remove bufexamac from the markets where it remains because of the tendency to provoke severe allergic contact dermatoses and lack of efficacy.1
Conclusion
Bufexamac offers the somewhat rare opportunity for advocacy. That is to say, I think there is sufficient evidence to justify the removal of this potent allergen from the market in Australia, Switzerland, and other countries where it may be available.
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, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems LLC. She had no relevant disclosures. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Wong GN et al. Contact Dermatitis. 2019 Jun;80(6):395-7.
2. Trommer H et al. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2003 Oct;55(10):1379-88.
3. Trommer H, Neubert RH. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2005 Sep 15;8(3):494-506.
4. Mailhol C et al. Allergy. 2009 May;64(5):801-6.
5. Pan Y, Nixon R. Australas J Dermatol. 2012 Aug;53(3):207-10.
6. Harris AG et al. Australas J Dermatol. 2019 Feb;60(1):53-6.
Bufexamac, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug agent used cutaneously and rectally, is well known globally as an initiator of allergic contact dermatitis. In fact, it has been removed from the European market (except Switzerland) for inducing allergic reactions, and is also banned in Japan, New Zealand, and the United States (where it was never approved).1 This column will primarily discuss recent findings in human trials and weigh in on the issue.
Antioxidant activity
. In 2003, Trommer and Neubert demonstrated that bufexamac displayed antioxidant activity in lipid models and HaCaT keratinocytes, as measured through mass spectrometry.2 In a 2005 in vitro study of the impact of 47 drugs, plant extracts and ingredients, and polysaccharides on lipid peroxidation engendered by UV irradiation, Trommer and Neubert found that bufexamac was among the drugs shown to exhibit antioxidant activity.3
Minor allergen? Worth using?
In a 2009 study on the prevalence and risk factors for allergic contact dermatitis to topical atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments, Mailhol et al. patch tested 641 children with AD using seven then-common ingredients (chlorhexidine, hexamidine, budesonide, tixocortol pivalate, bufexamac, sodium fusidate and with the current emollient used by the child). Bufexamac was identified as an allergen in only 2.5% of the 41 positive patch tests.4
To ban or not to ban
In 2012, the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended that the marketing of formulations containing bufexamac be disallowed throughout the European Union because of a tendency toward inducing severe allergic contact dermatitis.5
Given its continuing use in Australia for the local treatment of several dermatoses, Pan and Nixon, in 2012, retrospectively reviewed patch-test data at the Skin and Cancer Foundation Inc. and found 19 cases of positive reactions to bufexamac (5% petrolatum) from 451 people patch tested. In 13 of 19 patients (68%), the reaction to bufexamac was considered to be associated with the identified dermatitis. The authors concluded that allergic contact dermatitis from bufexamac exposure is underreported in the English-language literature and cautioned that physicians should consider bufexamac allergy in patients who have a history of exposure.5
Bufexamac remained available over the counter in topical formulations in Australia as of early 2019. In response, Harris et al. presented several cases of patients who experienced severe skin eruptions after using such preparations in support of their advocacy to the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia to ban its use.6
In the middle of that year, Wong et al. reported on the hospitalization of a 41-year-old administrative worker who applied a first aid cream containing bufexamac (5%), lignocaine (1%), and chlorhexidine (0.1%) to a superficial right foot abrasion and who developed facial edema and widespread polymorphic eruptions 2 hours later. The authors suggested that this case reinforced the need to remove bufexamac from the markets where it remains because of the tendency to provoke severe allergic contact dermatoses and lack of efficacy.1
Conclusion
Bufexamac offers the somewhat rare opportunity for advocacy. That is to say, I think there is sufficient evidence to justify the removal of this potent allergen from the market in Australia, Switzerland, and other countries where it may be available.
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, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems LLC. She had no relevant disclosures. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Wong GN et al. Contact Dermatitis. 2019 Jun;80(6):395-7.
2. Trommer H et al. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2003 Oct;55(10):1379-88.
3. Trommer H, Neubert RH. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2005 Sep 15;8(3):494-506.
4. Mailhol C et al. Allergy. 2009 May;64(5):801-6.
5. Pan Y, Nixon R. Australas J Dermatol. 2012 Aug;53(3):207-10.
6. Harris AG et al. Australas J Dermatol. 2019 Feb;60(1):53-6.
Bufexamac, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug agent used cutaneously and rectally, is well known globally as an initiator of allergic contact dermatitis. In fact, it has been removed from the European market (except Switzerland) for inducing allergic reactions, and is also banned in Japan, New Zealand, and the United States (where it was never approved).1 This column will primarily discuss recent findings in human trials and weigh in on the issue.
Antioxidant activity
. In 2003, Trommer and Neubert demonstrated that bufexamac displayed antioxidant activity in lipid models and HaCaT keratinocytes, as measured through mass spectrometry.2 In a 2005 in vitro study of the impact of 47 drugs, plant extracts and ingredients, and polysaccharides on lipid peroxidation engendered by UV irradiation, Trommer and Neubert found that bufexamac was among the drugs shown to exhibit antioxidant activity.3
Minor allergen? Worth using?
In a 2009 study on the prevalence and risk factors for allergic contact dermatitis to topical atopic dermatitis (AD) treatments, Mailhol et al. patch tested 641 children with AD using seven then-common ingredients (chlorhexidine, hexamidine, budesonide, tixocortol pivalate, bufexamac, sodium fusidate and with the current emollient used by the child). Bufexamac was identified as an allergen in only 2.5% of the 41 positive patch tests.4
To ban or not to ban
In 2012, the European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use recommended that the marketing of formulations containing bufexamac be disallowed throughout the European Union because of a tendency toward inducing severe allergic contact dermatitis.5
Given its continuing use in Australia for the local treatment of several dermatoses, Pan and Nixon, in 2012, retrospectively reviewed patch-test data at the Skin and Cancer Foundation Inc. and found 19 cases of positive reactions to bufexamac (5% petrolatum) from 451 people patch tested. In 13 of 19 patients (68%), the reaction to bufexamac was considered to be associated with the identified dermatitis. The authors concluded that allergic contact dermatitis from bufexamac exposure is underreported in the English-language literature and cautioned that physicians should consider bufexamac allergy in patients who have a history of exposure.5
Bufexamac remained available over the counter in topical formulations in Australia as of early 2019. In response, Harris et al. presented several cases of patients who experienced severe skin eruptions after using such preparations in support of their advocacy to the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia to ban its use.6
In the middle of that year, Wong et al. reported on the hospitalization of a 41-year-old administrative worker who applied a first aid cream containing bufexamac (5%), lignocaine (1%), and chlorhexidine (0.1%) to a superficial right foot abrasion and who developed facial edema and widespread polymorphic eruptions 2 hours later. The authors suggested that this case reinforced the need to remove bufexamac from the markets where it remains because of the tendency to provoke severe allergic contact dermatoses and lack of efficacy.1
Conclusion
Bufexamac offers the somewhat rare opportunity for advocacy. That is to say, I think there is sufficient evidence to justify the removal of this potent allergen from the market in Australia, Switzerland, and other countries where it may be available.
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, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems LLC. She had no relevant disclosures. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Wong GN et al. Contact Dermatitis. 2019 Jun;80(6):395-7.
2. Trommer H et al. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2003 Oct;55(10):1379-88.
3. Trommer H, Neubert RH. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2005 Sep 15;8(3):494-506.
4. Mailhol C et al. Allergy. 2009 May;64(5):801-6.
5. Pan Y, Nixon R. Australas J Dermatol. 2012 Aug;53(3):207-10.
6. Harris AG et al. Australas J Dermatol. 2019 Feb;60(1):53-6.
Snail mucus in skin care
Although it is not glamorous,
.1 The modern consideration of using snail secretions in skin care arose serendipitously in the 1990s when Chilean farmers observed accelerated healing of their skin lesions without scarring after handling snails.1Today, snail mucin is among the increasingly wide array of bioactive ingredients undergoing scientific validation and inclusion in the burgeoning Korean cosmeceutical market.2,3 In fact, a variety of Korean cosmeceuticals incorporate the mucus derived from Achatina fulica (African giant land snail) and Cryptomphalus (Helix) aspersa (common brown garden snail) based on their demonstrated antimicrobial and skin regenerative activity.1,3,4 The antioxidant properties also attributed to snail mucus are thought to originate in constituents such as glycosaminoglycans, as well as growth factors, and may justify the use of these ingredients in novel cosmeceuticals.5 The focus of this discussion is recent research into the novel use of this animal-derived product for dermatologic purposes.
Antioxidant activity, skin rejuvenation, and wound healing
In 2008, Brieva et al. reported on a screen for natural products yielding a molecular basis for the secretions of the mollusk Cryptomphalus aspersa, which displays skin-regenerative activity. Specifically, they found that the secretion exerts antioxidant superoxide dismutase and glutathione S-transferase, and spurred fibroblast proliferation and extracellular matrix assembly while regulating metalloproteinase function. The researchers concluded that such activities may support wound regeneration.5
Four years later, Cruz et al. found that secretions of C. aspersa promote in vitro cell proliferation and migration by localizing beta-catenin to the nuclei of human fibroblasts and keratinocytes, augment phosphorylated focal adhesion kinase, and thereby enhance cell survival. The investigators concluded that snail secretions may therefore impart regenerative and wound healing activity.3,6
Antimicrobial properties
In 2015, Pitt et al. investigated the antimicrobial properties of the mucus of the brown garden snail C. or H. aspersa, which had a reputation for exhibiting skin regeneration capabilities. Their results revealed that snail mucus displayed a strong antibacterial effect against multiple strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and a weak effect against Staphylococcus aureus.4
Indications for the use of snail mucin
Radiation-induced dermatitis and burns represented the first indication for the initial use of snail mucin as a cutaneous therapy.7 Experimental and clinical studies have since been performed to assess its applicability to treat acute radiation dermatitis, atopic dermatitis, partial-thickness burns, and photoaging.8-11
A 2017 in vitro investigation by Ellijimi et al. revealed that snail mucin displayed antimelanogenic and antitumoral activity against human melanoma cells, suggesting another possible application of this product.12
Human studies on photoaging
In a 2009 study by Tsoutsos et al. of an open, moist burn management protocol in deep partial-thickness facial burns, a cream containing H. aspersa secretions was identified to be an effective treatment option. For 14 days or until full epithelialization, 27 adult patients were treated with snail extract cream twice daily. Comparisons were made to 16 patients treated with moist exposure burn ointment. Visual analog scale pain scores were significantly lower in the group that received the H. aspersa cream, compared with the moist exposure burn group. The researchers concluded that the H. aspersa cream is a safe, effective, and natural option for treating partial-thickness burns in adults that acts by facilitating debris removal and accelerating reepithelialization.10
Also that year, Tribo-Boixareu et al. treated 15 patients with chronic photodamage with secretions of C. aspersa over a 3-month period, yielding significant amelioration in the clinical and histologic markers of photoaging.11
Four years later, a double-blind, split-face, randomized, controlled clinical study conducted by Fabi et al. over 12 weeks demonstrated that the topical application of an antiphotoaging formulation containing C. aspersa mucus diminished periocular and fine facial rhytides and enhanced skin texture within 8 weeks of treatment initiation.7
Snail eggs and photoaging
In 2015, Espada et al. determined in vitro that an extract derived from C. aspersa eggs could reorganize the cytoskeleton of keratinocytes and fibroblasts, as well as trigger the synthesis of the extracellular proteins collagen and fibronectin. They also found that gene expression declined in age-related genes including p53 and b-Gal. The researchers concluded that C. aspersa egg extract has the potential to reduce the signs of photoaging.3,13
Antiaging cosmeceuticals
In a 2017 assessment of the antiaging and skin-whitening activity of the nine most popular ingredients in the South Korean skin care product market, Quay et al. considered industry profit data from Euromonitor and conducted a comprehensive literature search. They identified licorice, niacinamide, green tea, soy, beta-glucan, snail mucus, ginkgo biloba, ginseng, and pomegranate as the nine most popular ingredients, with the first four associated with the most supportive data. They found a paucity of cogent evidence on the use of the other ingredients in antiaging and skin-whitening formulations.14
Conclusion
The use of snail mucin to treat skin dates back at least to the time of Hippocrates. Recent research suggests reasons for optimism, and further investigation, as this ingredient appears to have potential across various cutaneous conditions. As is often the case, though, much more research is necessary to ascertain what enduring benefits may be derived from the use of snail mucin. Nevertheless, this product has been available on the market for the last 20 years and is associated with anecdotal reports of efficacy.
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 wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems LLC. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com. She has no relevant disclosures.
References
1. Liu L et al. Snails and skin care – an uncovered combination. JAMA Dermatol. 2017 Jul 1;153(7):650.
2. Nguyen JK et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1111/jocd.13344.
3. Juhász ML et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018;17(3):305-12.
4. Pitt SJ et al. Br J Biomed Sci. 2015;72(4):174-81.
5. Brieva A et al. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2008;21(1):15-22.
6. Cruz MC et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2012 Apr;34(2):183-9.
7. Fabi SG et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013; Apr;12(4):453-7.
8. Ledo E et al. Radioproteccion. 1999;23(7):34-8.
9. Oh M-Jet al. J Korean Med Ophthalmol Otolaryngol Dermatol. 2010; Dec,23(3):138-53.
10. Tsoutsos D et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2009;20(4):219-22.
11. Tribo-Boixareu MJ et al. Cosmet Dermatol. 2009;22(5):247-52.
12. Ellijimi C et al. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018 May;101:871-80.
13. Espada J et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2015 Feb;37(1):41-55.
14. Quay ER et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2017 Apr 1;16(4):358-63.
Although it is not glamorous,
.1 The modern consideration of using snail secretions in skin care arose serendipitously in the 1990s when Chilean farmers observed accelerated healing of their skin lesions without scarring after handling snails.1Today, snail mucin is among the increasingly wide array of bioactive ingredients undergoing scientific validation and inclusion in the burgeoning Korean cosmeceutical market.2,3 In fact, a variety of Korean cosmeceuticals incorporate the mucus derived from Achatina fulica (African giant land snail) and Cryptomphalus (Helix) aspersa (common brown garden snail) based on their demonstrated antimicrobial and skin regenerative activity.1,3,4 The antioxidant properties also attributed to snail mucus are thought to originate in constituents such as glycosaminoglycans, as well as growth factors, and may justify the use of these ingredients in novel cosmeceuticals.5 The focus of this discussion is recent research into the novel use of this animal-derived product for dermatologic purposes.
Antioxidant activity, skin rejuvenation, and wound healing
In 2008, Brieva et al. reported on a screen for natural products yielding a molecular basis for the secretions of the mollusk Cryptomphalus aspersa, which displays skin-regenerative activity. Specifically, they found that the secretion exerts antioxidant superoxide dismutase and glutathione S-transferase, and spurred fibroblast proliferation and extracellular matrix assembly while regulating metalloproteinase function. The researchers concluded that such activities may support wound regeneration.5
Four years later, Cruz et al. found that secretions of C. aspersa promote in vitro cell proliferation and migration by localizing beta-catenin to the nuclei of human fibroblasts and keratinocytes, augment phosphorylated focal adhesion kinase, and thereby enhance cell survival. The investigators concluded that snail secretions may therefore impart regenerative and wound healing activity.3,6
Antimicrobial properties
In 2015, Pitt et al. investigated the antimicrobial properties of the mucus of the brown garden snail C. or H. aspersa, which had a reputation for exhibiting skin regeneration capabilities. Their results revealed that snail mucus displayed a strong antibacterial effect against multiple strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and a weak effect against Staphylococcus aureus.4
Indications for the use of snail mucin
Radiation-induced dermatitis and burns represented the first indication for the initial use of snail mucin as a cutaneous therapy.7 Experimental and clinical studies have since been performed to assess its applicability to treat acute radiation dermatitis, atopic dermatitis, partial-thickness burns, and photoaging.8-11
A 2017 in vitro investigation by Ellijimi et al. revealed that snail mucin displayed antimelanogenic and antitumoral activity against human melanoma cells, suggesting another possible application of this product.12
Human studies on photoaging
In a 2009 study by Tsoutsos et al. of an open, moist burn management protocol in deep partial-thickness facial burns, a cream containing H. aspersa secretions was identified to be an effective treatment option. For 14 days or until full epithelialization, 27 adult patients were treated with snail extract cream twice daily. Comparisons were made to 16 patients treated with moist exposure burn ointment. Visual analog scale pain scores were significantly lower in the group that received the H. aspersa cream, compared with the moist exposure burn group. The researchers concluded that the H. aspersa cream is a safe, effective, and natural option for treating partial-thickness burns in adults that acts by facilitating debris removal and accelerating reepithelialization.10
Also that year, Tribo-Boixareu et al. treated 15 patients with chronic photodamage with secretions of C. aspersa over a 3-month period, yielding significant amelioration in the clinical and histologic markers of photoaging.11
Four years later, a double-blind, split-face, randomized, controlled clinical study conducted by Fabi et al. over 12 weeks demonstrated that the topical application of an antiphotoaging formulation containing C. aspersa mucus diminished periocular and fine facial rhytides and enhanced skin texture within 8 weeks of treatment initiation.7
Snail eggs and photoaging
In 2015, Espada et al. determined in vitro that an extract derived from C. aspersa eggs could reorganize the cytoskeleton of keratinocytes and fibroblasts, as well as trigger the synthesis of the extracellular proteins collagen and fibronectin. They also found that gene expression declined in age-related genes including p53 and b-Gal. The researchers concluded that C. aspersa egg extract has the potential to reduce the signs of photoaging.3,13
Antiaging cosmeceuticals
In a 2017 assessment of the antiaging and skin-whitening activity of the nine most popular ingredients in the South Korean skin care product market, Quay et al. considered industry profit data from Euromonitor and conducted a comprehensive literature search. They identified licorice, niacinamide, green tea, soy, beta-glucan, snail mucus, ginkgo biloba, ginseng, and pomegranate as the nine most popular ingredients, with the first four associated with the most supportive data. They found a paucity of cogent evidence on the use of the other ingredients in antiaging and skin-whitening formulations.14
Conclusion
The use of snail mucin to treat skin dates back at least to the time of Hippocrates. Recent research suggests reasons for optimism, and further investigation, as this ingredient appears to have potential across various cutaneous conditions. As is often the case, though, much more research is necessary to ascertain what enduring benefits may be derived from the use of snail mucin. Nevertheless, this product has been available on the market for the last 20 years and is associated with anecdotal reports of efficacy.
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 wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems LLC. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com. She has no relevant disclosures.
References
1. Liu L et al. Snails and skin care – an uncovered combination. JAMA Dermatol. 2017 Jul 1;153(7):650.
2. Nguyen JK et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1111/jocd.13344.
3. Juhász ML et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018;17(3):305-12.
4. Pitt SJ et al. Br J Biomed Sci. 2015;72(4):174-81.
5. Brieva A et al. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2008;21(1):15-22.
6. Cruz MC et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2012 Apr;34(2):183-9.
7. Fabi SG et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013; Apr;12(4):453-7.
8. Ledo E et al. Radioproteccion. 1999;23(7):34-8.
9. Oh M-Jet al. J Korean Med Ophthalmol Otolaryngol Dermatol. 2010; Dec,23(3):138-53.
10. Tsoutsos D et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2009;20(4):219-22.
11. Tribo-Boixareu MJ et al. Cosmet Dermatol. 2009;22(5):247-52.
12. Ellijimi C et al. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018 May;101:871-80.
13. Espada J et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2015 Feb;37(1):41-55.
14. Quay ER et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2017 Apr 1;16(4):358-63.
Although it is not glamorous,
.1 The modern consideration of using snail secretions in skin care arose serendipitously in the 1990s when Chilean farmers observed accelerated healing of their skin lesions without scarring after handling snails.1Today, snail mucin is among the increasingly wide array of bioactive ingredients undergoing scientific validation and inclusion in the burgeoning Korean cosmeceutical market.2,3 In fact, a variety of Korean cosmeceuticals incorporate the mucus derived from Achatina fulica (African giant land snail) and Cryptomphalus (Helix) aspersa (common brown garden snail) based on their demonstrated antimicrobial and skin regenerative activity.1,3,4 The antioxidant properties also attributed to snail mucus are thought to originate in constituents such as glycosaminoglycans, as well as growth factors, and may justify the use of these ingredients in novel cosmeceuticals.5 The focus of this discussion is recent research into the novel use of this animal-derived product for dermatologic purposes.
Antioxidant activity, skin rejuvenation, and wound healing
In 2008, Brieva et al. reported on a screen for natural products yielding a molecular basis for the secretions of the mollusk Cryptomphalus aspersa, which displays skin-regenerative activity. Specifically, they found that the secretion exerts antioxidant superoxide dismutase and glutathione S-transferase, and spurred fibroblast proliferation and extracellular matrix assembly while regulating metalloproteinase function. The researchers concluded that such activities may support wound regeneration.5
Four years later, Cruz et al. found that secretions of C. aspersa promote in vitro cell proliferation and migration by localizing beta-catenin to the nuclei of human fibroblasts and keratinocytes, augment phosphorylated focal adhesion kinase, and thereby enhance cell survival. The investigators concluded that snail secretions may therefore impart regenerative and wound healing activity.3,6
Antimicrobial properties
In 2015, Pitt et al. investigated the antimicrobial properties of the mucus of the brown garden snail C. or H. aspersa, which had a reputation for exhibiting skin regeneration capabilities. Their results revealed that snail mucus displayed a strong antibacterial effect against multiple strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and a weak effect against Staphylococcus aureus.4
Indications for the use of snail mucin
Radiation-induced dermatitis and burns represented the first indication for the initial use of snail mucin as a cutaneous therapy.7 Experimental and clinical studies have since been performed to assess its applicability to treat acute radiation dermatitis, atopic dermatitis, partial-thickness burns, and photoaging.8-11
A 2017 in vitro investigation by Ellijimi et al. revealed that snail mucin displayed antimelanogenic and antitumoral activity against human melanoma cells, suggesting another possible application of this product.12
Human studies on photoaging
In a 2009 study by Tsoutsos et al. of an open, moist burn management protocol in deep partial-thickness facial burns, a cream containing H. aspersa secretions was identified to be an effective treatment option. For 14 days or until full epithelialization, 27 adult patients were treated with snail extract cream twice daily. Comparisons were made to 16 patients treated with moist exposure burn ointment. Visual analog scale pain scores were significantly lower in the group that received the H. aspersa cream, compared with the moist exposure burn group. The researchers concluded that the H. aspersa cream is a safe, effective, and natural option for treating partial-thickness burns in adults that acts by facilitating debris removal and accelerating reepithelialization.10
Also that year, Tribo-Boixareu et al. treated 15 patients with chronic photodamage with secretions of C. aspersa over a 3-month period, yielding significant amelioration in the clinical and histologic markers of photoaging.11
Four years later, a double-blind, split-face, randomized, controlled clinical study conducted by Fabi et al. over 12 weeks demonstrated that the topical application of an antiphotoaging formulation containing C. aspersa mucus diminished periocular and fine facial rhytides and enhanced skin texture within 8 weeks of treatment initiation.7
Snail eggs and photoaging
In 2015, Espada et al. determined in vitro that an extract derived from C. aspersa eggs could reorganize the cytoskeleton of keratinocytes and fibroblasts, as well as trigger the synthesis of the extracellular proteins collagen and fibronectin. They also found that gene expression declined in age-related genes including p53 and b-Gal. The researchers concluded that C. aspersa egg extract has the potential to reduce the signs of photoaging.3,13
Antiaging cosmeceuticals
In a 2017 assessment of the antiaging and skin-whitening activity of the nine most popular ingredients in the South Korean skin care product market, Quay et al. considered industry profit data from Euromonitor and conducted a comprehensive literature search. They identified licorice, niacinamide, green tea, soy, beta-glucan, snail mucus, ginkgo biloba, ginseng, and pomegranate as the nine most popular ingredients, with the first four associated with the most supportive data. They found a paucity of cogent evidence on the use of the other ingredients in antiaging and skin-whitening formulations.14
Conclusion
The use of snail mucin to treat skin dates back at least to the time of Hippocrates. Recent research suggests reasons for optimism, and further investigation, as this ingredient appears to have potential across various cutaneous conditions. As is often the case, though, much more research is necessary to ascertain what enduring benefits may be derived from the use of snail mucin. Nevertheless, this product has been available on the market for the last 20 years and is associated with anecdotal reports of efficacy.
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 wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems LLC. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com. She has no relevant disclosures.
References
1. Liu L et al. Snails and skin care – an uncovered combination. JAMA Dermatol. 2017 Jul 1;153(7):650.
2. Nguyen JK et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Feb 26. doi: 10.1111/jocd.13344.
3. Juhász ML et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2018;17(3):305-12.
4. Pitt SJ et al. Br J Biomed Sci. 2015;72(4):174-81.
5. Brieva A et al. Skin Pharmacol Physiol. 2008;21(1):15-22.
6. Cruz MC et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2012 Apr;34(2):183-9.
7. Fabi SG et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2013; Apr;12(4):453-7.
8. Ledo E et al. Radioproteccion. 1999;23(7):34-8.
9. Oh M-Jet al. J Korean Med Ophthalmol Otolaryngol Dermatol. 2010; Dec,23(3):138-53.
10. Tsoutsos D et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2009;20(4):219-22.
11. Tribo-Boixareu MJ et al. Cosmet Dermatol. 2009;22(5):247-52.
12. Ellijimi C et al. Biomed Pharmacother. 2018 May;101:871-80.
13. Espada J et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2015 Feb;37(1):41-55.
14. Quay ER et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2017 Apr 1;16(4):358-63.
Sericin, a versatile silk protein, has multiple potential roles in dermatology
Inexpensively obtained as a silk industry by-product, sericin is a glycoprotein found to confer various biologic effects.1 The globular protein sericin has also long been known to exhibit antityrosinase and immunomodulatory activities.2,3 This column focuses on the wide range of emerging and potential applications of sericin in cutaneous treatments.
Protection against solar radiation and photoaging
Studies in mice to evaluate the potential antioxidant and skin-protective effects of sericin by Zhaorigetu et al. in 2003 revealed that, by diminishing oxidative stress, cyclooxygenase-2 protein, and cell proliferation, sericin exerted a photoprotective effect against acute harm and tumor promotion elicited by UVB.4
Using mouse skin models, Dash et al. showed in 2008 that the silk protein sericin derived from the tropical tasar silkworm is a robust antioxidant and photoprotective agent, displaying a capacity to block UVB-induced apoptosis in irradiated (30 mJ/cm2 UVB) human keratinocytes and, as compared with the mulberry silkworm, yielding protection against oxidative stress.5,6
In 2015, Berardesca et al. conducted a randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, split-face study over 8 weeks in 40 women (ages 40-70 years) to assess the antiaging effects of topically applied combination therapy including gold silk sericin, niacinamide, and signaline. The investigators observed significant improvements in stratum corneum hydration, barrier function, skin elasticity, and roughness as compared with skin treated with the control formulation. They concluded that this combination formulation featuring gold silk sericin warrants attention in the arsenal for ameliorating signs of aging female facial skin.7
A year earlier, Aramwit and Bang introduced a bacterial nanocellulose gel shown to effectively release silk sericin for facial treatment. Formulated at a pH of 4.5, the bioactive mask exhibited an ultrafine and pure fiber network structure. The authors noted that the gel was less adhesive than the commercially available paper mask, while the silk sericin product displayed greater moisture absorption capacity. In vitro cytotoxicity assessments also revealed that the product is safe for facial treatments.8
Cosmeceutical antioxidant for hyperpigmentation
In 2019, Kumar et al. demonstrated the inhibitory effect of topically applied silk sericin derived from Antheraea assamensis against UV-induced melanogenesis in mouse melanoma. They suggested that the formulation shows promise as a cosmeceutical antioxidant agent designed to address hyperpigmentation.3
The previous year, Aramwit et al. demonstrated using an in vitro model that urea-extracted sericin displays a capacity to inhibit melanogenesis by hindering tyrosinase activity, attenuating inflammation and allergic reactions, and reducing the expression of microphthalmia-associated transcription factor, a marker of melanogenesis regulation, in melanocytes and keratinocytes.2
Potential use as an adjunct psoriasis treatment
A combination of naringin (from Citrus maxima) and sericin (from Bombyx mori) was evaluated in 2019 by Deenonpoe et al. for the treatment of psoriasis. They isolated human peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 10 healthy subjects and 10 patients with psoriasis. The combination formulation was much more effective than either compound alone in significantly reducing mRNA expression and the synthesis of proinflammatory cytokines in samples from psoriasis patients. The investigators concluded that the down-regulation of proinflammatory cytokines imparted by the naringin/sericin product points toward its possible clinical use as a complementary treatment for psoriasis and other inflammation-mediated conditions.9
Uremic pruritus and burn wounds
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 6-week study in 2012 conducted by Aramwit et al. assessed the use of sericin cream versus a cream base placebo in the treatment of uremic pruritus in 50 hemodialysis patients, 47 of whom completed the study. Significant differences in the creams were identified, with hydration vastly improved in patients using the sericin cream. Significant reductions in pruritus and dyspigmentation were also observed in the treatment group, with an overall quality of life improvement noted in relation to pain score.10
The ensuing year, Aramwit et al. showed that silk sericin promoted wound healing in vitro and, when added to silver sulfadiazine cream and evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, standard-controlled study, demonstrated clinical efficacy in healing burn wounds.11
Wound healing
An expanding body of research suggests the role of sericin in wound healing. In 2007, Aramwit et al. found that sericin, which boasts notable hydrophilic qualities, was effective as a wound-healing agent in rats. The tested sericin cream successfully reduced wound size and wound healing time was substantially shorter than in animals treated with control formula. Treatment for 15 days yielded complete healing, no ulceration, and higher collagen levels, as determined by histologic examination, in comparison with control.12 Other studies using sericin hydrogel as well as a sericin-based nanofibrous matrix with chitosan have demonstrated success in wound healing in mice.13,14
Human studies
In 2018, Napavichayanun et al. reported on the clinical efficacy and safety of bacterial cellulose wound dressings including silk sericin and PHMB as compared with Bactigras (an antiseptic dressing) as a control in split-thickness skin graft donor-site wound treatment. In this single-blinded, randomized, controlled study of 21 patients, pain scores were significantly lower and wound quality higher in the skin treated with the sericin product. The test formulation was protected against infection without inducing adverse effects.15
Previously, a silk sericin–releasing wound dressing introduced in 2014 was found to significantly diminish pain and promote more rapid healing in patients with split-thickness skin graft donor sites as compared with treatment with the Bactigras wound dressing.16
Sericin in tissue repair and as a drug delivery carrier
Sericin is associated with antioxidant and moisturizing properties as well as a mitogenic influence on mammalian cells, with a particular impact on keratinocytes and fibroblasts that render it useful in biomaterials designed for skin tissue repair.17
Wang et al. have cross-linked dialdehyde carboxymethyl cellulose with silk sericin derived from the B. mori cocoon to develop a film with impressive blood compatibility and cytocompatibility that shows potential for use as a wound dressing, artificial skin, and in tissue engineering.18
Similarly, Liang et al. have been successful in preparing a medical tissue glue incorporating a gelatin, sericin, and carboxymethyl chitosan blend solution, cross-linked with 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)-carbodiimide. The tissue glue has been found to offer notable biocompatibility and structural traits at low cost.19
Sericin protein also evinces potential as a biocompatible, bioviable carrier for drug delivery. Suktham et al. showed that resveratrol-loaded sericin nanoparticles robustly hindered growth of colorectal adenocarcinoma cells while cytotoxic to skin fibroblasts, suggesting the viability or potential of sericin nanoparticles as bionanocarriers in a drug delivery system.20 In addition, Tao et al. found silk sericin to be effective when blended with poly(vinyl alcohol) in a hydrogel with antibacterial properties as a drug delivery carrier with potential for use as wound dressing.21
Conclusion
Much more research is necessary, though, to explore how the antioxidant and moisturizing activities of the protein may be harnessed to confer skin-protective effects, especially against UV damage.
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 wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers,“The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com
References
1. Lamboni L et al. Biotechnol Adv. 2015 Dec;33(8):1855-67.
2. Aramwit P et al. Biol Res. 2018 Nov 29;51(1):54.
3. Kumar JP, Mandal BB. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2019 Oct 9:18(10):2497-508.
4. Zhaorigetu S et al. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2003 Oct 15;71(1-3):11-7.
5. Dash R et al. Mol Cell Biochem. 2008 Apr;311(1-2):111-9.
6. Dash R et al. BMB Rep. 2008 Mar 31;41(3):236-41.
7. Berardesca E et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2015 Dec;37(6):606-12.
8. Aramwit P, Bang N. BMC Biotechnol. 2014 Dec 9;14:104.
9. Deenonpoe R et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2019 Jul 10;19(1):168.
10. Aramwit P et al. BMC Nephrol. 2012 Sep 24;13:119.
11. Aramwit P et al. Arch Dermatol Res. 2013 Sep;305(7):585-94.
12. Aramwit P, Sangcakul A. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2007 Oct;71(10):2473-7.
13. Qi C et al. Biomater Sci. 2018 Nov 1;6(11):2859-70.
14. Sapru S et al. Acta Biomater. 2018 Sep 15;78:137-50.
15. Napavichayanun S et al. Arch Dermatol Res. 2018 Dec;310(10):795-805.
16. Siritientong T et al. Pharm Res. 2014 Jan;31(1):104-16.
17. Lamboni L et al. Biotechnol Adv. 2015 Dec;33(8):1855-67.
18. Wang P et al. Carbohydr Polym. 2019 May 15;212:403-11.
19. Liang M et al. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2018 Apr;16(2):97-106.
20. Suktham K et al. Int J Pharm. 2018 Feb 15;537(1-2):48-56.
21. Tao G et al. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019 Aug;101:341-51.
Inexpensively obtained as a silk industry by-product, sericin is a glycoprotein found to confer various biologic effects.1 The globular protein sericin has also long been known to exhibit antityrosinase and immunomodulatory activities.2,3 This column focuses on the wide range of emerging and potential applications of sericin in cutaneous treatments.
Protection against solar radiation and photoaging
Studies in mice to evaluate the potential antioxidant and skin-protective effects of sericin by Zhaorigetu et al. in 2003 revealed that, by diminishing oxidative stress, cyclooxygenase-2 protein, and cell proliferation, sericin exerted a photoprotective effect against acute harm and tumor promotion elicited by UVB.4
Using mouse skin models, Dash et al. showed in 2008 that the silk protein sericin derived from the tropical tasar silkworm is a robust antioxidant and photoprotective agent, displaying a capacity to block UVB-induced apoptosis in irradiated (30 mJ/cm2 UVB) human keratinocytes and, as compared with the mulberry silkworm, yielding protection against oxidative stress.5,6
In 2015, Berardesca et al. conducted a randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, split-face study over 8 weeks in 40 women (ages 40-70 years) to assess the antiaging effects of topically applied combination therapy including gold silk sericin, niacinamide, and signaline. The investigators observed significant improvements in stratum corneum hydration, barrier function, skin elasticity, and roughness as compared with skin treated with the control formulation. They concluded that this combination formulation featuring gold silk sericin warrants attention in the arsenal for ameliorating signs of aging female facial skin.7
A year earlier, Aramwit and Bang introduced a bacterial nanocellulose gel shown to effectively release silk sericin for facial treatment. Formulated at a pH of 4.5, the bioactive mask exhibited an ultrafine and pure fiber network structure. The authors noted that the gel was less adhesive than the commercially available paper mask, while the silk sericin product displayed greater moisture absorption capacity. In vitro cytotoxicity assessments also revealed that the product is safe for facial treatments.8
Cosmeceutical antioxidant for hyperpigmentation
In 2019, Kumar et al. demonstrated the inhibitory effect of topically applied silk sericin derived from Antheraea assamensis against UV-induced melanogenesis in mouse melanoma. They suggested that the formulation shows promise as a cosmeceutical antioxidant agent designed to address hyperpigmentation.3
The previous year, Aramwit et al. demonstrated using an in vitro model that urea-extracted sericin displays a capacity to inhibit melanogenesis by hindering tyrosinase activity, attenuating inflammation and allergic reactions, and reducing the expression of microphthalmia-associated transcription factor, a marker of melanogenesis regulation, in melanocytes and keratinocytes.2
Potential use as an adjunct psoriasis treatment
A combination of naringin (from Citrus maxima) and sericin (from Bombyx mori) was evaluated in 2019 by Deenonpoe et al. for the treatment of psoriasis. They isolated human peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 10 healthy subjects and 10 patients with psoriasis. The combination formulation was much more effective than either compound alone in significantly reducing mRNA expression and the synthesis of proinflammatory cytokines in samples from psoriasis patients. The investigators concluded that the down-regulation of proinflammatory cytokines imparted by the naringin/sericin product points toward its possible clinical use as a complementary treatment for psoriasis and other inflammation-mediated conditions.9
Uremic pruritus and burn wounds
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 6-week study in 2012 conducted by Aramwit et al. assessed the use of sericin cream versus a cream base placebo in the treatment of uremic pruritus in 50 hemodialysis patients, 47 of whom completed the study. Significant differences in the creams were identified, with hydration vastly improved in patients using the sericin cream. Significant reductions in pruritus and dyspigmentation were also observed in the treatment group, with an overall quality of life improvement noted in relation to pain score.10
The ensuing year, Aramwit et al. showed that silk sericin promoted wound healing in vitro and, when added to silver sulfadiazine cream and evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, standard-controlled study, demonstrated clinical efficacy in healing burn wounds.11
Wound healing
An expanding body of research suggests the role of sericin in wound healing. In 2007, Aramwit et al. found that sericin, which boasts notable hydrophilic qualities, was effective as a wound-healing agent in rats. The tested sericin cream successfully reduced wound size and wound healing time was substantially shorter than in animals treated with control formula. Treatment for 15 days yielded complete healing, no ulceration, and higher collagen levels, as determined by histologic examination, in comparison with control.12 Other studies using sericin hydrogel as well as a sericin-based nanofibrous matrix with chitosan have demonstrated success in wound healing in mice.13,14
Human studies
In 2018, Napavichayanun et al. reported on the clinical efficacy and safety of bacterial cellulose wound dressings including silk sericin and PHMB as compared with Bactigras (an antiseptic dressing) as a control in split-thickness skin graft donor-site wound treatment. In this single-blinded, randomized, controlled study of 21 patients, pain scores were significantly lower and wound quality higher in the skin treated with the sericin product. The test formulation was protected against infection without inducing adverse effects.15
Previously, a silk sericin–releasing wound dressing introduced in 2014 was found to significantly diminish pain and promote more rapid healing in patients with split-thickness skin graft donor sites as compared with treatment with the Bactigras wound dressing.16
Sericin in tissue repair and as a drug delivery carrier
Sericin is associated with antioxidant and moisturizing properties as well as a mitogenic influence on mammalian cells, with a particular impact on keratinocytes and fibroblasts that render it useful in biomaterials designed for skin tissue repair.17
Wang et al. have cross-linked dialdehyde carboxymethyl cellulose with silk sericin derived from the B. mori cocoon to develop a film with impressive blood compatibility and cytocompatibility that shows potential for use as a wound dressing, artificial skin, and in tissue engineering.18
Similarly, Liang et al. have been successful in preparing a medical tissue glue incorporating a gelatin, sericin, and carboxymethyl chitosan blend solution, cross-linked with 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)-carbodiimide. The tissue glue has been found to offer notable biocompatibility and structural traits at low cost.19
Sericin protein also evinces potential as a biocompatible, bioviable carrier for drug delivery. Suktham et al. showed that resveratrol-loaded sericin nanoparticles robustly hindered growth of colorectal adenocarcinoma cells while cytotoxic to skin fibroblasts, suggesting the viability or potential of sericin nanoparticles as bionanocarriers in a drug delivery system.20 In addition, Tao et al. found silk sericin to be effective when blended with poly(vinyl alcohol) in a hydrogel with antibacterial properties as a drug delivery carrier with potential for use as wound dressing.21
Conclusion
Much more research is necessary, though, to explore how the antioxidant and moisturizing activities of the protein may be harnessed to confer skin-protective effects, especially against UV damage.
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 wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers,“The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com
References
1. Lamboni L et al. Biotechnol Adv. 2015 Dec;33(8):1855-67.
2. Aramwit P et al. Biol Res. 2018 Nov 29;51(1):54.
3. Kumar JP, Mandal BB. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2019 Oct 9:18(10):2497-508.
4. Zhaorigetu S et al. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2003 Oct 15;71(1-3):11-7.
5. Dash R et al. Mol Cell Biochem. 2008 Apr;311(1-2):111-9.
6. Dash R et al. BMB Rep. 2008 Mar 31;41(3):236-41.
7. Berardesca E et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2015 Dec;37(6):606-12.
8. Aramwit P, Bang N. BMC Biotechnol. 2014 Dec 9;14:104.
9. Deenonpoe R et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2019 Jul 10;19(1):168.
10. Aramwit P et al. BMC Nephrol. 2012 Sep 24;13:119.
11. Aramwit P et al. Arch Dermatol Res. 2013 Sep;305(7):585-94.
12. Aramwit P, Sangcakul A. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2007 Oct;71(10):2473-7.
13. Qi C et al. Biomater Sci. 2018 Nov 1;6(11):2859-70.
14. Sapru S et al. Acta Biomater. 2018 Sep 15;78:137-50.
15. Napavichayanun S et al. Arch Dermatol Res. 2018 Dec;310(10):795-805.
16. Siritientong T et al. Pharm Res. 2014 Jan;31(1):104-16.
17. Lamboni L et al. Biotechnol Adv. 2015 Dec;33(8):1855-67.
18. Wang P et al. Carbohydr Polym. 2019 May 15;212:403-11.
19. Liang M et al. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2018 Apr;16(2):97-106.
20. Suktham K et al. Int J Pharm. 2018 Feb 15;537(1-2):48-56.
21. Tao G et al. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019 Aug;101:341-51.
Inexpensively obtained as a silk industry by-product, sericin is a glycoprotein found to confer various biologic effects.1 The globular protein sericin has also long been known to exhibit antityrosinase and immunomodulatory activities.2,3 This column focuses on the wide range of emerging and potential applications of sericin in cutaneous treatments.
Protection against solar radiation and photoaging
Studies in mice to evaluate the potential antioxidant and skin-protective effects of sericin by Zhaorigetu et al. in 2003 revealed that, by diminishing oxidative stress, cyclooxygenase-2 protein, and cell proliferation, sericin exerted a photoprotective effect against acute harm and tumor promotion elicited by UVB.4
Using mouse skin models, Dash et al. showed in 2008 that the silk protein sericin derived from the tropical tasar silkworm is a robust antioxidant and photoprotective agent, displaying a capacity to block UVB-induced apoptosis in irradiated (30 mJ/cm2 UVB) human keratinocytes and, as compared with the mulberry silkworm, yielding protection against oxidative stress.5,6
In 2015, Berardesca et al. conducted a randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled, split-face study over 8 weeks in 40 women (ages 40-70 years) to assess the antiaging effects of topically applied combination therapy including gold silk sericin, niacinamide, and signaline. The investigators observed significant improvements in stratum corneum hydration, barrier function, skin elasticity, and roughness as compared with skin treated with the control formulation. They concluded that this combination formulation featuring gold silk sericin warrants attention in the arsenal for ameliorating signs of aging female facial skin.7
A year earlier, Aramwit and Bang introduced a bacterial nanocellulose gel shown to effectively release silk sericin for facial treatment. Formulated at a pH of 4.5, the bioactive mask exhibited an ultrafine and pure fiber network structure. The authors noted that the gel was less adhesive than the commercially available paper mask, while the silk sericin product displayed greater moisture absorption capacity. In vitro cytotoxicity assessments also revealed that the product is safe for facial treatments.8
Cosmeceutical antioxidant for hyperpigmentation
In 2019, Kumar et al. demonstrated the inhibitory effect of topically applied silk sericin derived from Antheraea assamensis against UV-induced melanogenesis in mouse melanoma. They suggested that the formulation shows promise as a cosmeceutical antioxidant agent designed to address hyperpigmentation.3
The previous year, Aramwit et al. demonstrated using an in vitro model that urea-extracted sericin displays a capacity to inhibit melanogenesis by hindering tyrosinase activity, attenuating inflammation and allergic reactions, and reducing the expression of microphthalmia-associated transcription factor, a marker of melanogenesis regulation, in melanocytes and keratinocytes.2
Potential use as an adjunct psoriasis treatment
A combination of naringin (from Citrus maxima) and sericin (from Bombyx mori) was evaluated in 2019 by Deenonpoe et al. for the treatment of psoriasis. They isolated human peripheral blood mononuclear cells from 10 healthy subjects and 10 patients with psoriasis. The combination formulation was much more effective than either compound alone in significantly reducing mRNA expression and the synthesis of proinflammatory cytokines in samples from psoriasis patients. The investigators concluded that the down-regulation of proinflammatory cytokines imparted by the naringin/sericin product points toward its possible clinical use as a complementary treatment for psoriasis and other inflammation-mediated conditions.9
Uremic pruritus and burn wounds
A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled 6-week study in 2012 conducted by Aramwit et al. assessed the use of sericin cream versus a cream base placebo in the treatment of uremic pruritus in 50 hemodialysis patients, 47 of whom completed the study. Significant differences in the creams were identified, with hydration vastly improved in patients using the sericin cream. Significant reductions in pruritus and dyspigmentation were also observed in the treatment group, with an overall quality of life improvement noted in relation to pain score.10
The ensuing year, Aramwit et al. showed that silk sericin promoted wound healing in vitro and, when added to silver sulfadiazine cream and evaluated in a randomized, double-blind, standard-controlled study, demonstrated clinical efficacy in healing burn wounds.11
Wound healing
An expanding body of research suggests the role of sericin in wound healing. In 2007, Aramwit et al. found that sericin, which boasts notable hydrophilic qualities, was effective as a wound-healing agent in rats. The tested sericin cream successfully reduced wound size and wound healing time was substantially shorter than in animals treated with control formula. Treatment for 15 days yielded complete healing, no ulceration, and higher collagen levels, as determined by histologic examination, in comparison with control.12 Other studies using sericin hydrogel as well as a sericin-based nanofibrous matrix with chitosan have demonstrated success in wound healing in mice.13,14
Human studies
In 2018, Napavichayanun et al. reported on the clinical efficacy and safety of bacterial cellulose wound dressings including silk sericin and PHMB as compared with Bactigras (an antiseptic dressing) as a control in split-thickness skin graft donor-site wound treatment. In this single-blinded, randomized, controlled study of 21 patients, pain scores were significantly lower and wound quality higher in the skin treated with the sericin product. The test formulation was protected against infection without inducing adverse effects.15
Previously, a silk sericin–releasing wound dressing introduced in 2014 was found to significantly diminish pain and promote more rapid healing in patients with split-thickness skin graft donor sites as compared with treatment with the Bactigras wound dressing.16
Sericin in tissue repair and as a drug delivery carrier
Sericin is associated with antioxidant and moisturizing properties as well as a mitogenic influence on mammalian cells, with a particular impact on keratinocytes and fibroblasts that render it useful in biomaterials designed for skin tissue repair.17
Wang et al. have cross-linked dialdehyde carboxymethyl cellulose with silk sericin derived from the B. mori cocoon to develop a film with impressive blood compatibility and cytocompatibility that shows potential for use as a wound dressing, artificial skin, and in tissue engineering.18
Similarly, Liang et al. have been successful in preparing a medical tissue glue incorporating a gelatin, sericin, and carboxymethyl chitosan blend solution, cross-linked with 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)-carbodiimide. The tissue glue has been found to offer notable biocompatibility and structural traits at low cost.19
Sericin protein also evinces potential as a biocompatible, bioviable carrier for drug delivery. Suktham et al. showed that resveratrol-loaded sericin nanoparticles robustly hindered growth of colorectal adenocarcinoma cells while cytotoxic to skin fibroblasts, suggesting the viability or potential of sericin nanoparticles as bionanocarriers in a drug delivery system.20 In addition, Tao et al. found silk sericin to be effective when blended with poly(vinyl alcohol) in a hydrogel with antibacterial properties as a drug delivery carrier with potential for use as wound dressing.21
Conclusion
Much more research is necessary, though, to explore how the antioxidant and moisturizing activities of the protein may be harnessed to confer skin-protective effects, especially against UV damage.
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 wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers,“The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com
References
1. Lamboni L et al. Biotechnol Adv. 2015 Dec;33(8):1855-67.
2. Aramwit P et al. Biol Res. 2018 Nov 29;51(1):54.
3. Kumar JP, Mandal BB. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2019 Oct 9:18(10):2497-508.
4. Zhaorigetu S et al. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2003 Oct 15;71(1-3):11-7.
5. Dash R et al. Mol Cell Biochem. 2008 Apr;311(1-2):111-9.
6. Dash R et al. BMB Rep. 2008 Mar 31;41(3):236-41.
7. Berardesca E et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2015 Dec;37(6):606-12.
8. Aramwit P, Bang N. BMC Biotechnol. 2014 Dec 9;14:104.
9. Deenonpoe R et al. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2019 Jul 10;19(1):168.
10. Aramwit P et al. BMC Nephrol. 2012 Sep 24;13:119.
11. Aramwit P et al. Arch Dermatol Res. 2013 Sep;305(7):585-94.
12. Aramwit P, Sangcakul A. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem. 2007 Oct;71(10):2473-7.
13. Qi C et al. Biomater Sci. 2018 Nov 1;6(11):2859-70.
14. Sapru S et al. Acta Biomater. 2018 Sep 15;78:137-50.
15. Napavichayanun S et al. Arch Dermatol Res. 2018 Dec;310(10):795-805.
16. Siritientong T et al. Pharm Res. 2014 Jan;31(1):104-16.
17. Lamboni L et al. Biotechnol Adv. 2015 Dec;33(8):1855-67.
18. Wang P et al. Carbohydr Polym. 2019 May 15;212:403-11.
19. Liang M et al. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2018 Apr;16(2):97-106.
20. Suktham K et al. Int J Pharm. 2018 Feb 15;537(1-2):48-56.
21. Tao G et al. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl. 2019 Aug;101:341-51.
Mother of pearl: The power of pearl powder
Because of its dense protein and mineral composition, it has been used to treat several skin and bone disorders, as well as palpitations, insomnia, and epilepsy.3,4 The pearl-farming industry itself was established in Japan and has existed for more than a century; today, pearls are cultured globally and continue to receive attention for conferring health benefits.5
Calcium carbonate is the primary component of mollusk shells (roughly 95%), with the remainder an organic matrix including proteins, glycoproteins, and polysaccharides.6 Pearl powder is known to have exhibited antiaging, antioxidant, antiradiative, and tonic activities; in recent years, it has been incorporated into health foods for such properties and used in the clinical setting to treat ulcers (aphthous, gastric, and duodenal).4,7 Consisting of multiple active proteins, pearl powder is thought to be conducive to skin cell growth and effective for wound repair.4 This column focuses on recent research into the dermatologic potential of the powder derived from mother of pearl.
Wound healing
A decade ago, Jian-Ping et al. showed in mice that the water-soluble matrix of pearl powder (Hyriopsis cumingii) could significantly induce oral fibroblast proliferation and collagen accumulation, suppress matrix metalloproteinase-2 activity, and significantly foster TIMP-1 synthesis. The investigators concluded that the wound healing facilitated by pearl powder derives, in part, from its capacity to promote fibroblast mitosis, collagen deposition, and production of TIMP-1.8
Two years later, Lee et al. evaluated the effects of water-soluble nacre (mother of pearl) on second-degree burn wound healing in porcine skin as a proxy for human skin. They found that its application quickly led to burn-induced granulation areas filling with collagen, with normal skin appearance restored to wounded dermis and epidermis. Angiogenesis was also promoted by water-soluble nacre as was wound recovery in areas with apoptotic and necrotic cellular damage. Murine fibroblast NIH3T3 cells treated with water-soluble nacre also demonstrated augmented proliferation and collagen production. The researchers cited the restoration of angiogenesis and fibroblast activity as the primary benefits of water-soluble nacre, suggesting its potential as a wound therapy, preferable to powdered nacre due to better biocompatibility with less discomfort.9
The next year, Li et al. found that mother of pearl extract promoted cell migration of fibroblasts in cell culture, demonstrating its potential as a wound healing model.7In 2019, Chen et al. studied the effects of pearl powders of varying particle sizes to treat wounds in vitro and in vivo. They found that micro- and nanosized pearl powders augmented proliferation and migration of skin cells and shortened wound closure time. All powders also improved the biomechanical strength of healed skin, enhanced collagen formation and deposition, and expanded cutaneous angiogenesis, with nanoscale pearl powder displaying greatest efficiency.4
Skin tone and atopic dermatitis
In 2000, Lopez et al. implanted powdered nacre (mother of pearl derived from Pinctada maxima), which can promote and regulate bone-forming cells, into rat dermis to evaluate its effects on skin fibroblasts. They noted that the implant yielded well-vascularized tissue and improved extracellular matrix production, synthesis of substances involved in cellular adhesion and communication, and tissue regeneration (such as collagen types I and III). The investigators concluded that the powdered nacre contributed to the conditions necessary for improved skin tone and proper physiologic functioning of the skin.10
Rousseau et al. extracted lipids from the nacre of the oyster P. margaritifera to test on artificially dehydrated skin explants with the intention of developing new treatments for atopic dermatitis. The researchers determined that the lipids spurred a reconstitution of the intercellular material of the stratum corneum, concluding that new products to treat atopic dermatitis might be based on the signaling activity of nacre lipids.11
Antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory activity
A 2015 study by Yang et al. showed that a room-temperature superextraction system to yield the main active constituents of pearl was successful in enhancing their anti-inflammatory and antiapoptotic activity in human keratinocyte cells (HaCaT) exposed to low-dose UVB. The investigators combined pearl extract and poly (gamma-glutamic acid) hydrogels and observed reductions in inflammation and apoptosis of HaCaT cells. They concluded that a marketed pearl extract may be able to suppress radiation dermatitis present in keratinocytes.12
Two years later, Latire et al. used human dermal fibroblasts in primary culture to assess the potential biological activities of the matrix macromolecular components extracted from the shells of two edible mollusks (the blue mussel Mytilus edulis and the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas). The investigators found that both extracts influenced metabolic functions of the cells and reduced type I collagen levels, with an associated rise in matrix metalloproteinase-1 activity. Given their findings implying the effectiveness of the extracts in facilitating the catabolic pathway of human dermal fibroblasts, the authors suggest that these shell matrices present the potential for use in treating fibrosis, especially for scleroderma.6
Antioxidant and antiaging activity
Shao et al. demonstrated 10 years ago that pearl powder provides a moisturizing effect on the skin, with ultramicro pearl powder delivering a more robust moisturizing result than water-soluble pearl powder. These two types of pearl powder, along with another one tested (ultranano pearl powder), also significantly diminished the activation of tyrosinase and free radicals. Water-soluble pearl powder did not perform as well as the other two formulations in free radical scavenging. The investigators suggested that their results support the use of pearl powder to combat aging and enhance beauty, and could be used in the clinical setting.13
In 2017, Yang et al. reported on the in vitro antihemolytic and antioxidant activity of pearl powder in shielding human erythrocytes against 2,2’-azobis(2-amidinopropane) dihydrochloride–induced oxidative damage to membrane proteins/lipids. The researchers contend that the strong antioxidant qualities of pearl powder could be applied to prevent or protect against various diseases resulting from free radical damage.2
Human trials: Antioxidant, antiaging, skin appearance
Chiu et al. studied the antioxidant activity of various pearl powder extracts in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 2018. They also investigated the life span–prolonging effects of the powders using wild-type Caenorhabditis elegans. Twenty healthy middle-aged subjects were separated into two groups (experimental and placebo), with 3 g of pearl powder administered in capsules to the former and 3 g of placebo to the latter over 8 weeks. Blood samples taken at the beginning and every 2 weeks during the trial and in the 10th week revealed maximum antioxidant activity of the pearl powder and prolongation of C. elegans lifespan by 18.87%. Subjects using pearl powder demonstrated significant increases in total antioxidant capacity, thiols, glutathione, and enzymic antioxidant activity, along with notably inhibited lipid peroxidation products. The investigators concluded that pearl powder extract acted as a potent antioxidant and its use may be warranted to treat degenerative conditions related to aging.3
A recent study of the perception of blue light on Korean women’s faces using blue pearl pigment revealed that the pigment does indeed elicit the perception of the blue-light effect, notably transparency and gloss, which is particularly valued in Korea.14
Conclusion
The use of mother of pearl and pearl powder in traditional Chinese medicine and as a cosmetic and food additive has a rich and lengthy history. Contemporary research clearly suggests interesting avenues for further investigation and some promising results. Much more research is necessary, though, to delineate the potential roles of pearl powder in the skin care arsenal.
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 wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com
References
1. Zhang J et al. J Sep Sci. 2015 May;38(9):1552-60.
2. Yang HL et al. J Food Drug Anal. 2017 Oct;25(4):898-907.
3. Chiu HF et al. J Food Drug Anal. 2018 Jan;26(1):309-17.
4. Chen X et al. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2019 Jun;45(6):1009-16.
5. Nagai K. Zoolog Sci. 2013 Oct;30(10):783-93.
6. Latire T et al. Cytotechnology. 2017 Oct;69(5):815-29.
7. Li YC et al. Pharm Biol. 2013 Mar;51(3):289-97.
8. Jian-Ping D et al. Pharm Biol. 2010 Feb;48(2):122-7.
9. Lee K et al. Mol Biol Rep. 2012 Mar;39(3):3211-8.
10. Lopez E et al. Tissue Cell. 2000 Feb;32(1):95-101.
11. Rousseau M et al. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 2006 Sep;145(1):1-9.
12. Yang YL et al. Biomed Mater Eng. 2015;26 Suppl 1:S139-45.
13. Shao DZ et al. J Cosmet Sci. 2010 Mar-Apr;61(2):133-45.
14. Lee M et al. Skin Res Technol. 2020 Jan;26(1):76-80.
Because of its dense protein and mineral composition, it has been used to treat several skin and bone disorders, as well as palpitations, insomnia, and epilepsy.3,4 The pearl-farming industry itself was established in Japan and has existed for more than a century; today, pearls are cultured globally and continue to receive attention for conferring health benefits.5
Calcium carbonate is the primary component of mollusk shells (roughly 95%), with the remainder an organic matrix including proteins, glycoproteins, and polysaccharides.6 Pearl powder is known to have exhibited antiaging, antioxidant, antiradiative, and tonic activities; in recent years, it has been incorporated into health foods for such properties and used in the clinical setting to treat ulcers (aphthous, gastric, and duodenal).4,7 Consisting of multiple active proteins, pearl powder is thought to be conducive to skin cell growth and effective for wound repair.4 This column focuses on recent research into the dermatologic potential of the powder derived from mother of pearl.
Wound healing
A decade ago, Jian-Ping et al. showed in mice that the water-soluble matrix of pearl powder (Hyriopsis cumingii) could significantly induce oral fibroblast proliferation and collagen accumulation, suppress matrix metalloproteinase-2 activity, and significantly foster TIMP-1 synthesis. The investigators concluded that the wound healing facilitated by pearl powder derives, in part, from its capacity to promote fibroblast mitosis, collagen deposition, and production of TIMP-1.8
Two years later, Lee et al. evaluated the effects of water-soluble nacre (mother of pearl) on second-degree burn wound healing in porcine skin as a proxy for human skin. They found that its application quickly led to burn-induced granulation areas filling with collagen, with normal skin appearance restored to wounded dermis and epidermis. Angiogenesis was also promoted by water-soluble nacre as was wound recovery in areas with apoptotic and necrotic cellular damage. Murine fibroblast NIH3T3 cells treated with water-soluble nacre also demonstrated augmented proliferation and collagen production. The researchers cited the restoration of angiogenesis and fibroblast activity as the primary benefits of water-soluble nacre, suggesting its potential as a wound therapy, preferable to powdered nacre due to better biocompatibility with less discomfort.9
The next year, Li et al. found that mother of pearl extract promoted cell migration of fibroblasts in cell culture, demonstrating its potential as a wound healing model.7In 2019, Chen et al. studied the effects of pearl powders of varying particle sizes to treat wounds in vitro and in vivo. They found that micro- and nanosized pearl powders augmented proliferation and migration of skin cells and shortened wound closure time. All powders also improved the biomechanical strength of healed skin, enhanced collagen formation and deposition, and expanded cutaneous angiogenesis, with nanoscale pearl powder displaying greatest efficiency.4
Skin tone and atopic dermatitis
In 2000, Lopez et al. implanted powdered nacre (mother of pearl derived from Pinctada maxima), which can promote and regulate bone-forming cells, into rat dermis to evaluate its effects on skin fibroblasts. They noted that the implant yielded well-vascularized tissue and improved extracellular matrix production, synthesis of substances involved in cellular adhesion and communication, and tissue regeneration (such as collagen types I and III). The investigators concluded that the powdered nacre contributed to the conditions necessary for improved skin tone and proper physiologic functioning of the skin.10
Rousseau et al. extracted lipids from the nacre of the oyster P. margaritifera to test on artificially dehydrated skin explants with the intention of developing new treatments for atopic dermatitis. The researchers determined that the lipids spurred a reconstitution of the intercellular material of the stratum corneum, concluding that new products to treat atopic dermatitis might be based on the signaling activity of nacre lipids.11
Antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory activity
A 2015 study by Yang et al. showed that a room-temperature superextraction system to yield the main active constituents of pearl was successful in enhancing their anti-inflammatory and antiapoptotic activity in human keratinocyte cells (HaCaT) exposed to low-dose UVB. The investigators combined pearl extract and poly (gamma-glutamic acid) hydrogels and observed reductions in inflammation and apoptosis of HaCaT cells. They concluded that a marketed pearl extract may be able to suppress radiation dermatitis present in keratinocytes.12
Two years later, Latire et al. used human dermal fibroblasts in primary culture to assess the potential biological activities of the matrix macromolecular components extracted from the shells of two edible mollusks (the blue mussel Mytilus edulis and the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas). The investigators found that both extracts influenced metabolic functions of the cells and reduced type I collagen levels, with an associated rise in matrix metalloproteinase-1 activity. Given their findings implying the effectiveness of the extracts in facilitating the catabolic pathway of human dermal fibroblasts, the authors suggest that these shell matrices present the potential for use in treating fibrosis, especially for scleroderma.6
Antioxidant and antiaging activity
Shao et al. demonstrated 10 years ago that pearl powder provides a moisturizing effect on the skin, with ultramicro pearl powder delivering a more robust moisturizing result than water-soluble pearl powder. These two types of pearl powder, along with another one tested (ultranano pearl powder), also significantly diminished the activation of tyrosinase and free radicals. Water-soluble pearl powder did not perform as well as the other two formulations in free radical scavenging. The investigators suggested that their results support the use of pearl powder to combat aging and enhance beauty, and could be used in the clinical setting.13
In 2017, Yang et al. reported on the in vitro antihemolytic and antioxidant activity of pearl powder in shielding human erythrocytes against 2,2’-azobis(2-amidinopropane) dihydrochloride–induced oxidative damage to membrane proteins/lipids. The researchers contend that the strong antioxidant qualities of pearl powder could be applied to prevent or protect against various diseases resulting from free radical damage.2
Human trials: Antioxidant, antiaging, skin appearance
Chiu et al. studied the antioxidant activity of various pearl powder extracts in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 2018. They also investigated the life span–prolonging effects of the powders using wild-type Caenorhabditis elegans. Twenty healthy middle-aged subjects were separated into two groups (experimental and placebo), with 3 g of pearl powder administered in capsules to the former and 3 g of placebo to the latter over 8 weeks. Blood samples taken at the beginning and every 2 weeks during the trial and in the 10th week revealed maximum antioxidant activity of the pearl powder and prolongation of C. elegans lifespan by 18.87%. Subjects using pearl powder demonstrated significant increases in total antioxidant capacity, thiols, glutathione, and enzymic antioxidant activity, along with notably inhibited lipid peroxidation products. The investigators concluded that pearl powder extract acted as a potent antioxidant and its use may be warranted to treat degenerative conditions related to aging.3
A recent study of the perception of blue light on Korean women’s faces using blue pearl pigment revealed that the pigment does indeed elicit the perception of the blue-light effect, notably transparency and gloss, which is particularly valued in Korea.14
Conclusion
The use of mother of pearl and pearl powder in traditional Chinese medicine and as a cosmetic and food additive has a rich and lengthy history. Contemporary research clearly suggests interesting avenues for further investigation and some promising results. Much more research is necessary, though, to delineate the potential roles of pearl powder in the skin care arsenal.
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 wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com
References
1. Zhang J et al. J Sep Sci. 2015 May;38(9):1552-60.
2. Yang HL et al. J Food Drug Anal. 2017 Oct;25(4):898-907.
3. Chiu HF et al. J Food Drug Anal. 2018 Jan;26(1):309-17.
4. Chen X et al. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2019 Jun;45(6):1009-16.
5. Nagai K. Zoolog Sci. 2013 Oct;30(10):783-93.
6. Latire T et al. Cytotechnology. 2017 Oct;69(5):815-29.
7. Li YC et al. Pharm Biol. 2013 Mar;51(3):289-97.
8. Jian-Ping D et al. Pharm Biol. 2010 Feb;48(2):122-7.
9. Lee K et al. Mol Biol Rep. 2012 Mar;39(3):3211-8.
10. Lopez E et al. Tissue Cell. 2000 Feb;32(1):95-101.
11. Rousseau M et al. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 2006 Sep;145(1):1-9.
12. Yang YL et al. Biomed Mater Eng. 2015;26 Suppl 1:S139-45.
13. Shao DZ et al. J Cosmet Sci. 2010 Mar-Apr;61(2):133-45.
14. Lee M et al. Skin Res Technol. 2020 Jan;26(1):76-80.
Because of its dense protein and mineral composition, it has been used to treat several skin and bone disorders, as well as palpitations, insomnia, and epilepsy.3,4 The pearl-farming industry itself was established in Japan and has existed for more than a century; today, pearls are cultured globally and continue to receive attention for conferring health benefits.5
Calcium carbonate is the primary component of mollusk shells (roughly 95%), with the remainder an organic matrix including proteins, glycoproteins, and polysaccharides.6 Pearl powder is known to have exhibited antiaging, antioxidant, antiradiative, and tonic activities; in recent years, it has been incorporated into health foods for such properties and used in the clinical setting to treat ulcers (aphthous, gastric, and duodenal).4,7 Consisting of multiple active proteins, pearl powder is thought to be conducive to skin cell growth and effective for wound repair.4 This column focuses on recent research into the dermatologic potential of the powder derived from mother of pearl.
Wound healing
A decade ago, Jian-Ping et al. showed in mice that the water-soluble matrix of pearl powder (Hyriopsis cumingii) could significantly induce oral fibroblast proliferation and collagen accumulation, suppress matrix metalloproteinase-2 activity, and significantly foster TIMP-1 synthesis. The investigators concluded that the wound healing facilitated by pearl powder derives, in part, from its capacity to promote fibroblast mitosis, collagen deposition, and production of TIMP-1.8
Two years later, Lee et al. evaluated the effects of water-soluble nacre (mother of pearl) on second-degree burn wound healing in porcine skin as a proxy for human skin. They found that its application quickly led to burn-induced granulation areas filling with collagen, with normal skin appearance restored to wounded dermis and epidermis. Angiogenesis was also promoted by water-soluble nacre as was wound recovery in areas with apoptotic and necrotic cellular damage. Murine fibroblast NIH3T3 cells treated with water-soluble nacre also demonstrated augmented proliferation and collagen production. The researchers cited the restoration of angiogenesis and fibroblast activity as the primary benefits of water-soluble nacre, suggesting its potential as a wound therapy, preferable to powdered nacre due to better biocompatibility with less discomfort.9
The next year, Li et al. found that mother of pearl extract promoted cell migration of fibroblasts in cell culture, demonstrating its potential as a wound healing model.7In 2019, Chen et al. studied the effects of pearl powders of varying particle sizes to treat wounds in vitro and in vivo. They found that micro- and nanosized pearl powders augmented proliferation and migration of skin cells and shortened wound closure time. All powders also improved the biomechanical strength of healed skin, enhanced collagen formation and deposition, and expanded cutaneous angiogenesis, with nanoscale pearl powder displaying greatest efficiency.4
Skin tone and atopic dermatitis
In 2000, Lopez et al. implanted powdered nacre (mother of pearl derived from Pinctada maxima), which can promote and regulate bone-forming cells, into rat dermis to evaluate its effects on skin fibroblasts. They noted that the implant yielded well-vascularized tissue and improved extracellular matrix production, synthesis of substances involved in cellular adhesion and communication, and tissue regeneration (such as collagen types I and III). The investigators concluded that the powdered nacre contributed to the conditions necessary for improved skin tone and proper physiologic functioning of the skin.10
Rousseau et al. extracted lipids from the nacre of the oyster P. margaritifera to test on artificially dehydrated skin explants with the intention of developing new treatments for atopic dermatitis. The researchers determined that the lipids spurred a reconstitution of the intercellular material of the stratum corneum, concluding that new products to treat atopic dermatitis might be based on the signaling activity of nacre lipids.11
Antifibrotic and anti-inflammatory activity
A 2015 study by Yang et al. showed that a room-temperature superextraction system to yield the main active constituents of pearl was successful in enhancing their anti-inflammatory and antiapoptotic activity in human keratinocyte cells (HaCaT) exposed to low-dose UVB. The investigators combined pearl extract and poly (gamma-glutamic acid) hydrogels and observed reductions in inflammation and apoptosis of HaCaT cells. They concluded that a marketed pearl extract may be able to suppress radiation dermatitis present in keratinocytes.12
Two years later, Latire et al. used human dermal fibroblasts in primary culture to assess the potential biological activities of the matrix macromolecular components extracted from the shells of two edible mollusks (the blue mussel Mytilus edulis and the Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas). The investigators found that both extracts influenced metabolic functions of the cells and reduced type I collagen levels, with an associated rise in matrix metalloproteinase-1 activity. Given their findings implying the effectiveness of the extracts in facilitating the catabolic pathway of human dermal fibroblasts, the authors suggest that these shell matrices present the potential for use in treating fibrosis, especially for scleroderma.6
Antioxidant and antiaging activity
Shao et al. demonstrated 10 years ago that pearl powder provides a moisturizing effect on the skin, with ultramicro pearl powder delivering a more robust moisturizing result than water-soluble pearl powder. These two types of pearl powder, along with another one tested (ultranano pearl powder), also significantly diminished the activation of tyrosinase and free radicals. Water-soluble pearl powder did not perform as well as the other two formulations in free radical scavenging. The investigators suggested that their results support the use of pearl powder to combat aging and enhance beauty, and could be used in the clinical setting.13
In 2017, Yang et al. reported on the in vitro antihemolytic and antioxidant activity of pearl powder in shielding human erythrocytes against 2,2’-azobis(2-amidinopropane) dihydrochloride–induced oxidative damage to membrane proteins/lipids. The researchers contend that the strong antioxidant qualities of pearl powder could be applied to prevent or protect against various diseases resulting from free radical damage.2
Human trials: Antioxidant, antiaging, skin appearance
Chiu et al. studied the antioxidant activity of various pearl powder extracts in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 2018. They also investigated the life span–prolonging effects of the powders using wild-type Caenorhabditis elegans. Twenty healthy middle-aged subjects were separated into two groups (experimental and placebo), with 3 g of pearl powder administered in capsules to the former and 3 g of placebo to the latter over 8 weeks. Blood samples taken at the beginning and every 2 weeks during the trial and in the 10th week revealed maximum antioxidant activity of the pearl powder and prolongation of C. elegans lifespan by 18.87%. Subjects using pearl powder demonstrated significant increases in total antioxidant capacity, thiols, glutathione, and enzymic antioxidant activity, along with notably inhibited lipid peroxidation products. The investigators concluded that pearl powder extract acted as a potent antioxidant and its use may be warranted to treat degenerative conditions related to aging.3
A recent study of the perception of blue light on Korean women’s faces using blue pearl pigment revealed that the pigment does indeed elicit the perception of the blue-light effect, notably transparency and gloss, which is particularly valued in Korea.14
Conclusion
The use of mother of pearl and pearl powder in traditional Chinese medicine and as a cosmetic and food additive has a rich and lengthy history. Contemporary research clearly suggests interesting avenues for further investigation and some promising results. Much more research is necessary, though, to delineate the potential roles of pearl powder in the skin care arsenal.
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 wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com
References
1. Zhang J et al. J Sep Sci. 2015 May;38(9):1552-60.
2. Yang HL et al. J Food Drug Anal. 2017 Oct;25(4):898-907.
3. Chiu HF et al. J Food Drug Anal. 2018 Jan;26(1):309-17.
4. Chen X et al. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2019 Jun;45(6):1009-16.
5. Nagai K. Zoolog Sci. 2013 Oct;30(10):783-93.
6. Latire T et al. Cytotechnology. 2017 Oct;69(5):815-29.
7. Li YC et al. Pharm Biol. 2013 Mar;51(3):289-97.
8. Jian-Ping D et al. Pharm Biol. 2010 Feb;48(2):122-7.
9. Lee K et al. Mol Biol Rep. 2012 Mar;39(3):3211-8.
10. Lopez E et al. Tissue Cell. 2000 Feb;32(1):95-101.
11. Rousseau M et al. Comp Biochem Physiol B Biochem Mol Biol. 2006 Sep;145(1):1-9.
12. Yang YL et al. Biomed Mater Eng. 2015;26 Suppl 1:S139-45.
13. Shao DZ et al. J Cosmet Sci. 2010 Mar-Apr;61(2):133-45.
14. Lee M et al. Skin Res Technol. 2020 Jan;26(1):76-80.
The role of oleuropein, the primary phenol in olives, in skin health
Olives and olive oil have long been known to confer salutary effects to the skin.1 Leaves and fruits of the olive plant (Olea europaea) have been used as external emollients to treat skin ulcers and inflammatory wounds.2 The phenolic compound oleuropein, the most abundant phenolic found in olive leaves and oil, has been shown to exhibit antioxidant and free radical–scavenging activities.3,4 Also present in the stems and flowers of the plant, oleuropein, an ester of elenolic acid and 3,4-dihydroxyphenyl ethanol and the primary glycoside in olives,5 is thought to be the major contributor to its antioxidant and antimelanogenesis activities.6 Notably, olive leaves, which contain a copious supply of oleuropein, are thought to exert significantly more antioxidant activity than olive fruit.7
Hydroxytyrosol is an ortho-diphenolic substance and essential constituent of oleuropein that has been shown in vitro to prevent apoptotic cell death caused by UVB in HaCaT cells.8,9 Both oleuropein and hydroxytyrosol impart various anticancer properties at the initiation, promotion, and metastasis stages and yield protection against multiple cancers, including skin tumors.10 The antioxidant activity of both compounds, which has been found to be more potent than that of vitamin E, is attributed to their phenolic content.11,12 In addition, oleuropein and lipophilic olive mill wastewater derivatives have been useful as active ingredients for stabilizing cosmetic formulations.13 This column revisits oleuropein after 10 years to focus on its dermatologic potential.
Protection against UV damage
A hairless mouse study by Kimura and Sumiyoshi in 2009 revealed that olive leaf extract and its primary constituent oleuropein exert a skin-protective effect against chronic UVB-induced skin damage and carcinogenesis, as well as tumor growth. This is likely caused by reducing cutaneous cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 levels, thus suppressing the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and various matrix metalloproteinases, specifically MMP-2, MMP-9, and MMP-13.14
A year later, the same researchers examined the potential protective effects of olive leaf extract and oleuropein on acute damage induced by UVB exposure in C57BL/6J mice. Both oral extract (300 mg/kg or 1,000 mg/kg) and oral oleuropein (25mg/kg or 85 mg/kg) hindered skin thickness increases engendered by daily doses of UVB (120 mJ/cm2 for 5 days, then every other day for 9 days). Olive leaf extract and oleuropein also suppressed increases in Ki-67- and 8-hydroxy-2’-deoxyguanosine–positive cell numbers, melanin granule area, and MMP-13 expression, the investigators noted.15 Preinitiation with oleuropein also appears to have prevented skin tumor formation in a two-stage carcinogenesis model in mice, which the investigators ascribed to the antioxidant and antiapoptotic properties of the olive protein.16
The cosmetic characteristics of oleuropein against UVB-induced erythema in healthy volunteers were assessed by Perugini et al. in 2008. Using an emulsion and emulgel containing oleuropein and vitamin E as a reference compound, the investigators found that the botanical ingredient was responsible for decreases in erythema (22%), transepidermal water loss (35%), and blood flow (30%). They suggested that the use of oleuropein in cosmetic formulations warrants further investigation for its potential to help mitigate UV damage.3
Wound healing
Koca et al. assessed the wound healing activity of O. europaea leaf extracts using in vivo wound models and the reference ointment Madecassol (Bayer; Istanbul) for comparison, in 2011. The results showed that the aqueous extract exhibited wound healing properties, with secoiridoid oleuropein (4.6059%) found to be the primary active constituent.2
In a 2014 skin wound–healing investigation in aged male Balb/c mice, Mehraein et al. divided 24 mice, 16 months of age, into control and experimental groups. On days 3 and 7 after incision, collagen fiber deposition was significantly increased and reepithelialization more advanced in the oleuropein group (administered via an intradermal injection once a day), which also experienced decreased cell infiltration. The investigators concluded that oleuropein speeds cutaneous wound healing in mice and may have potential for clinical applications in human would healing from surgery.17
Later that year, the same team investigated the therapeutic effects of oleuropein on the wounded skin of young male Balb/c mice, finding similar results, with the phenolic compound again accelerating reepithelialization, improving collagen fiber synthesis, and augmenting blood flow to wound areas via up-regulating VEGF protein expression.4
Hair growth
In 2015, Tong et al. reported that topically applied oleuropein spurred the anagen hair growth phase in telogenic C57BL/6N mouse skin.18 An O. europaea subcutaneous immunotherapy has also demonstrated reductions in cutaneous reactivity, safety, and tolerability in patients with rhinoconjunctivitis.19
Conclusion
The benefits of consuming olives and olive oil are well established and continue to be studied.
backed by many years of anecdotal reporting and use in traditional medicine. While the emerging data on the dermatologic uses of the olive phenolic constituent oleuropein are encouraging, much more information, particularly derived from randomized, controlled trials in humans, is necessary to establish the full potential of oleuropein for indications such as wound healing and protection against UV damage.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 wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Baumann LS, Weisberg EM. “Olive oil in botanical cosmeceuticals.” Olives and Olive Oil in Health and Disease Prevention. New York: Academic Press, 2010.
2. Koca U et al. J Med Food. 2011 Jan-Feb;14(1-2):140-6.
3. Perugini P et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2008 Apr;30(2):113-20.
4. Mehraein F et al. Wounds. 2014 Mar;26(3):83-8.
5. Imran M et al. J Food Sci. 2018 Jul;83(7):1781-91.
6. Kishikawa A et al. Phytother Res. 2015 Jun;29(6):877-86.
7. Zheng J et al. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2016 Feb;41(4):613-8.
8. Salucci S et al. J Dermatol Sci. 2015 Oct;80(1):61-8.
9. Jeon S, Choi M. Biomed Dermatol. 2018;2:21.
10. Imran M et al. J Food Sci. 2018 Jul;83(7):1781-91.
11. Visioli F et al. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1998 Jun 9;247(1):60-4.
12. Polišak N et al. Phytother Res. 2019 Oct 27. doi: 10.1002/ptr.6524.
13. Aissa I et al. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. 2017 Jul;64(4):579-89.
14. Kimura Y, Sumiyoshi M. J Nutr. 2009 Nov;139(11):2079-86.
15. Sumiyoshi M, Kimura Y. Phytother Res. 2010 Jul;24(7):995-1003.
16. John DNS et al. JKIMSU. 2019 Jan-Mar;8(1):43-51.
17. Mehraein F et al. Cell J. 2014 Feb 3;16(1):25-30.
18. Tong T et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 10;10(6):e0129578.
19. Saenza De San Pedro B et al. Eur All Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019 Nov 27. doi: 10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.124.
Olives and olive oil have long been known to confer salutary effects to the skin.1 Leaves and fruits of the olive plant (Olea europaea) have been used as external emollients to treat skin ulcers and inflammatory wounds.2 The phenolic compound oleuropein, the most abundant phenolic found in olive leaves and oil, has been shown to exhibit antioxidant and free radical–scavenging activities.3,4 Also present in the stems and flowers of the plant, oleuropein, an ester of elenolic acid and 3,4-dihydroxyphenyl ethanol and the primary glycoside in olives,5 is thought to be the major contributor to its antioxidant and antimelanogenesis activities.6 Notably, olive leaves, which contain a copious supply of oleuropein, are thought to exert significantly more antioxidant activity than olive fruit.7
Hydroxytyrosol is an ortho-diphenolic substance and essential constituent of oleuropein that has been shown in vitro to prevent apoptotic cell death caused by UVB in HaCaT cells.8,9 Both oleuropein and hydroxytyrosol impart various anticancer properties at the initiation, promotion, and metastasis stages and yield protection against multiple cancers, including skin tumors.10 The antioxidant activity of both compounds, which has been found to be more potent than that of vitamin E, is attributed to their phenolic content.11,12 In addition, oleuropein and lipophilic olive mill wastewater derivatives have been useful as active ingredients for stabilizing cosmetic formulations.13 This column revisits oleuropein after 10 years to focus on its dermatologic potential.
Protection against UV damage
A hairless mouse study by Kimura and Sumiyoshi in 2009 revealed that olive leaf extract and its primary constituent oleuropein exert a skin-protective effect against chronic UVB-induced skin damage and carcinogenesis, as well as tumor growth. This is likely caused by reducing cutaneous cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 levels, thus suppressing the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and various matrix metalloproteinases, specifically MMP-2, MMP-9, and MMP-13.14
A year later, the same researchers examined the potential protective effects of olive leaf extract and oleuropein on acute damage induced by UVB exposure in C57BL/6J mice. Both oral extract (300 mg/kg or 1,000 mg/kg) and oral oleuropein (25mg/kg or 85 mg/kg) hindered skin thickness increases engendered by daily doses of UVB (120 mJ/cm2 for 5 days, then every other day for 9 days). Olive leaf extract and oleuropein also suppressed increases in Ki-67- and 8-hydroxy-2’-deoxyguanosine–positive cell numbers, melanin granule area, and MMP-13 expression, the investigators noted.15 Preinitiation with oleuropein also appears to have prevented skin tumor formation in a two-stage carcinogenesis model in mice, which the investigators ascribed to the antioxidant and antiapoptotic properties of the olive protein.16
The cosmetic characteristics of oleuropein against UVB-induced erythema in healthy volunteers were assessed by Perugini et al. in 2008. Using an emulsion and emulgel containing oleuropein and vitamin E as a reference compound, the investigators found that the botanical ingredient was responsible for decreases in erythema (22%), transepidermal water loss (35%), and blood flow (30%). They suggested that the use of oleuropein in cosmetic formulations warrants further investigation for its potential to help mitigate UV damage.3
Wound healing
Koca et al. assessed the wound healing activity of O. europaea leaf extracts using in vivo wound models and the reference ointment Madecassol (Bayer; Istanbul) for comparison, in 2011. The results showed that the aqueous extract exhibited wound healing properties, with secoiridoid oleuropein (4.6059%) found to be the primary active constituent.2
In a 2014 skin wound–healing investigation in aged male Balb/c mice, Mehraein et al. divided 24 mice, 16 months of age, into control and experimental groups. On days 3 and 7 after incision, collagen fiber deposition was significantly increased and reepithelialization more advanced in the oleuropein group (administered via an intradermal injection once a day), which also experienced decreased cell infiltration. The investigators concluded that oleuropein speeds cutaneous wound healing in mice and may have potential for clinical applications in human would healing from surgery.17
Later that year, the same team investigated the therapeutic effects of oleuropein on the wounded skin of young male Balb/c mice, finding similar results, with the phenolic compound again accelerating reepithelialization, improving collagen fiber synthesis, and augmenting blood flow to wound areas via up-regulating VEGF protein expression.4
Hair growth
In 2015, Tong et al. reported that topically applied oleuropein spurred the anagen hair growth phase in telogenic C57BL/6N mouse skin.18 An O. europaea subcutaneous immunotherapy has also demonstrated reductions in cutaneous reactivity, safety, and tolerability in patients with rhinoconjunctivitis.19
Conclusion
The benefits of consuming olives and olive oil are well established and continue to be studied.
backed by many years of anecdotal reporting and use in traditional medicine. While the emerging data on the dermatologic uses of the olive phenolic constituent oleuropein are encouraging, much more information, particularly derived from randomized, controlled trials in humans, is necessary to establish the full potential of oleuropein for indications such as wound healing and protection against UV damage.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 wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Baumann LS, Weisberg EM. “Olive oil in botanical cosmeceuticals.” Olives and Olive Oil in Health and Disease Prevention. New York: Academic Press, 2010.
2. Koca U et al. J Med Food. 2011 Jan-Feb;14(1-2):140-6.
3. Perugini P et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2008 Apr;30(2):113-20.
4. Mehraein F et al. Wounds. 2014 Mar;26(3):83-8.
5. Imran M et al. J Food Sci. 2018 Jul;83(7):1781-91.
6. Kishikawa A et al. Phytother Res. 2015 Jun;29(6):877-86.
7. Zheng J et al. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2016 Feb;41(4):613-8.
8. Salucci S et al. J Dermatol Sci. 2015 Oct;80(1):61-8.
9. Jeon S, Choi M. Biomed Dermatol. 2018;2:21.
10. Imran M et al. J Food Sci. 2018 Jul;83(7):1781-91.
11. Visioli F et al. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1998 Jun 9;247(1):60-4.
12. Polišak N et al. Phytother Res. 2019 Oct 27. doi: 10.1002/ptr.6524.
13. Aissa I et al. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. 2017 Jul;64(4):579-89.
14. Kimura Y, Sumiyoshi M. J Nutr. 2009 Nov;139(11):2079-86.
15. Sumiyoshi M, Kimura Y. Phytother Res. 2010 Jul;24(7):995-1003.
16. John DNS et al. JKIMSU. 2019 Jan-Mar;8(1):43-51.
17. Mehraein F et al. Cell J. 2014 Feb 3;16(1):25-30.
18. Tong T et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 10;10(6):e0129578.
19. Saenza De San Pedro B et al. Eur All Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019 Nov 27. doi: 10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.124.
Olives and olive oil have long been known to confer salutary effects to the skin.1 Leaves and fruits of the olive plant (Olea europaea) have been used as external emollients to treat skin ulcers and inflammatory wounds.2 The phenolic compound oleuropein, the most abundant phenolic found in olive leaves and oil, has been shown to exhibit antioxidant and free radical–scavenging activities.3,4 Also present in the stems and flowers of the plant, oleuropein, an ester of elenolic acid and 3,4-dihydroxyphenyl ethanol and the primary glycoside in olives,5 is thought to be the major contributor to its antioxidant and antimelanogenesis activities.6 Notably, olive leaves, which contain a copious supply of oleuropein, are thought to exert significantly more antioxidant activity than olive fruit.7
Hydroxytyrosol is an ortho-diphenolic substance and essential constituent of oleuropein that has been shown in vitro to prevent apoptotic cell death caused by UVB in HaCaT cells.8,9 Both oleuropein and hydroxytyrosol impart various anticancer properties at the initiation, promotion, and metastasis stages and yield protection against multiple cancers, including skin tumors.10 The antioxidant activity of both compounds, which has been found to be more potent than that of vitamin E, is attributed to their phenolic content.11,12 In addition, oleuropein and lipophilic olive mill wastewater derivatives have been useful as active ingredients for stabilizing cosmetic formulations.13 This column revisits oleuropein after 10 years to focus on its dermatologic potential.
Protection against UV damage
A hairless mouse study by Kimura and Sumiyoshi in 2009 revealed that olive leaf extract and its primary constituent oleuropein exert a skin-protective effect against chronic UVB-induced skin damage and carcinogenesis, as well as tumor growth. This is likely caused by reducing cutaneous cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 levels, thus suppressing the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and various matrix metalloproteinases, specifically MMP-2, MMP-9, and MMP-13.14
A year later, the same researchers examined the potential protective effects of olive leaf extract and oleuropein on acute damage induced by UVB exposure in C57BL/6J mice. Both oral extract (300 mg/kg or 1,000 mg/kg) and oral oleuropein (25mg/kg or 85 mg/kg) hindered skin thickness increases engendered by daily doses of UVB (120 mJ/cm2 for 5 days, then every other day for 9 days). Olive leaf extract and oleuropein also suppressed increases in Ki-67- and 8-hydroxy-2’-deoxyguanosine–positive cell numbers, melanin granule area, and MMP-13 expression, the investigators noted.15 Preinitiation with oleuropein also appears to have prevented skin tumor formation in a two-stage carcinogenesis model in mice, which the investigators ascribed to the antioxidant and antiapoptotic properties of the olive protein.16
The cosmetic characteristics of oleuropein against UVB-induced erythema in healthy volunteers were assessed by Perugini et al. in 2008. Using an emulsion and emulgel containing oleuropein and vitamin E as a reference compound, the investigators found that the botanical ingredient was responsible for decreases in erythema (22%), transepidermal water loss (35%), and blood flow (30%). They suggested that the use of oleuropein in cosmetic formulations warrants further investigation for its potential to help mitigate UV damage.3
Wound healing
Koca et al. assessed the wound healing activity of O. europaea leaf extracts using in vivo wound models and the reference ointment Madecassol (Bayer; Istanbul) for comparison, in 2011. The results showed that the aqueous extract exhibited wound healing properties, with secoiridoid oleuropein (4.6059%) found to be the primary active constituent.2
In a 2014 skin wound–healing investigation in aged male Balb/c mice, Mehraein et al. divided 24 mice, 16 months of age, into control and experimental groups. On days 3 and 7 after incision, collagen fiber deposition was significantly increased and reepithelialization more advanced in the oleuropein group (administered via an intradermal injection once a day), which also experienced decreased cell infiltration. The investigators concluded that oleuropein speeds cutaneous wound healing in mice and may have potential for clinical applications in human would healing from surgery.17
Later that year, the same team investigated the therapeutic effects of oleuropein on the wounded skin of young male Balb/c mice, finding similar results, with the phenolic compound again accelerating reepithelialization, improving collagen fiber synthesis, and augmenting blood flow to wound areas via up-regulating VEGF protein expression.4
Hair growth
In 2015, Tong et al. reported that topically applied oleuropein spurred the anagen hair growth phase in telogenic C57BL/6N mouse skin.18 An O. europaea subcutaneous immunotherapy has also demonstrated reductions in cutaneous reactivity, safety, and tolerability in patients with rhinoconjunctivitis.19
Conclusion
The benefits of consuming olives and olive oil are well established and continue to be studied.
backed by many years of anecdotal reporting and use in traditional medicine. While the emerging data on the dermatologic uses of the olive phenolic constituent oleuropein are encouraging, much more information, particularly derived from randomized, controlled trials in humans, is necessary to establish the full potential of oleuropein for indications such as wound healing and protection against UV damage.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 wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002), and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Baumann LS, Weisberg EM. “Olive oil in botanical cosmeceuticals.” Olives and Olive Oil in Health and Disease Prevention. New York: Academic Press, 2010.
2. Koca U et al. J Med Food. 2011 Jan-Feb;14(1-2):140-6.
3. Perugini P et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2008 Apr;30(2):113-20.
4. Mehraein F et al. Wounds. 2014 Mar;26(3):83-8.
5. Imran M et al. J Food Sci. 2018 Jul;83(7):1781-91.
6. Kishikawa A et al. Phytother Res. 2015 Jun;29(6):877-86.
7. Zheng J et al. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2016 Feb;41(4):613-8.
8. Salucci S et al. J Dermatol Sci. 2015 Oct;80(1):61-8.
9. Jeon S, Choi M. Biomed Dermatol. 2018;2:21.
10. Imran M et al. J Food Sci. 2018 Jul;83(7):1781-91.
11. Visioli F et al. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1998 Jun 9;247(1):60-4.
12. Polišak N et al. Phytother Res. 2019 Oct 27. doi: 10.1002/ptr.6524.
13. Aissa I et al. Biotechnol Appl Biochem. 2017 Jul;64(4):579-89.
14. Kimura Y, Sumiyoshi M. J Nutr. 2009 Nov;139(11):2079-86.
15. Sumiyoshi M, Kimura Y. Phytother Res. 2010 Jul;24(7):995-1003.
16. John DNS et al. JKIMSU. 2019 Jan-Mar;8(1):43-51.
17. Mehraein F et al. Cell J. 2014 Feb 3;16(1):25-30.
18. Tong T et al. PLoS One. 2015 Jun 10;10(6):e0129578.
19. Saenza De San Pedro B et al. Eur All Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019 Nov 27. doi: 10.23822/EurAnnACI.1764-1489.124.
Cosmeceutical ingredients to use before and after antiaging procedures
Outcomes are improved when proper skincare is practiced before and after any type of dermatologic procedure. This column reviews
These are ingredients commonly used before, during, and after procedures.I will use the first person when I am expressing my personal opinion or experience versus data reported in published studies that I reference.
Ascorbic acid
Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is an essential cofactor necessary for lysyl hydroxylase and prolyl hydroxylase to produce collagen. Many studies have demonstrated that the use of oral and topical ascorbic acid increases collagen production by fibroblasts.1-3 Several different ascorbic acid products, varying greatly in quality, are available on the market.
Ascorbic acid is very sensitive to light and air exposure and does not penetrate well if not at a pH of 2 or 2.5. There are aqueous and lipophilic formulations. Some are produced from L-ascorbic acid, while others are made from ascorbyl palmitate, or salts such as calcium ascorbate, magnesium ascorbate, magnesium ascorbyl phosphate, sodium ascorbate, and sodium ascorbyl phosphate. Consequently, one must closely evaluate any chosen ascorbic acid preparation and pay close attention to the form used in any studies. I am discussing ascorbic acid in general, but my statements only apply to properly formulated products. Most of the studies I quote used L-ascorbic acid, which is the form studied by the late Sheldon Pinnell, MD, who was an expert on ascorbic acid.
Properly formulated L-ascorbic acid products have a low pH. Unless formulated specifically to deter stinging, these low-pH preparations will sting wounded skin. For this reason, most ascorbic acid preparations should be avoided until the skin has completely re-epithelialized. I prefer using it preprocedure and after the procedure once the skin has re-epithelialized. Alster and West showed that use of ascorbic acid – in an aqueous solution formulated not to sting – after laser resurfacing resulted in a significant decrease in post‐CO2 laser resurfacing erythema by the eighth postoperative week when compared with laser‐irradiated skin that had not received topical vitamin C.4
I prefer using ascorbic acid in patients before and after procedures involving fillers, toxins, skin tightening, and nonablative lasers. In my experience, this improves collagen production. Also, I use ascorbic acid before microneedling, but not during or after. Several case reports have cited allergic granulomatous reactions when ascorbic acid is used during microneedling procedures,5 although these reports did not involve aqueous formulations.
Defensin
Defensins are peptides that play an important role in wound repair. Defensin has exhibited the capacity to activate the leucine-rich repeat-containing G-protein–coupled receptors 5 and 6 (also known as LGR5+ and LGR6+) stem cells.6 This accelerates wound healing by stimulating LGR stem cells to form new keratinocytes that populate the epidermis.7 Using defensins prior to procedures would theoretically speed wound healing, but no studies have been published in this area. Anecdotally, it has been used after microneedling without complication. I have not used defensin in this situation, but when I have asked the audience during lectures, many practitioners have reported using it and found that it accelerates healing.
Growth factors
Growth factors are essential in the skin because they are responsible for immunomodulation, regulation of cell division, wound healing, and tissue generation.1 There are several important growth factor families, including: transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta), epidermal growth factor (EGF), insulin-like growth factor (IGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), and fibroblast growth factor (FGF).2 Because of the numerous different variables that play a role with growth factor function, it is difficult to know exactly which combinations are the most helpful to improve outcomes after procedures. There is some evidence to support the use of FGF, TGF-beta, and EGF, IGF, and PDGF to hasten skin healing.8,9 It is certain that growth factors play an important role in pre- and postprocedure skincare, but we do not yet know which growth factor combinations are the most effective.
Heparan sulfate
Heparan sulfate is a glycosaminoglycan found in the skin. Older cells are less responsive to growth factors than are younger cells; therefore, it is desirable to amplify the growth factor signal in older patients. Heparan sulfate has been shown to contribute to growth factors reaching the receptors on the cell surface and enhancing the cell’s ability to “hear” growth factor signals. Combining growth factors with enhancers such as heparan sulfate, defensins, ascorbic acid, and matrikines can improve outcomes of cosmetic procedures. There are not enough studies yet to substantiate which combinations are the most effective. However, I believe that if you are using a growth factor–containing product after a procedure, you should combine it with heparan sulfate to improve efficacy.
Heparan sulfate is not the same as the blood thinner heparin; however, it may affect clotting factors. It is prudent to stop heparan sulfate the day before a dermal filler procedure because of this theoretical risk. (I have not seen an increase in bruising in patients who use heparan sulfate prior to getting fillers.) I suggest using heparan sulfate–containing products with growth factors 24 hours after injecting fillers to try and enhance collagen synthesis that occurs after hyaluronic acid (HA) filler injections.10
Hyaluronic acid
Hyaluronic acid (HA) is known to increase penetration of drugs, as well as cosmeceutical ingredients.11 For this reason, it is often used before a procedure to increase efficacy of growth factors. Many practitioners report using it during microneedling to help the device glide across the skin. I have not observed or heard of any reports of adverse events from using it during microneedling.
HA has been shown to accelerate wound healing in rats12 and dental procedures.13 For this reason, it is often used after laser resurfacing and microneedling procedures and on sutured and open wounds. HA can vary in chain link and molecular weight and whether or not it is cross linked. These differences affect efficacy and should be taken into consideration when choosing an HA product. Some formulations combine various forms of HA. Because HA may increase bruising because of its effects on fibrin formation,14 I prefer not to use it 2 days prior to or the day of filler injections.15
Hydroxy acids
Pretreating skin with hydroxy acids increases dermal matrix formation,16 promotes collagen synthesis,17 and hastens stratum corneum turnover.18 Although postprocedure healing times after pretreatment with hydroxy acids has not been studied, it is very likely that pretreatment with hydroxy acids speeds healing time by increasing collagen production and cell turnover. West and Alster showed that pretreating skin with hydroxy acids prior to CO2 resurfacing did not affect the incidence of postprocedure hyperpigmentation.19
Matrikines
Matrikines are peptides that occur when extracellular matrix (ECM) macromolecules are partially degraded. These peptides interact with cell surface receptors and activate intracellular signalling pathways to modulate ECM remodeling.20 Matrikines, such as tripeptides and hexapeptides, have been shown to remove damaged collagen and elastin from the ECM.21 It is thought that these matrikines help to prepare the skin for procedures by freeing up space to allow room for newly formed collagen. Using matrikines at least 2 weeks before procedures may precondition the skin to heal faster.22
The tripeptide glycyl-histidyl-lysine (GHK) is a good example of a matrikine. When it forms a complex with copper (II) ions (GHK–Cu) it can stimulate collagen and glycosaminoglycan synthesis23 and increase tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases, TIMP-1 and TIMP-2, which play a role in wound remodeling.24
A serum that contains tripeptide-1, hexapeptide-12, lactoferrin, and phosphatidyl serine has been shown to speed resolution of bruises and inflammation when applied after procedures. It is believed that these ingredients activate macrophages to clear hemosiderin from the skin.
Retinoids
Derived from vitamin A, the retinoid family includes compounds such as adapalene, retinol, tazarotene, trifarotene, and tretinoin. Retinoids should be used for at least 2-4 weeks prior to procedures to improve outcomes. Multiple studies have cogently revealed that pretreatment with tretinoin accelerates wound healing.25-27 Kligman assessed healing after punch biopsy in the mid-1990s and found that the wounds on arms pretreated with tretinoin cream 0.05%-0.1% were significantly diminished by 35%-37% on days 1 and 4 and 47%-50% reduced on days 6, 8, and 11 as compared with the wounds on untreated arms.28 A tretinoin pretreatment regimen of 2-4 weeks is supported by the preponderance of studies29 because peak epidermal hypertrophy emerges after 7 days of tretinoin application and normalizes after 14 days of continued treatment.30 Such an approach gives the skin time to recover from any retinoid dermatitis before the procedure is performed. Pretreatment with adapalene requires an earlier initiation period and should be introduced 5-6 weeks before procedures because it exhibits a longer half-life.31
Topical retinoids should not be used after a procedure until re-epithelialization is complete. Hung et al. applied 0.05% tretinoin cream daily for 10 days prior to partial-thickness skin wounding in a porcine model, with results revealing that re-epithelialization was accelerated with preprocedure treatment while use after the procedure slowed wound healing.32
Skin care regimen design by procedure type
Procedures can be divided into six main types: nonablative, such as peels, intense pulsed light (IPL), and vascular or pigmented lasers; microneedling or other procedures that cause open channels into the dermis; injectables such as toxins and fillers; ablative, such as CO2, erbium, and fractionated lasers; sutured wounds; and unsutured wounds. Skincare regimens that are prescribed before and after each of these procedures should take into account the Baumann Skin Type, the procedure type, whether it is pre- or postprocedure, and lifestyle issues such as sun exposure. Once the pre- and postprocedure regimen has been designed, patients should be given specific instructions as to which brands, the exact products, and the order in which to apply them.
Conclusion
To ensure the best outcomes from surgical treatments, patient education is a key step. The more that patients know and understand about the ways in which they can prepare for their procedure and treat their skin after the procedure, the better the results. Providers should give this type of information in an easy-to-follow printed instruction sheet because studies show that patients cannot remember most of the oral instructions offered by practitioners. Patients should be encouraged to ask questions during their consultation and procedure and to express any concerns with the practitioner’s office should any arise after they have returned home. These steps help improve patient compliance, satisfaction, and outcomes. Please discuss your opinions and experience with me on LinkedIn. You can also see a lecture on this topic on my website, SkinGuru.com.
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 wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002) and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), as well as a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Murad S et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 May;78(5):2879-82.
2. Tajima S, Pinnell SR. J Dermatol Sci. 1996 Mar;11(3):250-3.
3. Geesin JC et al. J Invest Dermatol. 1988 Apr;90(4):420-4.
4. Alster TS, West TB. Dermatol Surg. 1998 Mar;24(3):331-4.
5. Soltani-Arabshahi R et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2014 Jan;150(1):68-72.
6. Lough D et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Nov;132(5):1159-71.
7. Hirsch T et al. J Gene Med. 2009 Mar;11(3):220-8.
8. Van Brunt J, Klausner A. Nat Biotechnol. 1988 Jan 1;6:25-30.
9. Lynch SE et al. J Clin Invest. 1989 Aug;84(2):640-6.
10. Wang F et al. Arch Dermatol. 2007 Feb;143(2):155-63.
11. Huang G, Huang H. Drug Deliv. 2018 Nov;25(1):766-72.
12. Celani LM. J Surg Clin Res. 2019 Oct. doi: 10.20398/jscr.v10i2.18825.
13. Yildirim S et al. J Periodontol. 2018 Jan;89(1):36-45.
14. Weigel PH et al. Ciba Found Symp. 1989;143:248-61; discussion 261-4, 281-5.
15. Basora JF et al. Am J Case Rep. 2014 May 9;15:199-202.
16. Okano Yet al. Exp Dermatol. 2003;12 Suppl 2:57-63.
17. Bernstein EF et al. Dermatol Surg. 2001 May;27(5):429-33.
18. Hood HL et al. Food Chem Toxicol. 1999 Nov;37(11):1105-11.
19. West TB, Alster TS. Dermatol Surg. 1999 Jan;25(1):15-7.
20. Maquart FX et al. M. Biochimie. 2005 Mar-Apr;87(3-4):353-60.
21. Pickart L et al. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:648108.
22. Widgerow AD et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2019 Apr 8;39 (Supplement 3):S103-11.
23. Maquart FX et al. FEBS Lett. 1988 Oct 10;238(2):343-6.
24. Siméon A et al. J Invest Dermatol. 1999 Jun;112(6):957-64.
25. Vagotis FL, Brundage SR. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1995 May-Jun;19(3):243-6.
26. Stuzin JM. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Mar;127(3):1343-5.
27. Elson ML. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1998 Aug;39:S79-81.
28. Popp C et al. Br J Dermatol. 1995 Jan;132(1):46-53.
29. Orringer JS et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Dec;51(6):940-6.
30. Kim IH et al. J Korean Med Sci. 1996 Aug;11(4):335-41.
31. Basak PY et al. Eur J Dermatol. 2002 Mar-Apr;12(2):145-8.
32. Hung VC et al. Arch Dermatol. 1989 Jan;125(1):65-9.
Outcomes are improved when proper skincare is practiced before and after any type of dermatologic procedure. This column reviews
These are ingredients commonly used before, during, and after procedures.I will use the first person when I am expressing my personal opinion or experience versus data reported in published studies that I reference.
Ascorbic acid
Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is an essential cofactor necessary for lysyl hydroxylase and prolyl hydroxylase to produce collagen. Many studies have demonstrated that the use of oral and topical ascorbic acid increases collagen production by fibroblasts.1-3 Several different ascorbic acid products, varying greatly in quality, are available on the market.
Ascorbic acid is very sensitive to light and air exposure and does not penetrate well if not at a pH of 2 or 2.5. There are aqueous and lipophilic formulations. Some are produced from L-ascorbic acid, while others are made from ascorbyl palmitate, or salts such as calcium ascorbate, magnesium ascorbate, magnesium ascorbyl phosphate, sodium ascorbate, and sodium ascorbyl phosphate. Consequently, one must closely evaluate any chosen ascorbic acid preparation and pay close attention to the form used in any studies. I am discussing ascorbic acid in general, but my statements only apply to properly formulated products. Most of the studies I quote used L-ascorbic acid, which is the form studied by the late Sheldon Pinnell, MD, who was an expert on ascorbic acid.
Properly formulated L-ascorbic acid products have a low pH. Unless formulated specifically to deter stinging, these low-pH preparations will sting wounded skin. For this reason, most ascorbic acid preparations should be avoided until the skin has completely re-epithelialized. I prefer using it preprocedure and after the procedure once the skin has re-epithelialized. Alster and West showed that use of ascorbic acid – in an aqueous solution formulated not to sting – after laser resurfacing resulted in a significant decrease in post‐CO2 laser resurfacing erythema by the eighth postoperative week when compared with laser‐irradiated skin that had not received topical vitamin C.4
I prefer using ascorbic acid in patients before and after procedures involving fillers, toxins, skin tightening, and nonablative lasers. In my experience, this improves collagen production. Also, I use ascorbic acid before microneedling, but not during or after. Several case reports have cited allergic granulomatous reactions when ascorbic acid is used during microneedling procedures,5 although these reports did not involve aqueous formulations.
Defensin
Defensins are peptides that play an important role in wound repair. Defensin has exhibited the capacity to activate the leucine-rich repeat-containing G-protein–coupled receptors 5 and 6 (also known as LGR5+ and LGR6+) stem cells.6 This accelerates wound healing by stimulating LGR stem cells to form new keratinocytes that populate the epidermis.7 Using defensins prior to procedures would theoretically speed wound healing, but no studies have been published in this area. Anecdotally, it has been used after microneedling without complication. I have not used defensin in this situation, but when I have asked the audience during lectures, many practitioners have reported using it and found that it accelerates healing.
Growth factors
Growth factors are essential in the skin because they are responsible for immunomodulation, regulation of cell division, wound healing, and tissue generation.1 There are several important growth factor families, including: transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta), epidermal growth factor (EGF), insulin-like growth factor (IGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), and fibroblast growth factor (FGF).2 Because of the numerous different variables that play a role with growth factor function, it is difficult to know exactly which combinations are the most helpful to improve outcomes after procedures. There is some evidence to support the use of FGF, TGF-beta, and EGF, IGF, and PDGF to hasten skin healing.8,9 It is certain that growth factors play an important role in pre- and postprocedure skincare, but we do not yet know which growth factor combinations are the most effective.
Heparan sulfate
Heparan sulfate is a glycosaminoglycan found in the skin. Older cells are less responsive to growth factors than are younger cells; therefore, it is desirable to amplify the growth factor signal in older patients. Heparan sulfate has been shown to contribute to growth factors reaching the receptors on the cell surface and enhancing the cell’s ability to “hear” growth factor signals. Combining growth factors with enhancers such as heparan sulfate, defensins, ascorbic acid, and matrikines can improve outcomes of cosmetic procedures. There are not enough studies yet to substantiate which combinations are the most effective. However, I believe that if you are using a growth factor–containing product after a procedure, you should combine it with heparan sulfate to improve efficacy.
Heparan sulfate is not the same as the blood thinner heparin; however, it may affect clotting factors. It is prudent to stop heparan sulfate the day before a dermal filler procedure because of this theoretical risk. (I have not seen an increase in bruising in patients who use heparan sulfate prior to getting fillers.) I suggest using heparan sulfate–containing products with growth factors 24 hours after injecting fillers to try and enhance collagen synthesis that occurs after hyaluronic acid (HA) filler injections.10
Hyaluronic acid
Hyaluronic acid (HA) is known to increase penetration of drugs, as well as cosmeceutical ingredients.11 For this reason, it is often used before a procedure to increase efficacy of growth factors. Many practitioners report using it during microneedling to help the device glide across the skin. I have not observed or heard of any reports of adverse events from using it during microneedling.
HA has been shown to accelerate wound healing in rats12 and dental procedures.13 For this reason, it is often used after laser resurfacing and microneedling procedures and on sutured and open wounds. HA can vary in chain link and molecular weight and whether or not it is cross linked. These differences affect efficacy and should be taken into consideration when choosing an HA product. Some formulations combine various forms of HA. Because HA may increase bruising because of its effects on fibrin formation,14 I prefer not to use it 2 days prior to or the day of filler injections.15
Hydroxy acids
Pretreating skin with hydroxy acids increases dermal matrix formation,16 promotes collagen synthesis,17 and hastens stratum corneum turnover.18 Although postprocedure healing times after pretreatment with hydroxy acids has not been studied, it is very likely that pretreatment with hydroxy acids speeds healing time by increasing collagen production and cell turnover. West and Alster showed that pretreating skin with hydroxy acids prior to CO2 resurfacing did not affect the incidence of postprocedure hyperpigmentation.19
Matrikines
Matrikines are peptides that occur when extracellular matrix (ECM) macromolecules are partially degraded. These peptides interact with cell surface receptors and activate intracellular signalling pathways to modulate ECM remodeling.20 Matrikines, such as tripeptides and hexapeptides, have been shown to remove damaged collagen and elastin from the ECM.21 It is thought that these matrikines help to prepare the skin for procedures by freeing up space to allow room for newly formed collagen. Using matrikines at least 2 weeks before procedures may precondition the skin to heal faster.22
The tripeptide glycyl-histidyl-lysine (GHK) is a good example of a matrikine. When it forms a complex with copper (II) ions (GHK–Cu) it can stimulate collagen and glycosaminoglycan synthesis23 and increase tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases, TIMP-1 and TIMP-2, which play a role in wound remodeling.24
A serum that contains tripeptide-1, hexapeptide-12, lactoferrin, and phosphatidyl serine has been shown to speed resolution of bruises and inflammation when applied after procedures. It is believed that these ingredients activate macrophages to clear hemosiderin from the skin.
Retinoids
Derived from vitamin A, the retinoid family includes compounds such as adapalene, retinol, tazarotene, trifarotene, and tretinoin. Retinoids should be used for at least 2-4 weeks prior to procedures to improve outcomes. Multiple studies have cogently revealed that pretreatment with tretinoin accelerates wound healing.25-27 Kligman assessed healing after punch biopsy in the mid-1990s and found that the wounds on arms pretreated with tretinoin cream 0.05%-0.1% were significantly diminished by 35%-37% on days 1 and 4 and 47%-50% reduced on days 6, 8, and 11 as compared with the wounds on untreated arms.28 A tretinoin pretreatment regimen of 2-4 weeks is supported by the preponderance of studies29 because peak epidermal hypertrophy emerges after 7 days of tretinoin application and normalizes after 14 days of continued treatment.30 Such an approach gives the skin time to recover from any retinoid dermatitis before the procedure is performed. Pretreatment with adapalene requires an earlier initiation period and should be introduced 5-6 weeks before procedures because it exhibits a longer half-life.31
Topical retinoids should not be used after a procedure until re-epithelialization is complete. Hung et al. applied 0.05% tretinoin cream daily for 10 days prior to partial-thickness skin wounding in a porcine model, with results revealing that re-epithelialization was accelerated with preprocedure treatment while use after the procedure slowed wound healing.32
Skin care regimen design by procedure type
Procedures can be divided into six main types: nonablative, such as peels, intense pulsed light (IPL), and vascular or pigmented lasers; microneedling or other procedures that cause open channels into the dermis; injectables such as toxins and fillers; ablative, such as CO2, erbium, and fractionated lasers; sutured wounds; and unsutured wounds. Skincare regimens that are prescribed before and after each of these procedures should take into account the Baumann Skin Type, the procedure type, whether it is pre- or postprocedure, and lifestyle issues such as sun exposure. Once the pre- and postprocedure regimen has been designed, patients should be given specific instructions as to which brands, the exact products, and the order in which to apply them.
Conclusion
To ensure the best outcomes from surgical treatments, patient education is a key step. The more that patients know and understand about the ways in which they can prepare for their procedure and treat their skin after the procedure, the better the results. Providers should give this type of information in an easy-to-follow printed instruction sheet because studies show that patients cannot remember most of the oral instructions offered by practitioners. Patients should be encouraged to ask questions during their consultation and procedure and to express any concerns with the practitioner’s office should any arise after they have returned home. These steps help improve patient compliance, satisfaction, and outcomes. Please discuss your opinions and experience with me on LinkedIn. You can also see a lecture on this topic on my website, SkinGuru.com.
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 wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002) and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), as well as a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Murad S et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 May;78(5):2879-82.
2. Tajima S, Pinnell SR. J Dermatol Sci. 1996 Mar;11(3):250-3.
3. Geesin JC et al. J Invest Dermatol. 1988 Apr;90(4):420-4.
4. Alster TS, West TB. Dermatol Surg. 1998 Mar;24(3):331-4.
5. Soltani-Arabshahi R et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2014 Jan;150(1):68-72.
6. Lough D et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Nov;132(5):1159-71.
7. Hirsch T et al. J Gene Med. 2009 Mar;11(3):220-8.
8. Van Brunt J, Klausner A. Nat Biotechnol. 1988 Jan 1;6:25-30.
9. Lynch SE et al. J Clin Invest. 1989 Aug;84(2):640-6.
10. Wang F et al. Arch Dermatol. 2007 Feb;143(2):155-63.
11. Huang G, Huang H. Drug Deliv. 2018 Nov;25(1):766-72.
12. Celani LM. J Surg Clin Res. 2019 Oct. doi: 10.20398/jscr.v10i2.18825.
13. Yildirim S et al. J Periodontol. 2018 Jan;89(1):36-45.
14. Weigel PH et al. Ciba Found Symp. 1989;143:248-61; discussion 261-4, 281-5.
15. Basora JF et al. Am J Case Rep. 2014 May 9;15:199-202.
16. Okano Yet al. Exp Dermatol. 2003;12 Suppl 2:57-63.
17. Bernstein EF et al. Dermatol Surg. 2001 May;27(5):429-33.
18. Hood HL et al. Food Chem Toxicol. 1999 Nov;37(11):1105-11.
19. West TB, Alster TS. Dermatol Surg. 1999 Jan;25(1):15-7.
20. Maquart FX et al. M. Biochimie. 2005 Mar-Apr;87(3-4):353-60.
21. Pickart L et al. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:648108.
22. Widgerow AD et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2019 Apr 8;39 (Supplement 3):S103-11.
23. Maquart FX et al. FEBS Lett. 1988 Oct 10;238(2):343-6.
24. Siméon A et al. J Invest Dermatol. 1999 Jun;112(6):957-64.
25. Vagotis FL, Brundage SR. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1995 May-Jun;19(3):243-6.
26. Stuzin JM. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Mar;127(3):1343-5.
27. Elson ML. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1998 Aug;39:S79-81.
28. Popp C et al. Br J Dermatol. 1995 Jan;132(1):46-53.
29. Orringer JS et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Dec;51(6):940-6.
30. Kim IH et al. J Korean Med Sci. 1996 Aug;11(4):335-41.
31. Basak PY et al. Eur J Dermatol. 2002 Mar-Apr;12(2):145-8.
32. Hung VC et al. Arch Dermatol. 1989 Jan;125(1):65-9.
Outcomes are improved when proper skincare is practiced before and after any type of dermatologic procedure. This column reviews
These are ingredients commonly used before, during, and after procedures.I will use the first person when I am expressing my personal opinion or experience versus data reported in published studies that I reference.
Ascorbic acid
Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) is an essential cofactor necessary for lysyl hydroxylase and prolyl hydroxylase to produce collagen. Many studies have demonstrated that the use of oral and topical ascorbic acid increases collagen production by fibroblasts.1-3 Several different ascorbic acid products, varying greatly in quality, are available on the market.
Ascorbic acid is very sensitive to light and air exposure and does not penetrate well if not at a pH of 2 or 2.5. There are aqueous and lipophilic formulations. Some are produced from L-ascorbic acid, while others are made from ascorbyl palmitate, or salts such as calcium ascorbate, magnesium ascorbate, magnesium ascorbyl phosphate, sodium ascorbate, and sodium ascorbyl phosphate. Consequently, one must closely evaluate any chosen ascorbic acid preparation and pay close attention to the form used in any studies. I am discussing ascorbic acid in general, but my statements only apply to properly formulated products. Most of the studies I quote used L-ascorbic acid, which is the form studied by the late Sheldon Pinnell, MD, who was an expert on ascorbic acid.
Properly formulated L-ascorbic acid products have a low pH. Unless formulated specifically to deter stinging, these low-pH preparations will sting wounded skin. For this reason, most ascorbic acid preparations should be avoided until the skin has completely re-epithelialized. I prefer using it preprocedure and after the procedure once the skin has re-epithelialized. Alster and West showed that use of ascorbic acid – in an aqueous solution formulated not to sting – after laser resurfacing resulted in a significant decrease in post‐CO2 laser resurfacing erythema by the eighth postoperative week when compared with laser‐irradiated skin that had not received topical vitamin C.4
I prefer using ascorbic acid in patients before and after procedures involving fillers, toxins, skin tightening, and nonablative lasers. In my experience, this improves collagen production. Also, I use ascorbic acid before microneedling, but not during or after. Several case reports have cited allergic granulomatous reactions when ascorbic acid is used during microneedling procedures,5 although these reports did not involve aqueous formulations.
Defensin
Defensins are peptides that play an important role in wound repair. Defensin has exhibited the capacity to activate the leucine-rich repeat-containing G-protein–coupled receptors 5 and 6 (also known as LGR5+ and LGR6+) stem cells.6 This accelerates wound healing by stimulating LGR stem cells to form new keratinocytes that populate the epidermis.7 Using defensins prior to procedures would theoretically speed wound healing, but no studies have been published in this area. Anecdotally, it has been used after microneedling without complication. I have not used defensin in this situation, but when I have asked the audience during lectures, many practitioners have reported using it and found that it accelerates healing.
Growth factors
Growth factors are essential in the skin because they are responsible for immunomodulation, regulation of cell division, wound healing, and tissue generation.1 There are several important growth factor families, including: transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta), epidermal growth factor (EGF), insulin-like growth factor (IGF), platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), and fibroblast growth factor (FGF).2 Because of the numerous different variables that play a role with growth factor function, it is difficult to know exactly which combinations are the most helpful to improve outcomes after procedures. There is some evidence to support the use of FGF, TGF-beta, and EGF, IGF, and PDGF to hasten skin healing.8,9 It is certain that growth factors play an important role in pre- and postprocedure skincare, but we do not yet know which growth factor combinations are the most effective.
Heparan sulfate
Heparan sulfate is a glycosaminoglycan found in the skin. Older cells are less responsive to growth factors than are younger cells; therefore, it is desirable to amplify the growth factor signal in older patients. Heparan sulfate has been shown to contribute to growth factors reaching the receptors on the cell surface and enhancing the cell’s ability to “hear” growth factor signals. Combining growth factors with enhancers such as heparan sulfate, defensins, ascorbic acid, and matrikines can improve outcomes of cosmetic procedures. There are not enough studies yet to substantiate which combinations are the most effective. However, I believe that if you are using a growth factor–containing product after a procedure, you should combine it with heparan sulfate to improve efficacy.
Heparan sulfate is not the same as the blood thinner heparin; however, it may affect clotting factors. It is prudent to stop heparan sulfate the day before a dermal filler procedure because of this theoretical risk. (I have not seen an increase in bruising in patients who use heparan sulfate prior to getting fillers.) I suggest using heparan sulfate–containing products with growth factors 24 hours after injecting fillers to try and enhance collagen synthesis that occurs after hyaluronic acid (HA) filler injections.10
Hyaluronic acid
Hyaluronic acid (HA) is known to increase penetration of drugs, as well as cosmeceutical ingredients.11 For this reason, it is often used before a procedure to increase efficacy of growth factors. Many practitioners report using it during microneedling to help the device glide across the skin. I have not observed or heard of any reports of adverse events from using it during microneedling.
HA has been shown to accelerate wound healing in rats12 and dental procedures.13 For this reason, it is often used after laser resurfacing and microneedling procedures and on sutured and open wounds. HA can vary in chain link and molecular weight and whether or not it is cross linked. These differences affect efficacy and should be taken into consideration when choosing an HA product. Some formulations combine various forms of HA. Because HA may increase bruising because of its effects on fibrin formation,14 I prefer not to use it 2 days prior to or the day of filler injections.15
Hydroxy acids
Pretreating skin with hydroxy acids increases dermal matrix formation,16 promotes collagen synthesis,17 and hastens stratum corneum turnover.18 Although postprocedure healing times after pretreatment with hydroxy acids has not been studied, it is very likely that pretreatment with hydroxy acids speeds healing time by increasing collagen production and cell turnover. West and Alster showed that pretreating skin with hydroxy acids prior to CO2 resurfacing did not affect the incidence of postprocedure hyperpigmentation.19
Matrikines
Matrikines are peptides that occur when extracellular matrix (ECM) macromolecules are partially degraded. These peptides interact with cell surface receptors and activate intracellular signalling pathways to modulate ECM remodeling.20 Matrikines, such as tripeptides and hexapeptides, have been shown to remove damaged collagen and elastin from the ECM.21 It is thought that these matrikines help to prepare the skin for procedures by freeing up space to allow room for newly formed collagen. Using matrikines at least 2 weeks before procedures may precondition the skin to heal faster.22
The tripeptide glycyl-histidyl-lysine (GHK) is a good example of a matrikine. When it forms a complex with copper (II) ions (GHK–Cu) it can stimulate collagen and glycosaminoglycan synthesis23 and increase tissue inhibitors of metalloproteinases, TIMP-1 and TIMP-2, which play a role in wound remodeling.24
A serum that contains tripeptide-1, hexapeptide-12, lactoferrin, and phosphatidyl serine has been shown to speed resolution of bruises and inflammation when applied after procedures. It is believed that these ingredients activate macrophages to clear hemosiderin from the skin.
Retinoids
Derived from vitamin A, the retinoid family includes compounds such as adapalene, retinol, tazarotene, trifarotene, and tretinoin. Retinoids should be used for at least 2-4 weeks prior to procedures to improve outcomes. Multiple studies have cogently revealed that pretreatment with tretinoin accelerates wound healing.25-27 Kligman assessed healing after punch biopsy in the mid-1990s and found that the wounds on arms pretreated with tretinoin cream 0.05%-0.1% were significantly diminished by 35%-37% on days 1 and 4 and 47%-50% reduced on days 6, 8, and 11 as compared with the wounds on untreated arms.28 A tretinoin pretreatment regimen of 2-4 weeks is supported by the preponderance of studies29 because peak epidermal hypertrophy emerges after 7 days of tretinoin application and normalizes after 14 days of continued treatment.30 Such an approach gives the skin time to recover from any retinoid dermatitis before the procedure is performed. Pretreatment with adapalene requires an earlier initiation period and should be introduced 5-6 weeks before procedures because it exhibits a longer half-life.31
Topical retinoids should not be used after a procedure until re-epithelialization is complete. Hung et al. applied 0.05% tretinoin cream daily for 10 days prior to partial-thickness skin wounding in a porcine model, with results revealing that re-epithelialization was accelerated with preprocedure treatment while use after the procedure slowed wound healing.32
Skin care regimen design by procedure type
Procedures can be divided into six main types: nonablative, such as peels, intense pulsed light (IPL), and vascular or pigmented lasers; microneedling or other procedures that cause open channels into the dermis; injectables such as toxins and fillers; ablative, such as CO2, erbium, and fractionated lasers; sutured wounds; and unsutured wounds. Skincare regimens that are prescribed before and after each of these procedures should take into account the Baumann Skin Type, the procedure type, whether it is pre- or postprocedure, and lifestyle issues such as sun exposure. Once the pre- and postprocedure regimen has been designed, patients should be given specific instructions as to which brands, the exact products, and the order in which to apply them.
Conclusion
To ensure the best outcomes from surgical treatments, patient education is a key step. The more that patients know and understand about the ways in which they can prepare for their procedure and treat their skin after the procedure, the better the results. Providers should give this type of information in an easy-to-follow printed instruction sheet because studies show that patients cannot remember most of the oral instructions offered by practitioners. Patients should be encouraged to ask questions during their consultation and procedure and to express any concerns with the practitioner’s office should any arise after they have returned home. These steps help improve patient compliance, satisfaction, and outcomes. Please discuss your opinions and experience with me on LinkedIn. You can also see a lecture on this topic on my website, SkinGuru.com.
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 wrote two textbooks: “Cosmetic Dermatology: Principles and Practice” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002) and “Cosmeceuticals and Cosmetic Ingredients” (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2014), as well as a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers, “The Skin Type Solution” (New York: Bantam Dell, 2006). Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Evolus, Galderma, and Revance. She is the founder and CEO of Skin Type Solutions Franchise Systems. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Murad S et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1981 May;78(5):2879-82.
2. Tajima S, Pinnell SR. J Dermatol Sci. 1996 Mar;11(3):250-3.
3. Geesin JC et al. J Invest Dermatol. 1988 Apr;90(4):420-4.
4. Alster TS, West TB. Dermatol Surg. 1998 Mar;24(3):331-4.
5. Soltani-Arabshahi R et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2014 Jan;150(1):68-72.
6. Lough D et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013 Nov;132(5):1159-71.
7. Hirsch T et al. J Gene Med. 2009 Mar;11(3):220-8.
8. Van Brunt J, Klausner A. Nat Biotechnol. 1988 Jan 1;6:25-30.
9. Lynch SE et al. J Clin Invest. 1989 Aug;84(2):640-6.
10. Wang F et al. Arch Dermatol. 2007 Feb;143(2):155-63.
11. Huang G, Huang H. Drug Deliv. 2018 Nov;25(1):766-72.
12. Celani LM. J Surg Clin Res. 2019 Oct. doi: 10.20398/jscr.v10i2.18825.
13. Yildirim S et al. J Periodontol. 2018 Jan;89(1):36-45.
14. Weigel PH et al. Ciba Found Symp. 1989;143:248-61; discussion 261-4, 281-5.
15. Basora JF et al. Am J Case Rep. 2014 May 9;15:199-202.
16. Okano Yet al. Exp Dermatol. 2003;12 Suppl 2:57-63.
17. Bernstein EF et al. Dermatol Surg. 2001 May;27(5):429-33.
18. Hood HL et al. Food Chem Toxicol. 1999 Nov;37(11):1105-11.
19. West TB, Alster TS. Dermatol Surg. 1999 Jan;25(1):15-7.
20. Maquart FX et al. M. Biochimie. 2005 Mar-Apr;87(3-4):353-60.
21. Pickart L et al. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:648108.
22. Widgerow AD et al. Aesthet Surg J. 2019 Apr 8;39 (Supplement 3):S103-11.
23. Maquart FX et al. FEBS Lett. 1988 Oct 10;238(2):343-6.
24. Siméon A et al. J Invest Dermatol. 1999 Jun;112(6):957-64.
25. Vagotis FL, Brundage SR. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 1995 May-Jun;19(3):243-6.
26. Stuzin JM. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011 Mar;127(3):1343-5.
27. Elson ML. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1998 Aug;39:S79-81.
28. Popp C et al. Br J Dermatol. 1995 Jan;132(1):46-53.
29. Orringer JS et al. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004 Dec;51(6):940-6.
30. Kim IH et al. J Korean Med Sci. 1996 Aug;11(4):335-41.
31. Basak PY et al. Eur J Dermatol. 2002 Mar-Apr;12(2):145-8.
32. Hung VC et al. Arch Dermatol. 1989 Jan;125(1):65-9.