User login
Acetyl hexapeptide-8 (or -3), better known by its brand name, Argireline (Lubrizol; Wickliffe, Ohio), is a synthetic peptide gaining popularity in cosmeceutical products for its antiaging benefits. Argireline was developed by the company Lipotec in 2001. Media, beauty bloggers, and product claims have likened this product to a “Botox [or other neurotoxin] alternative,” or “Botox mimicker.”
Mechanism of action
Understanding how Argireline works requires a brief refresher on the mechanism of action of botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT). BoNT relaxes facial muscles and smooths expression lines by inhibiting acetylcholine release at the neuromuscular junction.1 More specifically, the various serotypes of BoNT are single-chain polypeptides that target members of the SNARE complex: SNAP-25, syntaxin, and Vamp. The proteins within the SNARE complex are involved in the docking and fusion of presynaptic vesicles to the presynaptic membrane, necessary steps for acetylcholine release into the neuromuscular junction and muscle contraction. By blocking the action of the SNARE complex proteins, BoNT inhibits release of acetylcholine in the neuromuscular junction and prevents muscle contraction.
Argireline is a synthetic peptide with the sequence Ac-EEMQRR-NH2.2 It is patterned after the N-terminal domain of SNAP-25, one of the members of the SNARE complex targeted by BoNT, and functions to interfere with the assembly of the SNARE complex. In this manner, Argireline would theoretically inhibit fusion of presynaptic vesicles and release of acetylcholine into the neuromuscular junction, thus impeding muscle movement. For this reason, it has been likened to topical Botox. Unlike Botox and other neurotoxins, Argireline was developed for topical application rather than injection.
Preclinical studies
In vitro work done 20 years ago demonstrated that Argireline can prevent assembly of the SNARE complex and inhibit neurotransmitter release with a potency similar to that of BoNT A (Botox).2
In 2013, Wang et al. evaluated the histologic effects of Argireline in aged mouse skin induced by D-galactose. For 6 weeks, Argireline was applied twice daily, and histological changes were assessed using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and picrosirius–polarization (PSP) stains. The researchers found elevated levels of type I collagen (P < .01) and reduced type III collagen (P < .05) with the Argireline treatment. These results demonstrated that Argireline could histologically enhance collagen in a manner consistent with skin rejuvenation.3
Clinical studies
In 2002, Blanes et al. assessed the antiwrinkle activity of Argireline by measuring skin topography from silicone implants in the lateral periorbital region of an oil/water (O/W) emulsion containing 10% of the acetyl-hexapeptide in 10 healthy women volunteers. The hexapeptide emulsion was applied twice daily in one lateral periorbital area, and the emulsion vehicle alone was applied twice daily on the contralateral side. Over 30 days of treatment, wrinkle depth was found to have decreased by 30%. The investigators also found that Argireline significantly hindered neurotransmitter release in vitro as robustly as BoNT A, though with notably lower efficacy. No toxicity or irritation was associated with this treatment.2 However, it should be noted that this small study conducted 2 decades ago evaluated only silicone implants with confocal microscopy to evaluate wrinkle depth. There was no subjective clinical assessment of dynamic facial wrinkles. As such, their study is an insufficient basis for drawing conclusions that Argireline is a BoNT mimic. Botox and other types of BoNT affect dynamic facial wrinkles mostly (i.e., wrinkles created by moving muscles of facial expression). This study primarily considers static wrinkles on periorbital skin. While static wrinkles may result from longstanding dynamic wrinkles, BoNT mainly targets dynamic wrinkles, again not comparing apples to apples.
At the same time that Wang et al. conducted their experiment on the skin of aged mice as noted above, they performed a multicenter clinical trial in 60 human subjects who received a randomized treatment of Argireline or placebo in a ratio of 3:1 to assess its safety and efficacy. For 4 weeks, the test product or placebo was applied to periorbital wrinkles twice daily. The researchers found the total antiwrinkle efficacy in the Argireline group to be 48.9% based on the subjective evaluation, compared with 0% in the placebo group. The objective evaluation indicated that all parameters of roughness were diminished in the Argireline group (P < .01), with no reduction observed in the placebo group (P < .05).4 There was a little more to appreciate from this study compared with the one reported by Blanes et al., insofar as subjective evaluations and objective evaluations with silica replicas were done. However, this study was not blinded, so the 48.9% wrinkle reduction in the Argireline group vs. 0% in the control group seems suspicious. Additionally, there was a greater focus on static rather than dynamic wrinkles.
In 2017, Raikou et al. conducted a prospective, randomized controlled study to assess the effects of acetyl hexapeptide-3 (Argireline) and tripeptide-10 citrulline in 24 healthy female volunteers (aged 30-60 years) and determine if there was any synergistic action between the peptides. Subjects were randomized to receive a combination of the peptides, tripeptide-10 citrulline only, acetyl hexapeptide-3 only, or neither peptide for 60 days. The researchers found a significant reduction in transepidermal water loss (TEWL) in the Argireline group, compared with the placebo group.5 The result of this study makes me question if the decrease in depth of the wrinkles measured in the former studies is really just a measure of increased skin hydration from the Argireline, rather than a neurotoxic effect of Argireline.
Formulation and penetration: Can Argireline get through your skin?
One of the fundamental questions regarding Argireline is whether it can penetrate through the stratum corneum and find its target – the facial muscles – where it is intended to function. Argireline is a charged, hydrophilic, and large–molecular weight peptide, and each of these factors impairs penetration through the stratum corneum. Therefore, studies assessing penetration are particularly important.
In 2015, Kraeling et al. conducted an in vitro evaluation of the skin penetration of acetyl hexapeptide-8 in hairless guinea pig and human cadaver skin. An oil-in-water (O/W) emulsion containing 10% acetyl hexapeptide-8 was applied (2 mg/cm2) and penetration was quantified in skin layers via hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Most of the acetyl hexapeptide-8 was found to have been washed from human cadaver, as well as guinea pig, skin. Less than 1% of the peptide penetrated the guinea pig or human skin. Of this small amount that penetrated the skin, most stayed in the stratum corneum of guinea pigs (0.54%) and human cadavers (0.22%). The levels of acetyl hexapeptide-8 declined further with each layer of tape stripping removal. Epidermal levels of the peptide in tested skin were similar at 0.01%, and none of the peptide was found in the dermis.6 These results indicate negligible penetration by this highly touted peptide ingredient.
Some studies have shown that altering the formulation of acetyl hexapeptide-8 can enhance penetration. Hoppel et al. demonstrated that formulations of the peptide, especially in a water-oil-water (W/O/W emulsion [as compared with O/W and W/O emulsions] can increase penetration into the stratum corneum in porcine skin.7 Notably, this is still very superficial relative to the dermis and muscles. Irrespective of formulation, studies have shown that Argireline barely penetrates the stratum corneum, let alone the dermis. Therefore, I would give pause to attributing any clinical impact or benefit of Argireline to its neurotoxinlike effects measured in vitro.
Conclusion
Despite the growing popularity of this ingredient in cosmeceuticals and the praise it gets in media for acting as a topical neurotoxin, there are no rigorous clinical trials or data demonstrating its efficacy in suppressing dynamic facial wrinkles like BoNT does. Most importantly, without penetration into the stratum corneum and deeper layers of the skin, it seems unlikely that Argireline’s clinical benefit derives from a neurotoxiclike mechanism of action. It seems more likely that the Argireline-containing product enhances hydration or imparts some other quality to the skin surface. While there is certainly great appeal for a neurotoxinlike product without injections, I do not believe this ingredient will replace injections of BoNT in the foreseeable future, or at least until scientists can figure out how to enable these products to penetrate into the deeper layers of the skin.
Dr. Goldman is a dermatologist in private practice in Miami and specializes in cosmetic and general dermatology. She practices at Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute and is also opening a general dermatology practice. Dr. Goldman has no relevant disclosures. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com or message her on Instagram @DrChloeGoldman.
References
1. Reddy BY et al. Exp Dermatol. 2012 Aug;21(8):569-75.
2. Blanes-Mira C et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2002 Oct;24(5):303-10.
3. Wang Y et al. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2013 Aug;15(4):237-41.
4. Wang Y et al. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2013;14(2):147-53.
5. Raikou V et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2017 Jun;16(2):271-8.
6. Kraeling ME et al. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2015 Mar;34(1):46-52.
7. Hoppel M et al. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2015 Feb 20;68:27-35.
Acetyl hexapeptide-8 (or -3), better known by its brand name, Argireline (Lubrizol; Wickliffe, Ohio), is a synthetic peptide gaining popularity in cosmeceutical products for its antiaging benefits. Argireline was developed by the company Lipotec in 2001. Media, beauty bloggers, and product claims have likened this product to a “Botox [or other neurotoxin] alternative,” or “Botox mimicker.”
Mechanism of action
Understanding how Argireline works requires a brief refresher on the mechanism of action of botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT). BoNT relaxes facial muscles and smooths expression lines by inhibiting acetylcholine release at the neuromuscular junction.1 More specifically, the various serotypes of BoNT are single-chain polypeptides that target members of the SNARE complex: SNAP-25, syntaxin, and Vamp. The proteins within the SNARE complex are involved in the docking and fusion of presynaptic vesicles to the presynaptic membrane, necessary steps for acetylcholine release into the neuromuscular junction and muscle contraction. By blocking the action of the SNARE complex proteins, BoNT inhibits release of acetylcholine in the neuromuscular junction and prevents muscle contraction.
Argireline is a synthetic peptide with the sequence Ac-EEMQRR-NH2.2 It is patterned after the N-terminal domain of SNAP-25, one of the members of the SNARE complex targeted by BoNT, and functions to interfere with the assembly of the SNARE complex. In this manner, Argireline would theoretically inhibit fusion of presynaptic vesicles and release of acetylcholine into the neuromuscular junction, thus impeding muscle movement. For this reason, it has been likened to topical Botox. Unlike Botox and other neurotoxins, Argireline was developed for topical application rather than injection.
Preclinical studies
In vitro work done 20 years ago demonstrated that Argireline can prevent assembly of the SNARE complex and inhibit neurotransmitter release with a potency similar to that of BoNT A (Botox).2
In 2013, Wang et al. evaluated the histologic effects of Argireline in aged mouse skin induced by D-galactose. For 6 weeks, Argireline was applied twice daily, and histological changes were assessed using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and picrosirius–polarization (PSP) stains. The researchers found elevated levels of type I collagen (P < .01) and reduced type III collagen (P < .05) with the Argireline treatment. These results demonstrated that Argireline could histologically enhance collagen in a manner consistent with skin rejuvenation.3
Clinical studies
In 2002, Blanes et al. assessed the antiwrinkle activity of Argireline by measuring skin topography from silicone implants in the lateral periorbital region of an oil/water (O/W) emulsion containing 10% of the acetyl-hexapeptide in 10 healthy women volunteers. The hexapeptide emulsion was applied twice daily in one lateral periorbital area, and the emulsion vehicle alone was applied twice daily on the contralateral side. Over 30 days of treatment, wrinkle depth was found to have decreased by 30%. The investigators also found that Argireline significantly hindered neurotransmitter release in vitro as robustly as BoNT A, though with notably lower efficacy. No toxicity or irritation was associated with this treatment.2 However, it should be noted that this small study conducted 2 decades ago evaluated only silicone implants with confocal microscopy to evaluate wrinkle depth. There was no subjective clinical assessment of dynamic facial wrinkles. As such, their study is an insufficient basis for drawing conclusions that Argireline is a BoNT mimic. Botox and other types of BoNT affect dynamic facial wrinkles mostly (i.e., wrinkles created by moving muscles of facial expression). This study primarily considers static wrinkles on periorbital skin. While static wrinkles may result from longstanding dynamic wrinkles, BoNT mainly targets dynamic wrinkles, again not comparing apples to apples.
At the same time that Wang et al. conducted their experiment on the skin of aged mice as noted above, they performed a multicenter clinical trial in 60 human subjects who received a randomized treatment of Argireline or placebo in a ratio of 3:1 to assess its safety and efficacy. For 4 weeks, the test product or placebo was applied to periorbital wrinkles twice daily. The researchers found the total antiwrinkle efficacy in the Argireline group to be 48.9% based on the subjective evaluation, compared with 0% in the placebo group. The objective evaluation indicated that all parameters of roughness were diminished in the Argireline group (P < .01), with no reduction observed in the placebo group (P < .05).4 There was a little more to appreciate from this study compared with the one reported by Blanes et al., insofar as subjective evaluations and objective evaluations with silica replicas were done. However, this study was not blinded, so the 48.9% wrinkle reduction in the Argireline group vs. 0% in the control group seems suspicious. Additionally, there was a greater focus on static rather than dynamic wrinkles.
In 2017, Raikou et al. conducted a prospective, randomized controlled study to assess the effects of acetyl hexapeptide-3 (Argireline) and tripeptide-10 citrulline in 24 healthy female volunteers (aged 30-60 years) and determine if there was any synergistic action between the peptides. Subjects were randomized to receive a combination of the peptides, tripeptide-10 citrulline only, acetyl hexapeptide-3 only, or neither peptide for 60 days. The researchers found a significant reduction in transepidermal water loss (TEWL) in the Argireline group, compared with the placebo group.5 The result of this study makes me question if the decrease in depth of the wrinkles measured in the former studies is really just a measure of increased skin hydration from the Argireline, rather than a neurotoxic effect of Argireline.
Formulation and penetration: Can Argireline get through your skin?
One of the fundamental questions regarding Argireline is whether it can penetrate through the stratum corneum and find its target – the facial muscles – where it is intended to function. Argireline is a charged, hydrophilic, and large–molecular weight peptide, and each of these factors impairs penetration through the stratum corneum. Therefore, studies assessing penetration are particularly important.
In 2015, Kraeling et al. conducted an in vitro evaluation of the skin penetration of acetyl hexapeptide-8 in hairless guinea pig and human cadaver skin. An oil-in-water (O/W) emulsion containing 10% acetyl hexapeptide-8 was applied (2 mg/cm2) and penetration was quantified in skin layers via hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Most of the acetyl hexapeptide-8 was found to have been washed from human cadaver, as well as guinea pig, skin. Less than 1% of the peptide penetrated the guinea pig or human skin. Of this small amount that penetrated the skin, most stayed in the stratum corneum of guinea pigs (0.54%) and human cadavers (0.22%). The levels of acetyl hexapeptide-8 declined further with each layer of tape stripping removal. Epidermal levels of the peptide in tested skin were similar at 0.01%, and none of the peptide was found in the dermis.6 These results indicate negligible penetration by this highly touted peptide ingredient.
Some studies have shown that altering the formulation of acetyl hexapeptide-8 can enhance penetration. Hoppel et al. demonstrated that formulations of the peptide, especially in a water-oil-water (W/O/W emulsion [as compared with O/W and W/O emulsions] can increase penetration into the stratum corneum in porcine skin.7 Notably, this is still very superficial relative to the dermis and muscles. Irrespective of formulation, studies have shown that Argireline barely penetrates the stratum corneum, let alone the dermis. Therefore, I would give pause to attributing any clinical impact or benefit of Argireline to its neurotoxinlike effects measured in vitro.
Conclusion
Despite the growing popularity of this ingredient in cosmeceuticals and the praise it gets in media for acting as a topical neurotoxin, there are no rigorous clinical trials or data demonstrating its efficacy in suppressing dynamic facial wrinkles like BoNT does. Most importantly, without penetration into the stratum corneum and deeper layers of the skin, it seems unlikely that Argireline’s clinical benefit derives from a neurotoxiclike mechanism of action. It seems more likely that the Argireline-containing product enhances hydration or imparts some other quality to the skin surface. While there is certainly great appeal for a neurotoxinlike product without injections, I do not believe this ingredient will replace injections of BoNT in the foreseeable future, or at least until scientists can figure out how to enable these products to penetrate into the deeper layers of the skin.
Dr. Goldman is a dermatologist in private practice in Miami and specializes in cosmetic and general dermatology. She practices at Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute and is also opening a general dermatology practice. Dr. Goldman has no relevant disclosures. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com or message her on Instagram @DrChloeGoldman.
References
1. Reddy BY et al. Exp Dermatol. 2012 Aug;21(8):569-75.
2. Blanes-Mira C et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2002 Oct;24(5):303-10.
3. Wang Y et al. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2013 Aug;15(4):237-41.
4. Wang Y et al. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2013;14(2):147-53.
5. Raikou V et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2017 Jun;16(2):271-8.
6. Kraeling ME et al. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2015 Mar;34(1):46-52.
7. Hoppel M et al. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2015 Feb 20;68:27-35.
Acetyl hexapeptide-8 (or -3), better known by its brand name, Argireline (Lubrizol; Wickliffe, Ohio), is a synthetic peptide gaining popularity in cosmeceutical products for its antiaging benefits. Argireline was developed by the company Lipotec in 2001. Media, beauty bloggers, and product claims have likened this product to a “Botox [or other neurotoxin] alternative,” or “Botox mimicker.”
Mechanism of action
Understanding how Argireline works requires a brief refresher on the mechanism of action of botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT). BoNT relaxes facial muscles and smooths expression lines by inhibiting acetylcholine release at the neuromuscular junction.1 More specifically, the various serotypes of BoNT are single-chain polypeptides that target members of the SNARE complex: SNAP-25, syntaxin, and Vamp. The proteins within the SNARE complex are involved in the docking and fusion of presynaptic vesicles to the presynaptic membrane, necessary steps for acetylcholine release into the neuromuscular junction and muscle contraction. By blocking the action of the SNARE complex proteins, BoNT inhibits release of acetylcholine in the neuromuscular junction and prevents muscle contraction.
Argireline is a synthetic peptide with the sequence Ac-EEMQRR-NH2.2 It is patterned after the N-terminal domain of SNAP-25, one of the members of the SNARE complex targeted by BoNT, and functions to interfere with the assembly of the SNARE complex. In this manner, Argireline would theoretically inhibit fusion of presynaptic vesicles and release of acetylcholine into the neuromuscular junction, thus impeding muscle movement. For this reason, it has been likened to topical Botox. Unlike Botox and other neurotoxins, Argireline was developed for topical application rather than injection.
Preclinical studies
In vitro work done 20 years ago demonstrated that Argireline can prevent assembly of the SNARE complex and inhibit neurotransmitter release with a potency similar to that of BoNT A (Botox).2
In 2013, Wang et al. evaluated the histologic effects of Argireline in aged mouse skin induced by D-galactose. For 6 weeks, Argireline was applied twice daily, and histological changes were assessed using hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) and picrosirius–polarization (PSP) stains. The researchers found elevated levels of type I collagen (P < .01) and reduced type III collagen (P < .05) with the Argireline treatment. These results demonstrated that Argireline could histologically enhance collagen in a manner consistent with skin rejuvenation.3
Clinical studies
In 2002, Blanes et al. assessed the antiwrinkle activity of Argireline by measuring skin topography from silicone implants in the lateral periorbital region of an oil/water (O/W) emulsion containing 10% of the acetyl-hexapeptide in 10 healthy women volunteers. The hexapeptide emulsion was applied twice daily in one lateral periorbital area, and the emulsion vehicle alone was applied twice daily on the contralateral side. Over 30 days of treatment, wrinkle depth was found to have decreased by 30%. The investigators also found that Argireline significantly hindered neurotransmitter release in vitro as robustly as BoNT A, though with notably lower efficacy. No toxicity or irritation was associated with this treatment.2 However, it should be noted that this small study conducted 2 decades ago evaluated only silicone implants with confocal microscopy to evaluate wrinkle depth. There was no subjective clinical assessment of dynamic facial wrinkles. As such, their study is an insufficient basis for drawing conclusions that Argireline is a BoNT mimic. Botox and other types of BoNT affect dynamic facial wrinkles mostly (i.e., wrinkles created by moving muscles of facial expression). This study primarily considers static wrinkles on periorbital skin. While static wrinkles may result from longstanding dynamic wrinkles, BoNT mainly targets dynamic wrinkles, again not comparing apples to apples.
At the same time that Wang et al. conducted their experiment on the skin of aged mice as noted above, they performed a multicenter clinical trial in 60 human subjects who received a randomized treatment of Argireline or placebo in a ratio of 3:1 to assess its safety and efficacy. For 4 weeks, the test product or placebo was applied to periorbital wrinkles twice daily. The researchers found the total antiwrinkle efficacy in the Argireline group to be 48.9% based on the subjective evaluation, compared with 0% in the placebo group. The objective evaluation indicated that all parameters of roughness were diminished in the Argireline group (P < .01), with no reduction observed in the placebo group (P < .05).4 There was a little more to appreciate from this study compared with the one reported by Blanes et al., insofar as subjective evaluations and objective evaluations with silica replicas were done. However, this study was not blinded, so the 48.9% wrinkle reduction in the Argireline group vs. 0% in the control group seems suspicious. Additionally, there was a greater focus on static rather than dynamic wrinkles.
In 2017, Raikou et al. conducted a prospective, randomized controlled study to assess the effects of acetyl hexapeptide-3 (Argireline) and tripeptide-10 citrulline in 24 healthy female volunteers (aged 30-60 years) and determine if there was any synergistic action between the peptides. Subjects were randomized to receive a combination of the peptides, tripeptide-10 citrulline only, acetyl hexapeptide-3 only, or neither peptide for 60 days. The researchers found a significant reduction in transepidermal water loss (TEWL) in the Argireline group, compared with the placebo group.5 The result of this study makes me question if the decrease in depth of the wrinkles measured in the former studies is really just a measure of increased skin hydration from the Argireline, rather than a neurotoxic effect of Argireline.
Formulation and penetration: Can Argireline get through your skin?
One of the fundamental questions regarding Argireline is whether it can penetrate through the stratum corneum and find its target – the facial muscles – where it is intended to function. Argireline is a charged, hydrophilic, and large–molecular weight peptide, and each of these factors impairs penetration through the stratum corneum. Therefore, studies assessing penetration are particularly important.
In 2015, Kraeling et al. conducted an in vitro evaluation of the skin penetration of acetyl hexapeptide-8 in hairless guinea pig and human cadaver skin. An oil-in-water (O/W) emulsion containing 10% acetyl hexapeptide-8 was applied (2 mg/cm2) and penetration was quantified in skin layers via hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Most of the acetyl hexapeptide-8 was found to have been washed from human cadaver, as well as guinea pig, skin. Less than 1% of the peptide penetrated the guinea pig or human skin. Of this small amount that penetrated the skin, most stayed in the stratum corneum of guinea pigs (0.54%) and human cadavers (0.22%). The levels of acetyl hexapeptide-8 declined further with each layer of tape stripping removal. Epidermal levels of the peptide in tested skin were similar at 0.01%, and none of the peptide was found in the dermis.6 These results indicate negligible penetration by this highly touted peptide ingredient.
Some studies have shown that altering the formulation of acetyl hexapeptide-8 can enhance penetration. Hoppel et al. demonstrated that formulations of the peptide, especially in a water-oil-water (W/O/W emulsion [as compared with O/W and W/O emulsions] can increase penetration into the stratum corneum in porcine skin.7 Notably, this is still very superficial relative to the dermis and muscles. Irrespective of formulation, studies have shown that Argireline barely penetrates the stratum corneum, let alone the dermis. Therefore, I would give pause to attributing any clinical impact or benefit of Argireline to its neurotoxinlike effects measured in vitro.
Conclusion
Despite the growing popularity of this ingredient in cosmeceuticals and the praise it gets in media for acting as a topical neurotoxin, there are no rigorous clinical trials or data demonstrating its efficacy in suppressing dynamic facial wrinkles like BoNT does. Most importantly, without penetration into the stratum corneum and deeper layers of the skin, it seems unlikely that Argireline’s clinical benefit derives from a neurotoxiclike mechanism of action. It seems more likely that the Argireline-containing product enhances hydration or imparts some other quality to the skin surface. While there is certainly great appeal for a neurotoxinlike product without injections, I do not believe this ingredient will replace injections of BoNT in the foreseeable future, or at least until scientists can figure out how to enable these products to penetrate into the deeper layers of the skin.
Dr. Goldman is a dermatologist in private practice in Miami and specializes in cosmetic and general dermatology. She practices at Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute and is also opening a general dermatology practice. Dr. Goldman has no relevant disclosures. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com or message her on Instagram @DrChloeGoldman.
References
1. Reddy BY et al. Exp Dermatol. 2012 Aug;21(8):569-75.
2. Blanes-Mira C et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2002 Oct;24(5):303-10.
3. Wang Y et al. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2013 Aug;15(4):237-41.
4. Wang Y et al. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2013;14(2):147-53.
5. Raikou V et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2017 Jun;16(2):271-8.
6. Kraeling ME et al. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2015 Mar;34(1):46-52.
7. Hoppel M et al. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2015 Feb 20;68:27-35.