User login
Ten-year analysis finds relatively low complication rate from fractional resurfacing lasers
PHOENIX – over a decade showed.
To investigate, Dr. Hashemi, a third-year dermatology resident at Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH, drew from the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, which compiles medical device reports for suspected injuries from device use or malfunction and represents the largest repository of device adverse effects. Medical device reports are submitted by manufacturers, clinicians, patients, and others.
The researchers limited their query to MDRs related to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers over the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022. The query was performed in January 2023 using a comprehensive list of product names and manufacturers.
The initial search yielded 240 MDRs, which were individually reviewed for duplicate records or insufficient data, and the final analysis included 165 MDRs. The 10 most reported adverse events were burns (30%), followed by dyspigmentation (14%), scarring (12%), other (11%), postoperative infection (8%), blisters (6%), pain (5%), hypertrophic scar (4%), post-treatment inflammation (4%), and textural changes (3%). Within the 10-year period analyzed, 56% of MDRs occurred between 2016 and 2019, with a disproportionately low percentage of MDRs occurring in 2022 (5%).
“Adverse events due to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers are rare but potentially serious,” Dr. Hashemi concluded. “Care must be taken with counseling, patient selection, and treatment settings to optimize safety, informed consent, and patient satisfaction. Given the relatively low number of adverse events seen with fractional resurfacing lasers, factors driving their safety should be further explored.”
He added that he was surprised by the relatively low number of reported issues, referring to the total of 165 cases over 10 years. By comparison, he said, body contouring had 660 cases reported over a 7-year period in one recent study.
According to the MAUDE website, submitting MDRs to MAUDE is mandatory for manufacturers, importers, and device user facilities, and are voluntary for other groups, such as health care professionals, patients, and consumers.
Dr. Hashemi disclosed that he is a consultant for Castle Biosciences. He is also an entrepreneur in residence for Gore Range Capital.
PHOENIX – over a decade showed.
To investigate, Dr. Hashemi, a third-year dermatology resident at Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH, drew from the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, which compiles medical device reports for suspected injuries from device use or malfunction and represents the largest repository of device adverse effects. Medical device reports are submitted by manufacturers, clinicians, patients, and others.
The researchers limited their query to MDRs related to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers over the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022. The query was performed in January 2023 using a comprehensive list of product names and manufacturers.
The initial search yielded 240 MDRs, which were individually reviewed for duplicate records or insufficient data, and the final analysis included 165 MDRs. The 10 most reported adverse events were burns (30%), followed by dyspigmentation (14%), scarring (12%), other (11%), postoperative infection (8%), blisters (6%), pain (5%), hypertrophic scar (4%), post-treatment inflammation (4%), and textural changes (3%). Within the 10-year period analyzed, 56% of MDRs occurred between 2016 and 2019, with a disproportionately low percentage of MDRs occurring in 2022 (5%).
“Adverse events due to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers are rare but potentially serious,” Dr. Hashemi concluded. “Care must be taken with counseling, patient selection, and treatment settings to optimize safety, informed consent, and patient satisfaction. Given the relatively low number of adverse events seen with fractional resurfacing lasers, factors driving their safety should be further explored.”
He added that he was surprised by the relatively low number of reported issues, referring to the total of 165 cases over 10 years. By comparison, he said, body contouring had 660 cases reported over a 7-year period in one recent study.
According to the MAUDE website, submitting MDRs to MAUDE is mandatory for manufacturers, importers, and device user facilities, and are voluntary for other groups, such as health care professionals, patients, and consumers.
Dr. Hashemi disclosed that he is a consultant for Castle Biosciences. He is also an entrepreneur in residence for Gore Range Capital.
PHOENIX – over a decade showed.
To investigate, Dr. Hashemi, a third-year dermatology resident at Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at MGH, drew from the FDA’s Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, which compiles medical device reports for suspected injuries from device use or malfunction and represents the largest repository of device adverse effects. Medical device reports are submitted by manufacturers, clinicians, patients, and others.
The researchers limited their query to MDRs related to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers over the 10-year period from 2013 to 2022. The query was performed in January 2023 using a comprehensive list of product names and manufacturers.
The initial search yielded 240 MDRs, which were individually reviewed for duplicate records or insufficient data, and the final analysis included 165 MDRs. The 10 most reported adverse events were burns (30%), followed by dyspigmentation (14%), scarring (12%), other (11%), postoperative infection (8%), blisters (6%), pain (5%), hypertrophic scar (4%), post-treatment inflammation (4%), and textural changes (3%). Within the 10-year period analyzed, 56% of MDRs occurred between 2016 and 2019, with a disproportionately low percentage of MDRs occurring in 2022 (5%).
“Adverse events due to ablative and nonablative fractional resurfacing lasers are rare but potentially serious,” Dr. Hashemi concluded. “Care must be taken with counseling, patient selection, and treatment settings to optimize safety, informed consent, and patient satisfaction. Given the relatively low number of adverse events seen with fractional resurfacing lasers, factors driving their safety should be further explored.”
He added that he was surprised by the relatively low number of reported issues, referring to the total of 165 cases over 10 years. By comparison, he said, body contouring had 660 cases reported over a 7-year period in one recent study.
According to the MAUDE website, submitting MDRs to MAUDE is mandatory for manufacturers, importers, and device user facilities, and are voluntary for other groups, such as health care professionals, patients, and consumers.
Dr. Hashemi disclosed that he is a consultant for Castle Biosciences. He is also an entrepreneur in residence for Gore Range Capital.
AT ASLMS 2023
Poor representation of patients with darker skin phototypes in laser and light device studies
, according to a systematic review of the literature, the authors reported.
“While there broadly appears to be skin of color representation [in such studies], a more granular understanding of the data shows a large discrepancy in representation between ‘lighter’ and ‘darker’ skin of color patients,” Priya Manjaly and associates wrote in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.
Among the 461 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) eligible for inclusion, most (81.7%) included participants with skin phototypes 4-6, which is considered skin of color. When only phototypes 5 and 6 were included, however, representation in studies involving laser and light devices was only 27.5%, said Ms. Manjaly, a research fellow in the department of dermatology at Boston University, and associates.
“This trend of excluding darker skin phototypes persisted when the results were stratified by condition, laser of study, study location, journal type, and funding source,” the investigators noted.
RCTs of laser/light devices for scarring, the most common dermatologic condition represented, included phototypes 5 and 6 in 24.4% of studies, compared with 84.4% for phototypes 4-6. The gap was smaller for melasma, but not for port wine stains. Among the devices examined, RCTs of diode lasers and intense pulsed light had the smallest gaps between inclusion of the two groups of phototypes, while pulsed-dye laser studies had the largest, they reported.
Stratification by journal showed the largest gap in studies published by Lasers in Medical Science and the smallest gap coming from Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. Funding was not specified for the majority of the eligible device RCTs, but those funded by industry had the smallest discrepancy between types 5-6 and types 4-6 and those supported by foundations/nonprofits the largest, Ms. Manjaly and associates said.
“With projections estimating that more than 50% of the U.S. population is set to identify as Hispanic or nonwhite by 2045 ... the lack of information has important consequences for clinical practice, as clinicians are unable to counsel patients on the efficacy and possible complications of various devices in patient with skin of color,” they wrote.
The investigators did not declare any conflicts of interest or funding sources.
, according to a systematic review of the literature, the authors reported.
“While there broadly appears to be skin of color representation [in such studies], a more granular understanding of the data shows a large discrepancy in representation between ‘lighter’ and ‘darker’ skin of color patients,” Priya Manjaly and associates wrote in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.
Among the 461 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) eligible for inclusion, most (81.7%) included participants with skin phototypes 4-6, which is considered skin of color. When only phototypes 5 and 6 were included, however, representation in studies involving laser and light devices was only 27.5%, said Ms. Manjaly, a research fellow in the department of dermatology at Boston University, and associates.
“This trend of excluding darker skin phototypes persisted when the results were stratified by condition, laser of study, study location, journal type, and funding source,” the investigators noted.
RCTs of laser/light devices for scarring, the most common dermatologic condition represented, included phototypes 5 and 6 in 24.4% of studies, compared with 84.4% for phototypes 4-6. The gap was smaller for melasma, but not for port wine stains. Among the devices examined, RCTs of diode lasers and intense pulsed light had the smallest gaps between inclusion of the two groups of phototypes, while pulsed-dye laser studies had the largest, they reported.
Stratification by journal showed the largest gap in studies published by Lasers in Medical Science and the smallest gap coming from Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. Funding was not specified for the majority of the eligible device RCTs, but those funded by industry had the smallest discrepancy between types 5-6 and types 4-6 and those supported by foundations/nonprofits the largest, Ms. Manjaly and associates said.
“With projections estimating that more than 50% of the U.S. population is set to identify as Hispanic or nonwhite by 2045 ... the lack of information has important consequences for clinical practice, as clinicians are unable to counsel patients on the efficacy and possible complications of various devices in patient with skin of color,” they wrote.
The investigators did not declare any conflicts of interest or funding sources.
, according to a systematic review of the literature, the authors reported.
“While there broadly appears to be skin of color representation [in such studies], a more granular understanding of the data shows a large discrepancy in representation between ‘lighter’ and ‘darker’ skin of color patients,” Priya Manjaly and associates wrote in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.
Among the 461 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) eligible for inclusion, most (81.7%) included participants with skin phototypes 4-6, which is considered skin of color. When only phototypes 5 and 6 were included, however, representation in studies involving laser and light devices was only 27.5%, said Ms. Manjaly, a research fellow in the department of dermatology at Boston University, and associates.
“This trend of excluding darker skin phototypes persisted when the results were stratified by condition, laser of study, study location, journal type, and funding source,” the investigators noted.
RCTs of laser/light devices for scarring, the most common dermatologic condition represented, included phototypes 5 and 6 in 24.4% of studies, compared with 84.4% for phototypes 4-6. The gap was smaller for melasma, but not for port wine stains. Among the devices examined, RCTs of diode lasers and intense pulsed light had the smallest gaps between inclusion of the two groups of phototypes, while pulsed-dye laser studies had the largest, they reported.
Stratification by journal showed the largest gap in studies published by Lasers in Medical Science and the smallest gap coming from Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. Funding was not specified for the majority of the eligible device RCTs, but those funded by industry had the smallest discrepancy between types 5-6 and types 4-6 and those supported by foundations/nonprofits the largest, Ms. Manjaly and associates said.
“With projections estimating that more than 50% of the U.S. population is set to identify as Hispanic or nonwhite by 2045 ... the lack of information has important consequences for clinical practice, as clinicians are unable to counsel patients on the efficacy and possible complications of various devices in patient with skin of color,” they wrote.
The investigators did not declare any conflicts of interest or funding sources.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF COSMETIC DERMATOLOGY
Cleansing balms
A skin care trend, particularly in the Korean beauty product market and now worldwide, cleansing balms are a soft, yet solid variation of an oil-based cleanser. The solid oily component is combined with a surfactant or emulsifier. The cream balm texture melts into more of an oil texture once warmed with fingertips and applied to facial skin. The oils are effective at breaking down or attracting skin care products, oil, and grime on the skin surface. Once warm water is added, the oil emulsifies, and after it is wiped or rinsed off, what’s left behind is clean, hydrated skin.
They don’t tend to compromise the moisture barrier or disrupt skin pH, thus, resulting in less dry skin and have less potential to cause irritation. These products are particularly useful during drier, colder months, or in dry climates, and for those who have dry skin or eczema.
The popularity of cleansing balms has largely been based on their ability to remove makeup, similar to an oil cleanser, without the need to necessarily “double cleanse” with a regular cleanser afterward.
Alternatives to remove makeup besides cleansing balms, oil cleansers, and regular liquid water-based cleansers include micellar water (oil in water), chemical makeup removing cloths, and nonchemical makeup removing pads used with water. Micellar water is also gentle on the skin; it requires a cotton pad, tip, or cloth to remove makeup, without the need for water or washing. Both are effective, but it may be easier to remove makeup with cleansing balms, without the need for rubbing dry skin, than with micellar water. A study published in 2020 of 20 individuals reported that waterproof sunscreen was more effectively removed with a cleansing oil than a non–oil-based cleanser, with less irritation and dryness. Both were effective at removing non-waterproof sunscreen.
Both cleansing balms and oil-based cleansers need to be kept at room temperature (not in the refrigerator), since they may separate or solidify at low temperatures.
Most cleansing balms can be applied to dry skin, massaged, and rinsed off with warm water, but they are sometimes easier to remove with a wet cloth (typically either cotton or muslin). Many are nonirritating to the eyes, which is important when used to remove eye makeup and mascara on delicate skin. While many cleansing balms are noncomedogenic, residue from balms that are too thick or not rinsed off properly can contribute to comedones or milia. If residue is present after use, then “double-cleansing” with a water-based cleanser is reasonable, but not necessary for most users.
Did the development of Ponds cold cream mark the beginning of this trend? Yes and no. The creation of the first cold cream prototype has been attributed to the Greek physician, Galen (who lived in Rome), a combination of rose water, beeswax, and olive oil in 150 CE. While Ponds also has manufactured a cleansing balm, the original cold cream is a 50% moisturizer in a cleanser. So while similar in containing an oil, water, emulsifier, and thickener, and effective, it is more of a moisturizer and less of a solid oil/balm in its consistency.
Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com. She had no relevant disclosures.
A skin care trend, particularly in the Korean beauty product market and now worldwide, cleansing balms are a soft, yet solid variation of an oil-based cleanser. The solid oily component is combined with a surfactant or emulsifier. The cream balm texture melts into more of an oil texture once warmed with fingertips and applied to facial skin. The oils are effective at breaking down or attracting skin care products, oil, and grime on the skin surface. Once warm water is added, the oil emulsifies, and after it is wiped or rinsed off, what’s left behind is clean, hydrated skin.
They don’t tend to compromise the moisture barrier or disrupt skin pH, thus, resulting in less dry skin and have less potential to cause irritation. These products are particularly useful during drier, colder months, or in dry climates, and for those who have dry skin or eczema.
The popularity of cleansing balms has largely been based on their ability to remove makeup, similar to an oil cleanser, without the need to necessarily “double cleanse” with a regular cleanser afterward.
Alternatives to remove makeup besides cleansing balms, oil cleansers, and regular liquid water-based cleansers include micellar water (oil in water), chemical makeup removing cloths, and nonchemical makeup removing pads used with water. Micellar water is also gentle on the skin; it requires a cotton pad, tip, or cloth to remove makeup, without the need for water or washing. Both are effective, but it may be easier to remove makeup with cleansing balms, without the need for rubbing dry skin, than with micellar water. A study published in 2020 of 20 individuals reported that waterproof sunscreen was more effectively removed with a cleansing oil than a non–oil-based cleanser, with less irritation and dryness. Both were effective at removing non-waterproof sunscreen.
Both cleansing balms and oil-based cleansers need to be kept at room temperature (not in the refrigerator), since they may separate or solidify at low temperatures.
Most cleansing balms can be applied to dry skin, massaged, and rinsed off with warm water, but they are sometimes easier to remove with a wet cloth (typically either cotton or muslin). Many are nonirritating to the eyes, which is important when used to remove eye makeup and mascara on delicate skin. While many cleansing balms are noncomedogenic, residue from balms that are too thick or not rinsed off properly can contribute to comedones or milia. If residue is present after use, then “double-cleansing” with a water-based cleanser is reasonable, but not necessary for most users.
Did the development of Ponds cold cream mark the beginning of this trend? Yes and no. The creation of the first cold cream prototype has been attributed to the Greek physician, Galen (who lived in Rome), a combination of rose water, beeswax, and olive oil in 150 CE. While Ponds also has manufactured a cleansing balm, the original cold cream is a 50% moisturizer in a cleanser. So while similar in containing an oil, water, emulsifier, and thickener, and effective, it is more of a moisturizer and less of a solid oil/balm in its consistency.
Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com. She had no relevant disclosures.
A skin care trend, particularly in the Korean beauty product market and now worldwide, cleansing balms are a soft, yet solid variation of an oil-based cleanser. The solid oily component is combined with a surfactant or emulsifier. The cream balm texture melts into more of an oil texture once warmed with fingertips and applied to facial skin. The oils are effective at breaking down or attracting skin care products, oil, and grime on the skin surface. Once warm water is added, the oil emulsifies, and after it is wiped or rinsed off, what’s left behind is clean, hydrated skin.
They don’t tend to compromise the moisture barrier or disrupt skin pH, thus, resulting in less dry skin and have less potential to cause irritation. These products are particularly useful during drier, colder months, or in dry climates, and for those who have dry skin or eczema.
The popularity of cleansing balms has largely been based on their ability to remove makeup, similar to an oil cleanser, without the need to necessarily “double cleanse” with a regular cleanser afterward.
Alternatives to remove makeup besides cleansing balms, oil cleansers, and regular liquid water-based cleansers include micellar water (oil in water), chemical makeup removing cloths, and nonchemical makeup removing pads used with water. Micellar water is also gentle on the skin; it requires a cotton pad, tip, or cloth to remove makeup, without the need for water or washing. Both are effective, but it may be easier to remove makeup with cleansing balms, without the need for rubbing dry skin, than with micellar water. A study published in 2020 of 20 individuals reported that waterproof sunscreen was more effectively removed with a cleansing oil than a non–oil-based cleanser, with less irritation and dryness. Both were effective at removing non-waterproof sunscreen.
Both cleansing balms and oil-based cleansers need to be kept at room temperature (not in the refrigerator), since they may separate or solidify at low temperatures.
Most cleansing balms can be applied to dry skin, massaged, and rinsed off with warm water, but they are sometimes easier to remove with a wet cloth (typically either cotton or muslin). Many are nonirritating to the eyes, which is important when used to remove eye makeup and mascara on delicate skin. While many cleansing balms are noncomedogenic, residue from balms that are too thick or not rinsed off properly can contribute to comedones or milia. If residue is present after use, then “double-cleansing” with a water-based cleanser is reasonable, but not necessary for most users.
Did the development of Ponds cold cream mark the beginning of this trend? Yes and no. The creation of the first cold cream prototype has been attributed to the Greek physician, Galen (who lived in Rome), a combination of rose water, beeswax, and olive oil in 150 CE. While Ponds also has manufactured a cleansing balm, the original cold cream is a 50% moisturizer in a cleanser. So while similar in containing an oil, water, emulsifier, and thickener, and effective, it is more of a moisturizer and less of a solid oil/balm in its consistency.
Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com. She had no relevant disclosures.
Bergamot
Citrus bergamia (bergamot) is a fruit tree thought to originate in the Mediterranean area; its fruit has been a part of the diet in that region since the early 18th century.1 Bergamot is known to confer antioxidant as well as anti-inflammatory activity, and yields proapoptotic effects in the sebaceous gland.2,3 The plant contains the natural furocoumarin bergapten, which is also known as 5-methoxypsoralen.4
5 In this capacity, bergamot oil has been used for photodynamic therapy of cutaneous conditions such as vitiligo.6 In fact, for several years 5-methoxypsoralen and 8-methoxypsoralen have been used to achieve acceptable clearance rates of psoriasis and vitiligo.7 This column focuses on bergapten, as well as the cutaneous conditions for which bergamot has been shown to have some benefits warranting application or further investigation.
Bergapten
In a 2021 literature review, Liang et al. cited the anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, anticancer, and other salutary effects associated with bergapten. Based on numerous citations, they also cautioned about the phototoxicity of the compound combined with ultraviolet (UV) light while noting the photoactivation of bergapten for anticancer uses.4
The following year, Quetglas-Llabrés et al. acknowledged, in another literature review, the numerous preclinical and in vitro studies demonstrating the therapeutic activity of bergapten and highlighted clinical trials revealing notable lesion clearance rates of psoriasis or vitiligo imparted by oral or topical bergapten along with UV irradiation. Bergapten was also found to be effective as hypolipemic therapy.5
Anti-inflammatory topical uses
In a 2017 study by Han et al. of 10 essential oils, bergamot was among the investigated oils, all of which exhibited significant anti-proliferative activity in a preinflamed human dermal fibroblast system simulating chronic inflammation. Bergamot was among three essential oils that also suppressed protein molecules involved with inflammation, immune responses, and tissue remodeling, indicating anti-inflammatory and wound healing characteristics.8
More recently, Cristiano et al. reported that ultradeformable nanocarriers containing bergamot essential oil and ammonium glycyrrhizinate were demonstrated in healthy human volunteers to be characterized by the appropriate mean size, size distribution, surface charge, and long-term stability for topical administration. Topical administration on human volunteers also revealed greater activity of the combined agents as compared with a nanosystem loaded only with ammonium glycyrrhizinate. The researchers concluded that this combination of ingredients in ultradeformable vesicles shows potential as topical anti-inflammatory treatment.3
Acne
In a 2020 study using golden hamsters, Sun et al. assessed the effects of the juice and essential oils of bergamot and sweet orange on acne vulgaris engendered by excessive androgen secretion. Among 80 male hamsters randomly divided into 10 groups ranging from low to high doses, all results demonstrated improvement with treatment as seen by decreased growth rates of sebaceous glands, suppressed triglyceride accumulation, lowered inflammatory cytokine release, and apoptosis promotion in sebaceous glands. The authors noted that the essential oils yielded better dose-dependent effects than the juices.2
Psoriasis
In 2019, Perna et al. conducted a literature review on the effects of bergamot essential oil, extract, juice, and polyphenolic fraction on various health metrics. Thirty-one studies (20 involving humans with 1,709 subjects and 11 in rats and mice) were identified. Animal models indicated that bergamot essential oil (10 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg daily for 20 weeks) reduced psoriatic plaques, increased skin collagen content, and fostered hair growth and that bergamot juice (20 mg/kg) diminished proinflammatory cytokines. Human studies showed that bergamot extract and essential oil may reduce blood pressure and improve mental conditions.9
Vitiligo
In 2019, Shaaban et al. prepared elastic nanocarriers (spanlastics) to deliver psoralen-containing bergamot oil along with PUVB with the intention of harnessing melanogenic activity to treat vitiligo. Histopathologic assessment on rat skin was conducted before clinical treatment in patients with vitiligo. The spanlastics were deemed to be of suitable nanosize and deformable, yielding consistent bergamot oil release. The bergamot oil included in the nanocarrier was found to enhance photostability and photodynamic activity, with the researchers concluding that bergamot oil nanospanlastics with psoralen-UVB therapy shows potential as a vitiligo therapy.10
Two years later, Shaaban evaluated bergamot oil formulated in nanostructured lipid carriers as a photosensitizer for photodynamic treatment of vitiligo. The botanical oil was effectively used in the nanostructured lipid carriers with a gel consistency that delivered sustained release of the oil for 24 hours. Preclinical and clinical results in patients were encouraging for the topical photodynamic treatment of vitiligo, with the nanostructured lipid carriers improving the photostability and photodynamic activity of bergamot oil.6
Photoaging, photoprotection, and safety concerns
Three decades ago, an international cooperative study of the photophysical, photomutagenic, and photocarcinogenic characteristics of bergamot oil and the effect of UVA and UVB sunscreens found that UVB and UVA sunscreens at low concentration (0.5%-1%) in perfumes could not inhibit the phototoxicity of bergamot oil on human skin.11
In a 2015 study assessing the impact of 38% bergamot polyphenolic fraction (a highly concentrated Citrus bergamia fruit extract) on UVB-generated photoaging, Nisticò et al. found that the bergamot compound dose-dependently protected HaCaT cells against UVB-caused oxidative stress and photoaging markers. Suggesting that the high-antioxidant bergamot polyphenolic fraction has potential for use in skin care formulations, the researchers added that the extract seems to induce antiproliferative, immune-modulating, and antiaging activity.12In 2022, Alexa et al. performed in vitro tests and found that natural preparations containing bergamot, orange, and clove essential oils do not significantly alter physiological skin parameters and were deemed safe for topical use. An emulsion with bergamot essential oil was also found to reduce the viability of oral squamous cell carcinoma cells.13
Conclusion
As a photosensitizing agent, bergamot has an established role in skin care. Beyond its niche role in treatments for vitiligo and psoriasis, this botanical product appears to show potential as an anti-inflammatory agent as well as an ingredient to combat photoaging and skin cancer. Much more research is needed to elucidate the possible wider benefits of this Mediterranean staple.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Juber M. Health benefits of bergamot. WebMD. November 29, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023.
2. Sun P et al. Mediators Inflamm. 2020 Oct 6;2020:8868107.
3. Cristiano MC et al. Biomedicines. 2022 Apr 30;10(5):1039.
4. Liang Y et al. Phytother Res. 2021 Nov;35(11):6131-47.
5. Quetglas-Llabrés MM et al. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022 Apr 25;2022:8615242.
6. Shaaban M et al. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2021 Jan;18(1):139-50.
7. McNeely W, Goa KL. Drugs. 1998 Oct;56(4):667-90.
8. Han X, Beaumont C, Stevens N. Biochim Open. 2017 Apr 26;5:1-7.
9. Perna S et al. Food Sci Nutr. 2019 Jan 25;7(2):369-84.
10. Shaaban M et al. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2019 Dec;9(6):1106-16.
11. Dubertret L et al. J Photochem Photobiol B. 1990 Nov;7(2-4):251-9.
12. Nisticò S et al. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2015 Jul-Sep;29(3):723-8.
13. Alexa VT et al. Molecules. 2022 Feb 1;27(3):990.
Citrus bergamia (bergamot) is a fruit tree thought to originate in the Mediterranean area; its fruit has been a part of the diet in that region since the early 18th century.1 Bergamot is known to confer antioxidant as well as anti-inflammatory activity, and yields proapoptotic effects in the sebaceous gland.2,3 The plant contains the natural furocoumarin bergapten, which is also known as 5-methoxypsoralen.4
5 In this capacity, bergamot oil has been used for photodynamic therapy of cutaneous conditions such as vitiligo.6 In fact, for several years 5-methoxypsoralen and 8-methoxypsoralen have been used to achieve acceptable clearance rates of psoriasis and vitiligo.7 This column focuses on bergapten, as well as the cutaneous conditions for which bergamot has been shown to have some benefits warranting application or further investigation.
Bergapten
In a 2021 literature review, Liang et al. cited the anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, anticancer, and other salutary effects associated with bergapten. Based on numerous citations, they also cautioned about the phototoxicity of the compound combined with ultraviolet (UV) light while noting the photoactivation of bergapten for anticancer uses.4
The following year, Quetglas-Llabrés et al. acknowledged, in another literature review, the numerous preclinical and in vitro studies demonstrating the therapeutic activity of bergapten and highlighted clinical trials revealing notable lesion clearance rates of psoriasis or vitiligo imparted by oral or topical bergapten along with UV irradiation. Bergapten was also found to be effective as hypolipemic therapy.5
Anti-inflammatory topical uses
In a 2017 study by Han et al. of 10 essential oils, bergamot was among the investigated oils, all of which exhibited significant anti-proliferative activity in a preinflamed human dermal fibroblast system simulating chronic inflammation. Bergamot was among three essential oils that also suppressed protein molecules involved with inflammation, immune responses, and tissue remodeling, indicating anti-inflammatory and wound healing characteristics.8
More recently, Cristiano et al. reported that ultradeformable nanocarriers containing bergamot essential oil and ammonium glycyrrhizinate were demonstrated in healthy human volunteers to be characterized by the appropriate mean size, size distribution, surface charge, and long-term stability for topical administration. Topical administration on human volunteers also revealed greater activity of the combined agents as compared with a nanosystem loaded only with ammonium glycyrrhizinate. The researchers concluded that this combination of ingredients in ultradeformable vesicles shows potential as topical anti-inflammatory treatment.3
Acne
In a 2020 study using golden hamsters, Sun et al. assessed the effects of the juice and essential oils of bergamot and sweet orange on acne vulgaris engendered by excessive androgen secretion. Among 80 male hamsters randomly divided into 10 groups ranging from low to high doses, all results demonstrated improvement with treatment as seen by decreased growth rates of sebaceous glands, suppressed triglyceride accumulation, lowered inflammatory cytokine release, and apoptosis promotion in sebaceous glands. The authors noted that the essential oils yielded better dose-dependent effects than the juices.2
Psoriasis
In 2019, Perna et al. conducted a literature review on the effects of bergamot essential oil, extract, juice, and polyphenolic fraction on various health metrics. Thirty-one studies (20 involving humans with 1,709 subjects and 11 in rats and mice) were identified. Animal models indicated that bergamot essential oil (10 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg daily for 20 weeks) reduced psoriatic plaques, increased skin collagen content, and fostered hair growth and that bergamot juice (20 mg/kg) diminished proinflammatory cytokines. Human studies showed that bergamot extract and essential oil may reduce blood pressure and improve mental conditions.9
Vitiligo
In 2019, Shaaban et al. prepared elastic nanocarriers (spanlastics) to deliver psoralen-containing bergamot oil along with PUVB with the intention of harnessing melanogenic activity to treat vitiligo. Histopathologic assessment on rat skin was conducted before clinical treatment in patients with vitiligo. The spanlastics were deemed to be of suitable nanosize and deformable, yielding consistent bergamot oil release. The bergamot oil included in the nanocarrier was found to enhance photostability and photodynamic activity, with the researchers concluding that bergamot oil nanospanlastics with psoralen-UVB therapy shows potential as a vitiligo therapy.10
Two years later, Shaaban evaluated bergamot oil formulated in nanostructured lipid carriers as a photosensitizer for photodynamic treatment of vitiligo. The botanical oil was effectively used in the nanostructured lipid carriers with a gel consistency that delivered sustained release of the oil for 24 hours. Preclinical and clinical results in patients were encouraging for the topical photodynamic treatment of vitiligo, with the nanostructured lipid carriers improving the photostability and photodynamic activity of bergamot oil.6
Photoaging, photoprotection, and safety concerns
Three decades ago, an international cooperative study of the photophysical, photomutagenic, and photocarcinogenic characteristics of bergamot oil and the effect of UVA and UVB sunscreens found that UVB and UVA sunscreens at low concentration (0.5%-1%) in perfumes could not inhibit the phototoxicity of bergamot oil on human skin.11
In a 2015 study assessing the impact of 38% bergamot polyphenolic fraction (a highly concentrated Citrus bergamia fruit extract) on UVB-generated photoaging, Nisticò et al. found that the bergamot compound dose-dependently protected HaCaT cells against UVB-caused oxidative stress and photoaging markers. Suggesting that the high-antioxidant bergamot polyphenolic fraction has potential for use in skin care formulations, the researchers added that the extract seems to induce antiproliferative, immune-modulating, and antiaging activity.12In 2022, Alexa et al. performed in vitro tests and found that natural preparations containing bergamot, orange, and clove essential oils do not significantly alter physiological skin parameters and were deemed safe for topical use. An emulsion with bergamot essential oil was also found to reduce the viability of oral squamous cell carcinoma cells.13
Conclusion
As a photosensitizing agent, bergamot has an established role in skin care. Beyond its niche role in treatments for vitiligo and psoriasis, this botanical product appears to show potential as an anti-inflammatory agent as well as an ingredient to combat photoaging and skin cancer. Much more research is needed to elucidate the possible wider benefits of this Mediterranean staple.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Juber M. Health benefits of bergamot. WebMD. November 29, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023.
2. Sun P et al. Mediators Inflamm. 2020 Oct 6;2020:8868107.
3. Cristiano MC et al. Biomedicines. 2022 Apr 30;10(5):1039.
4. Liang Y et al. Phytother Res. 2021 Nov;35(11):6131-47.
5. Quetglas-Llabrés MM et al. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022 Apr 25;2022:8615242.
6. Shaaban M et al. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2021 Jan;18(1):139-50.
7. McNeely W, Goa KL. Drugs. 1998 Oct;56(4):667-90.
8. Han X, Beaumont C, Stevens N. Biochim Open. 2017 Apr 26;5:1-7.
9. Perna S et al. Food Sci Nutr. 2019 Jan 25;7(2):369-84.
10. Shaaban M et al. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2019 Dec;9(6):1106-16.
11. Dubertret L et al. J Photochem Photobiol B. 1990 Nov;7(2-4):251-9.
12. Nisticò S et al. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2015 Jul-Sep;29(3):723-8.
13. Alexa VT et al. Molecules. 2022 Feb 1;27(3):990.
Citrus bergamia (bergamot) is a fruit tree thought to originate in the Mediterranean area; its fruit has been a part of the diet in that region since the early 18th century.1 Bergamot is known to confer antioxidant as well as anti-inflammatory activity, and yields proapoptotic effects in the sebaceous gland.2,3 The plant contains the natural furocoumarin bergapten, which is also known as 5-methoxypsoralen.4
5 In this capacity, bergamot oil has been used for photodynamic therapy of cutaneous conditions such as vitiligo.6 In fact, for several years 5-methoxypsoralen and 8-methoxypsoralen have been used to achieve acceptable clearance rates of psoriasis and vitiligo.7 This column focuses on bergapten, as well as the cutaneous conditions for which bergamot has been shown to have some benefits warranting application or further investigation.
Bergapten
In a 2021 literature review, Liang et al. cited the anti-inflammatory, antimicrobial, anticancer, and other salutary effects associated with bergapten. Based on numerous citations, they also cautioned about the phototoxicity of the compound combined with ultraviolet (UV) light while noting the photoactivation of bergapten for anticancer uses.4
The following year, Quetglas-Llabrés et al. acknowledged, in another literature review, the numerous preclinical and in vitro studies demonstrating the therapeutic activity of bergapten and highlighted clinical trials revealing notable lesion clearance rates of psoriasis or vitiligo imparted by oral or topical bergapten along with UV irradiation. Bergapten was also found to be effective as hypolipemic therapy.5
Anti-inflammatory topical uses
In a 2017 study by Han et al. of 10 essential oils, bergamot was among the investigated oils, all of which exhibited significant anti-proliferative activity in a preinflamed human dermal fibroblast system simulating chronic inflammation. Bergamot was among three essential oils that also suppressed protein molecules involved with inflammation, immune responses, and tissue remodeling, indicating anti-inflammatory and wound healing characteristics.8
More recently, Cristiano et al. reported that ultradeformable nanocarriers containing bergamot essential oil and ammonium glycyrrhizinate were demonstrated in healthy human volunteers to be characterized by the appropriate mean size, size distribution, surface charge, and long-term stability for topical administration. Topical administration on human volunteers also revealed greater activity of the combined agents as compared with a nanosystem loaded only with ammonium glycyrrhizinate. The researchers concluded that this combination of ingredients in ultradeformable vesicles shows potential as topical anti-inflammatory treatment.3
Acne
In a 2020 study using golden hamsters, Sun et al. assessed the effects of the juice and essential oils of bergamot and sweet orange on acne vulgaris engendered by excessive androgen secretion. Among 80 male hamsters randomly divided into 10 groups ranging from low to high doses, all results demonstrated improvement with treatment as seen by decreased growth rates of sebaceous glands, suppressed triglyceride accumulation, lowered inflammatory cytokine release, and apoptosis promotion in sebaceous glands. The authors noted that the essential oils yielded better dose-dependent effects than the juices.2
Psoriasis
In 2019, Perna et al. conducted a literature review on the effects of bergamot essential oil, extract, juice, and polyphenolic fraction on various health metrics. Thirty-one studies (20 involving humans with 1,709 subjects and 11 in rats and mice) were identified. Animal models indicated that bergamot essential oil (10 mg/kg or 20 mg/kg daily for 20 weeks) reduced psoriatic plaques, increased skin collagen content, and fostered hair growth and that bergamot juice (20 mg/kg) diminished proinflammatory cytokines. Human studies showed that bergamot extract and essential oil may reduce blood pressure and improve mental conditions.9
Vitiligo
In 2019, Shaaban et al. prepared elastic nanocarriers (spanlastics) to deliver psoralen-containing bergamot oil along with PUVB with the intention of harnessing melanogenic activity to treat vitiligo. Histopathologic assessment on rat skin was conducted before clinical treatment in patients with vitiligo. The spanlastics were deemed to be of suitable nanosize and deformable, yielding consistent bergamot oil release. The bergamot oil included in the nanocarrier was found to enhance photostability and photodynamic activity, with the researchers concluding that bergamot oil nanospanlastics with psoralen-UVB therapy shows potential as a vitiligo therapy.10
Two years later, Shaaban evaluated bergamot oil formulated in nanostructured lipid carriers as a photosensitizer for photodynamic treatment of vitiligo. The botanical oil was effectively used in the nanostructured lipid carriers with a gel consistency that delivered sustained release of the oil for 24 hours. Preclinical and clinical results in patients were encouraging for the topical photodynamic treatment of vitiligo, with the nanostructured lipid carriers improving the photostability and photodynamic activity of bergamot oil.6
Photoaging, photoprotection, and safety concerns
Three decades ago, an international cooperative study of the photophysical, photomutagenic, and photocarcinogenic characteristics of bergamot oil and the effect of UVA and UVB sunscreens found that UVB and UVA sunscreens at low concentration (0.5%-1%) in perfumes could not inhibit the phototoxicity of bergamot oil on human skin.11
In a 2015 study assessing the impact of 38% bergamot polyphenolic fraction (a highly concentrated Citrus bergamia fruit extract) on UVB-generated photoaging, Nisticò et al. found that the bergamot compound dose-dependently protected HaCaT cells against UVB-caused oxidative stress and photoaging markers. Suggesting that the high-antioxidant bergamot polyphenolic fraction has potential for use in skin care formulations, the researchers added that the extract seems to induce antiproliferative, immune-modulating, and antiaging activity.12In 2022, Alexa et al. performed in vitro tests and found that natural preparations containing bergamot, orange, and clove essential oils do not significantly alter physiological skin parameters and were deemed safe for topical use. An emulsion with bergamot essential oil was also found to reduce the viability of oral squamous cell carcinoma cells.13
Conclusion
As a photosensitizing agent, bergamot has an established role in skin care. Beyond its niche role in treatments for vitiligo and psoriasis, this botanical product appears to show potential as an anti-inflammatory agent as well as an ingredient to combat photoaging and skin cancer. Much more research is needed to elucidate the possible wider benefits of this Mediterranean staple.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Juber M. Health benefits of bergamot. WebMD. November 29, 2022. Accessed March 21, 2023.
2. Sun P et al. Mediators Inflamm. 2020 Oct 6;2020:8868107.
3. Cristiano MC et al. Biomedicines. 2022 Apr 30;10(5):1039.
4. Liang Y et al. Phytother Res. 2021 Nov;35(11):6131-47.
5. Quetglas-Llabrés MM et al. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2022 Apr 25;2022:8615242.
6. Shaaban M et al. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2021 Jan;18(1):139-50.
7. McNeely W, Goa KL. Drugs. 1998 Oct;56(4):667-90.
8. Han X, Beaumont C, Stevens N. Biochim Open. 2017 Apr 26;5:1-7.
9. Perna S et al. Food Sci Nutr. 2019 Jan 25;7(2):369-84.
10. Shaaban M et al. Drug Deliv Transl Res. 2019 Dec;9(6):1106-16.
11. Dubertret L et al. J Photochem Photobiol B. 1990 Nov;7(2-4):251-9.
12. Nisticò S et al. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2015 Jul-Sep;29(3):723-8.
13. Alexa VT et al. Molecules. 2022 Feb 1;27(3):990.
What happens to melanocytic nevi during laser hair removal?
PHOENIX – , while common histologic changes include mild atypia and thermal damage, according to results from a systematic review of literature on the topic. To date, no severe cases of severe dysplasia or melanoma have been reported.
“That’s reassuring,” study author Ahuva Cices, MD, said in an interview at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where she presented the results during an abstract session. “But, with that in mind, we want to avoid treating nevi with laser hair removal to avoid changes that could be concerning. We also recommend baseline skin exams so we know what we’re looking at before we start treating with lasers, and any changes can be recognized from that baseline status. It’s important to keep an eye out for changes and always be evaluating.”
In December of 2022, Dr. Cices, chief dermatology resident at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, searched PubMed for articles that evaluated changes in melanocytic nevi after laser hair removal procedures. She used the search terms “nevi laser hair removal,” “nevi diode,” “nevi long pulse alexandrite,” “nevi long pulse neodymium doped yttrium aluminum garnet,” and “melanoma laser hair removal,” and limited the analysis to English language patient-based reports that discussed incidental treatment of melanocytic nevi while undergoing hair removal with a laser.
Reports excluded from the analysis were those that focused on changes following hair removal with nonlaser devices such as intense pulsed light (IPL), those evaluating nonmelanocytic nevi such as Becker’s nevus or nevus of Ota, and those evaluating the intentional ablation or removal of melanocytic lesions.
The search yielded 10 relevant studies for systematic review: seven case reports or series and three observational trials, two of which were prospective and one retrospective.
The results of the review, according to Dr. Cices, revealed that clinical and dermoscopic changes were noted to present as early as 15 days after treatment and persist to the maximum follow up time, at 3 years. Commonly reported changes included regression, decreased size, laser-induced asymmetry, bleaching, darkening, and altered pattern on dermoscopy. Histologic changes included mild atypia, thermal damage, scar formation, and regression.
“Although some of the clinical and dermoscopic alterations may be concerning for malignancy, to our knowledge, there are no documented cases of malignant transformation of nevi following treatment with laser hair removal,” she wrote in the abstract.
Dr. Cices acknowledged certain limitations of the systematic review, including the low number of relevant reports and their generally small sample size, many of which were limited to single cases.
Omar A. Ibrahimi, MD, PhD, medical director of the Connecticut Skin Institute, Stamford, who was asked to comment on the review, characterized the findings as important because laser hair removal is such a commonly performed procedure.
While the study is limited by the small number of studies on the subject matter, “it brings up an important discussion,” Dr. Ibrahimi said in an interview. “Generally speaking, we know that most hair removal lasers do indeed target melanin pigment and can be absorbed by melanocytes. While the wavelengths used for LHR [laser hair removal] will not result in DNA damage or cause mutations that can lead to melanoma, they can sometimes alter the appearance of pigmented lesions and that may change the dermatologist’s ability to monitor them for atypia,” he noted.
“For that reason, I would recommend all patients see a dermatologist for evaluation of their nevi prior to any treatments and they consider very carefully where they get their laser treatments. If they have any atypical pigmented lesions, then that information should be disclosed with the person performing the laser hair removal procedure particularly if there are lesions that are being specifically monitored.”
Dr. Cices reported having no disclosures. Dr. Ibrahimi disclosed that he is a member of the advisory board for Accure Acne, AbbVie, Cutera, Lutronic, Blueberry Therapeutics, Cytrellis, and Quthero. He also holds stock in many device and pharmaceutical companies.
PHOENIX – , while common histologic changes include mild atypia and thermal damage, according to results from a systematic review of literature on the topic. To date, no severe cases of severe dysplasia or melanoma have been reported.
“That’s reassuring,” study author Ahuva Cices, MD, said in an interview at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where she presented the results during an abstract session. “But, with that in mind, we want to avoid treating nevi with laser hair removal to avoid changes that could be concerning. We also recommend baseline skin exams so we know what we’re looking at before we start treating with lasers, and any changes can be recognized from that baseline status. It’s important to keep an eye out for changes and always be evaluating.”
In December of 2022, Dr. Cices, chief dermatology resident at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, searched PubMed for articles that evaluated changes in melanocytic nevi after laser hair removal procedures. She used the search terms “nevi laser hair removal,” “nevi diode,” “nevi long pulse alexandrite,” “nevi long pulse neodymium doped yttrium aluminum garnet,” and “melanoma laser hair removal,” and limited the analysis to English language patient-based reports that discussed incidental treatment of melanocytic nevi while undergoing hair removal with a laser.
Reports excluded from the analysis were those that focused on changes following hair removal with nonlaser devices such as intense pulsed light (IPL), those evaluating nonmelanocytic nevi such as Becker’s nevus or nevus of Ota, and those evaluating the intentional ablation or removal of melanocytic lesions.
The search yielded 10 relevant studies for systematic review: seven case reports or series and three observational trials, two of which were prospective and one retrospective.
The results of the review, according to Dr. Cices, revealed that clinical and dermoscopic changes were noted to present as early as 15 days after treatment and persist to the maximum follow up time, at 3 years. Commonly reported changes included regression, decreased size, laser-induced asymmetry, bleaching, darkening, and altered pattern on dermoscopy. Histologic changes included mild atypia, thermal damage, scar formation, and regression.
“Although some of the clinical and dermoscopic alterations may be concerning for malignancy, to our knowledge, there are no documented cases of malignant transformation of nevi following treatment with laser hair removal,” she wrote in the abstract.
Dr. Cices acknowledged certain limitations of the systematic review, including the low number of relevant reports and their generally small sample size, many of which were limited to single cases.
Omar A. Ibrahimi, MD, PhD, medical director of the Connecticut Skin Institute, Stamford, who was asked to comment on the review, characterized the findings as important because laser hair removal is such a commonly performed procedure.
While the study is limited by the small number of studies on the subject matter, “it brings up an important discussion,” Dr. Ibrahimi said in an interview. “Generally speaking, we know that most hair removal lasers do indeed target melanin pigment and can be absorbed by melanocytes. While the wavelengths used for LHR [laser hair removal] will not result in DNA damage or cause mutations that can lead to melanoma, they can sometimes alter the appearance of pigmented lesions and that may change the dermatologist’s ability to monitor them for atypia,” he noted.
“For that reason, I would recommend all patients see a dermatologist for evaluation of their nevi prior to any treatments and they consider very carefully where they get their laser treatments. If they have any atypical pigmented lesions, then that information should be disclosed with the person performing the laser hair removal procedure particularly if there are lesions that are being specifically monitored.”
Dr. Cices reported having no disclosures. Dr. Ibrahimi disclosed that he is a member of the advisory board for Accure Acne, AbbVie, Cutera, Lutronic, Blueberry Therapeutics, Cytrellis, and Quthero. He also holds stock in many device and pharmaceutical companies.
PHOENIX – , while common histologic changes include mild atypia and thermal damage, according to results from a systematic review of literature on the topic. To date, no severe cases of severe dysplasia or melanoma have been reported.
“That’s reassuring,” study author Ahuva Cices, MD, said in an interview at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery, where she presented the results during an abstract session. “But, with that in mind, we want to avoid treating nevi with laser hair removal to avoid changes that could be concerning. We also recommend baseline skin exams so we know what we’re looking at before we start treating with lasers, and any changes can be recognized from that baseline status. It’s important to keep an eye out for changes and always be evaluating.”
In December of 2022, Dr. Cices, chief dermatology resident at Mount Sinai Health System, New York, searched PubMed for articles that evaluated changes in melanocytic nevi after laser hair removal procedures. She used the search terms “nevi laser hair removal,” “nevi diode,” “nevi long pulse alexandrite,” “nevi long pulse neodymium doped yttrium aluminum garnet,” and “melanoma laser hair removal,” and limited the analysis to English language patient-based reports that discussed incidental treatment of melanocytic nevi while undergoing hair removal with a laser.
Reports excluded from the analysis were those that focused on changes following hair removal with nonlaser devices such as intense pulsed light (IPL), those evaluating nonmelanocytic nevi such as Becker’s nevus or nevus of Ota, and those evaluating the intentional ablation or removal of melanocytic lesions.
The search yielded 10 relevant studies for systematic review: seven case reports or series and three observational trials, two of which were prospective and one retrospective.
The results of the review, according to Dr. Cices, revealed that clinical and dermoscopic changes were noted to present as early as 15 days after treatment and persist to the maximum follow up time, at 3 years. Commonly reported changes included regression, decreased size, laser-induced asymmetry, bleaching, darkening, and altered pattern on dermoscopy. Histologic changes included mild atypia, thermal damage, scar formation, and regression.
“Although some of the clinical and dermoscopic alterations may be concerning for malignancy, to our knowledge, there are no documented cases of malignant transformation of nevi following treatment with laser hair removal,” she wrote in the abstract.
Dr. Cices acknowledged certain limitations of the systematic review, including the low number of relevant reports and their generally small sample size, many of which were limited to single cases.
Omar A. Ibrahimi, MD, PhD, medical director of the Connecticut Skin Institute, Stamford, who was asked to comment on the review, characterized the findings as important because laser hair removal is such a commonly performed procedure.
While the study is limited by the small number of studies on the subject matter, “it brings up an important discussion,” Dr. Ibrahimi said in an interview. “Generally speaking, we know that most hair removal lasers do indeed target melanin pigment and can be absorbed by melanocytes. While the wavelengths used for LHR [laser hair removal] will not result in DNA damage or cause mutations that can lead to melanoma, they can sometimes alter the appearance of pigmented lesions and that may change the dermatologist’s ability to monitor them for atypia,” he noted.
“For that reason, I would recommend all patients see a dermatologist for evaluation of their nevi prior to any treatments and they consider very carefully where they get their laser treatments. If they have any atypical pigmented lesions, then that information should be disclosed with the person performing the laser hair removal procedure particularly if there are lesions that are being specifically monitored.”
Dr. Cices reported having no disclosures. Dr. Ibrahimi disclosed that he is a member of the advisory board for Accure Acne, AbbVie, Cutera, Lutronic, Blueberry Therapeutics, Cytrellis, and Quthero. He also holds stock in many device and pharmaceutical companies.
AT ASLMS 2023
FDA clears first patch to treat axillary hyperhidrosis
The Food and Drug Administration on April 13 cleared the first patch to reduce excessive underarm sweating for adults with primary axillary hyperhidrosis.
The single-use, disposable, prescription-only patch will be marketed as Brella. It consists of a sodium sheet with an adhesive overlay. A health care provider applies it to the patient’s underarm for up to 3 minutes and then repeats the process on the other underarm.
The developer, Candesant Biomedical, says the patch uses the company’s patented targeted alkali thermolysis (TAT) technology, which was built on the principle that heat is generated when sodium reacts with water in sweat. “The thermal energy created by the sodium sheet is precisely localized, microtargeting sweat glands to significantly reduce sweat production,” according to the company’s press release announcing the FDA decision.
FDA clearance was based on data from the pivotal randomized, double-blind, multicenter SAHARA study, which indicated that the product is effective and well tolerated.
Patients experienced a reduction in sweat that was maintained for 3 months or longer, according to trial results.
The SAHARA trial results were reported in a late-breaking abstract at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in March.
The trial enrolled 110 individuals with Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale (HDSS) scores of 3 or 4 (indicating frequent sweating or sweating that always interferes with daily activities). Trial participants were randomly assigned to receive either an active TAT or a sham patch, which was applied for up to 3 minutes.
At the meeting, lead investigator David M. Pariser, MD, a dermatologist practicing in Norfolk, Va., reported that at 4 weeks, 63.6% of patients in the active patch group achieved an HDSS score of 1 or 2, compared with 44.2% of those in the sham treatment group (P = .0332). Also, 43.2% of those in the active-patch group achieved an improvement of 2 points or greater on the HDSS, as compared with 16.3% of those in the sham treatment group (P = .0107) .
In addition, 9.1% of those in the active-patch group achieved a 3-point improvement on the HDSS, compared with none in the sham group. “That’s an amazing improvement; you’re basically going from moderate or severe to none,” Dr. Pariser said at the meeting.
As for adverse events (AEs), 13 patients in the active-patch group experienced AEs at the treatment site. Six patients experienced erythema; four experienced erosion; two experienced burning, itching, or stinging; and one had underarm odor.
“The two procedure-related AEs in the TAT-treated group were compensatory sweating and irritant contact dermatitis due to the adhesive,” Dr. Pariser said. He noted that most AEs resolved in fewer than 2 weeks, and all AEs were mild to moderate.
According to the International Hyperhidrosis Society, about 1.3 million people in the United States have axillary hyperhidrosis, and about a third report that sweating is barely tolerable and frequently interferes with daily activities or is intolerable and always interferes with daily activities.
The patch will be available within months in select U.S. markets beginning in late summer. The company says the markets will be listed on its website.
A company representative told this news organization that because it is an in-office procedure, pricing will vary, depending on the practice. “With that said, Candesant expects doctors will charge about the same for one session of the Brella SweatControl Patch as they would for a high-end, in-office facial or chemical peel,” the representative said.
Dr. Pariser is a consultant or investigator for Bickel Biotechnology, Biofrontera AG, Bristol-Myers Squibb, the Celgene Corporation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration on April 13 cleared the first patch to reduce excessive underarm sweating for adults with primary axillary hyperhidrosis.
The single-use, disposable, prescription-only patch will be marketed as Brella. It consists of a sodium sheet with an adhesive overlay. A health care provider applies it to the patient’s underarm for up to 3 minutes and then repeats the process on the other underarm.
The developer, Candesant Biomedical, says the patch uses the company’s patented targeted alkali thermolysis (TAT) technology, which was built on the principle that heat is generated when sodium reacts with water in sweat. “The thermal energy created by the sodium sheet is precisely localized, microtargeting sweat glands to significantly reduce sweat production,” according to the company’s press release announcing the FDA decision.
FDA clearance was based on data from the pivotal randomized, double-blind, multicenter SAHARA study, which indicated that the product is effective and well tolerated.
Patients experienced a reduction in sweat that was maintained for 3 months or longer, according to trial results.
The SAHARA trial results were reported in a late-breaking abstract at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in March.
The trial enrolled 110 individuals with Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale (HDSS) scores of 3 or 4 (indicating frequent sweating or sweating that always interferes with daily activities). Trial participants were randomly assigned to receive either an active TAT or a sham patch, which was applied for up to 3 minutes.
At the meeting, lead investigator David M. Pariser, MD, a dermatologist practicing in Norfolk, Va., reported that at 4 weeks, 63.6% of patients in the active patch group achieved an HDSS score of 1 or 2, compared with 44.2% of those in the sham treatment group (P = .0332). Also, 43.2% of those in the active-patch group achieved an improvement of 2 points or greater on the HDSS, as compared with 16.3% of those in the sham treatment group (P = .0107) .
In addition, 9.1% of those in the active-patch group achieved a 3-point improvement on the HDSS, compared with none in the sham group. “That’s an amazing improvement; you’re basically going from moderate or severe to none,” Dr. Pariser said at the meeting.
As for adverse events (AEs), 13 patients in the active-patch group experienced AEs at the treatment site. Six patients experienced erythema; four experienced erosion; two experienced burning, itching, or stinging; and one had underarm odor.
“The two procedure-related AEs in the TAT-treated group were compensatory sweating and irritant contact dermatitis due to the adhesive,” Dr. Pariser said. He noted that most AEs resolved in fewer than 2 weeks, and all AEs were mild to moderate.
According to the International Hyperhidrosis Society, about 1.3 million people in the United States have axillary hyperhidrosis, and about a third report that sweating is barely tolerable and frequently interferes with daily activities or is intolerable and always interferes with daily activities.
The patch will be available within months in select U.S. markets beginning in late summer. The company says the markets will be listed on its website.
A company representative told this news organization that because it is an in-office procedure, pricing will vary, depending on the practice. “With that said, Candesant expects doctors will charge about the same for one session of the Brella SweatControl Patch as they would for a high-end, in-office facial or chemical peel,” the representative said.
Dr. Pariser is a consultant or investigator for Bickel Biotechnology, Biofrontera AG, Bristol-Myers Squibb, the Celgene Corporation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
The Food and Drug Administration on April 13 cleared the first patch to reduce excessive underarm sweating for adults with primary axillary hyperhidrosis.
The single-use, disposable, prescription-only patch will be marketed as Brella. It consists of a sodium sheet with an adhesive overlay. A health care provider applies it to the patient’s underarm for up to 3 minutes and then repeats the process on the other underarm.
The developer, Candesant Biomedical, says the patch uses the company’s patented targeted alkali thermolysis (TAT) technology, which was built on the principle that heat is generated when sodium reacts with water in sweat. “The thermal energy created by the sodium sheet is precisely localized, microtargeting sweat glands to significantly reduce sweat production,” according to the company’s press release announcing the FDA decision.
FDA clearance was based on data from the pivotal randomized, double-blind, multicenter SAHARA study, which indicated that the product is effective and well tolerated.
Patients experienced a reduction in sweat that was maintained for 3 months or longer, according to trial results.
The SAHARA trial results were reported in a late-breaking abstract at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology in March.
The trial enrolled 110 individuals with Hyperhidrosis Disease Severity Scale (HDSS) scores of 3 or 4 (indicating frequent sweating or sweating that always interferes with daily activities). Trial participants were randomly assigned to receive either an active TAT or a sham patch, which was applied for up to 3 minutes.
At the meeting, lead investigator David M. Pariser, MD, a dermatologist practicing in Norfolk, Va., reported that at 4 weeks, 63.6% of patients in the active patch group achieved an HDSS score of 1 or 2, compared with 44.2% of those in the sham treatment group (P = .0332). Also, 43.2% of those in the active-patch group achieved an improvement of 2 points or greater on the HDSS, as compared with 16.3% of those in the sham treatment group (P = .0107) .
In addition, 9.1% of those in the active-patch group achieved a 3-point improvement on the HDSS, compared with none in the sham group. “That’s an amazing improvement; you’re basically going from moderate or severe to none,” Dr. Pariser said at the meeting.
As for adverse events (AEs), 13 patients in the active-patch group experienced AEs at the treatment site. Six patients experienced erythema; four experienced erosion; two experienced burning, itching, or stinging; and one had underarm odor.
“The two procedure-related AEs in the TAT-treated group were compensatory sweating and irritant contact dermatitis due to the adhesive,” Dr. Pariser said. He noted that most AEs resolved in fewer than 2 weeks, and all AEs were mild to moderate.
According to the International Hyperhidrosis Society, about 1.3 million people in the United States have axillary hyperhidrosis, and about a third report that sweating is barely tolerable and frequently interferes with daily activities or is intolerable and always interferes with daily activities.
The patch will be available within months in select U.S. markets beginning in late summer. The company says the markets will be listed on its website.
A company representative told this news organization that because it is an in-office procedure, pricing will vary, depending on the practice. “With that said, Candesant expects doctors will charge about the same for one session of the Brella SweatControl Patch as they would for a high-end, in-office facial or chemical peel,” the representative said.
Dr. Pariser is a consultant or investigator for Bickel Biotechnology, Biofrontera AG, Bristol-Myers Squibb, the Celgene Corporation, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Treatment of craniofacial hyperhidrosis
Hyperhidrosis has a significant impact on a person’s physical, psychological, and social aspects of life. The lack of treatment options and associated stigma limits access to care and treatment options.
Primary hyperhidrosis does not have an underlying cause; is symmetrical; can worsen with anxiety, fear, or stress; and may have a familial component. Palmar and axillary hyperhidrosis are the most common types of hyperhidrosis. The incidence of craniofacial hyperhidrosis has not been clearly defined but it is most commonly reported on the forehead, where the concentration of eccrine sweat glands is highest.
Treatment options for craniofacial hyperhidrosis include topical aluminum chloride, which blocks the eccrine sweat duct or causes eccrine cell atrophy. Although this option is a common treatment for palmar and axillary hyperhidrosis, use on the face has not been thoroughly studied, and may also cause skin irritation.
Topical and oral glycopyrrolate can be effective for all types of hyperhidrosis, but must be used daily and can have systemic side effects, with variable efficacy and longevity. Oral oxybutynin, beta-blockers, clonidine, and benzodiazepines have also been used with some limited studies available in patients with generalized hyperhidrosis.
Surgical treatments such as videothoracoscopy sympathectomy can be used in severe or recalcitrant cases of hyperhidrosis with good efficacy. However, surgical complications and inherent surgical risks limit these treatment options unless other modalities are exhausted.
OnabotulinumtoxinA is Food and Drug Administration approved for treating severe primary axillary hyperhidrosis, but is used off label for palmar, plantar, and craniofacial hyperhidrosis with great results and few side effects. Clinical pearls and guidelines for the use of botulinum toxin A in craniofacial hyperhidrosis were outlined by Wolosker and colleagues in a review article. As with any injection of neurotoxin, knowledge of the facial anatomy is critical to avoiding muscle paralysis.
double diluted. Treatment effects usually last 3 months, similar to cosmetic uses. Wolosker uses a dilution of 100 U botulinum toxin in 1.0 mL saline, which I find slightly more difficult to control and more likely to have loss of toxin.
In my experience, I have found the following dosing to be most effective with the least side effects for the following (dosages vary and can be titrated up to response):
- Upper lip: 6-10 U.
- Chin: 6-10 U.
- Forehead: 15-30 U. (Avoid 1 cm above the brow unless risks of brow drop are reviewed and acceptable to the patient. In my experience patients would rather have a lower brow than obstructive sweating in their brow that can irritate the eyes, blur vision, and smudge skincare and makeup.)
- Nose: 10 U
- Cheeks: 10 U per side (staying very superficial with injections).
- Scalp: 30-50 U (using serial injections 1-2 cm apart in the area affected by hyperhidrosis).
Side effects include temporary erythema, bruising, and edema, as well as muscle paralysis and asymmetry if proper injection technique is not used, the dose is not diluted properly, or the injection is too deep.
There are scattered case studies of symbiotic techniques to help the penetration of botulinum toxin when treating craniofacial hyperhidrosis, including microneedling, radiofrequency, long-pulsed diode laser, and ultrasound. But the safety and efficacy of these procedures have not been properly evaluated.
In all of my patients with craniofacial hyperhidrosis treated with botulinum toxin, quality of life is significantly improved with almost no complications. Botulinum toxin is a safe, relatively quick in-office procedure to treat craniofacial hyperhidrosis that can be used to help patients – particularly those who experience anxiety or have social and occupational impairment related to their disease.
This procedure is cosmetic in nature, and therefore, not covered by insurance.
Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com. She had no relevant disclosures.
References
Parashar K et al. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 Mar;24(2):187-98.
Doolittle J et al. Arch Dermatol Res. 2016 Dec;308(10):743-9.
Wolosker N et al. J Vasc Bras. 2020 Nov 16;19:e20190152.
Garcia-Souto F et al. Dermatol Ther. 2021 Jan;34(1):e14658.
Ebrahim H et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2022 Sep;15(9):40-4.
Campanati A et al. Toxins (Basel). 2022 May 27;14(6):3727.
Hyperhidrosis has a significant impact on a person’s physical, psychological, and social aspects of life. The lack of treatment options and associated stigma limits access to care and treatment options.
Primary hyperhidrosis does not have an underlying cause; is symmetrical; can worsen with anxiety, fear, or stress; and may have a familial component. Palmar and axillary hyperhidrosis are the most common types of hyperhidrosis. The incidence of craniofacial hyperhidrosis has not been clearly defined but it is most commonly reported on the forehead, where the concentration of eccrine sweat glands is highest.
Treatment options for craniofacial hyperhidrosis include topical aluminum chloride, which blocks the eccrine sweat duct or causes eccrine cell atrophy. Although this option is a common treatment for palmar and axillary hyperhidrosis, use on the face has not been thoroughly studied, and may also cause skin irritation.
Topical and oral glycopyrrolate can be effective for all types of hyperhidrosis, but must be used daily and can have systemic side effects, with variable efficacy and longevity. Oral oxybutynin, beta-blockers, clonidine, and benzodiazepines have also been used with some limited studies available in patients with generalized hyperhidrosis.
Surgical treatments such as videothoracoscopy sympathectomy can be used in severe or recalcitrant cases of hyperhidrosis with good efficacy. However, surgical complications and inherent surgical risks limit these treatment options unless other modalities are exhausted.
OnabotulinumtoxinA is Food and Drug Administration approved for treating severe primary axillary hyperhidrosis, but is used off label for palmar, plantar, and craniofacial hyperhidrosis with great results and few side effects. Clinical pearls and guidelines for the use of botulinum toxin A in craniofacial hyperhidrosis were outlined by Wolosker and colleagues in a review article. As with any injection of neurotoxin, knowledge of the facial anatomy is critical to avoiding muscle paralysis.
double diluted. Treatment effects usually last 3 months, similar to cosmetic uses. Wolosker uses a dilution of 100 U botulinum toxin in 1.0 mL saline, which I find slightly more difficult to control and more likely to have loss of toxin.
In my experience, I have found the following dosing to be most effective with the least side effects for the following (dosages vary and can be titrated up to response):
- Upper lip: 6-10 U.
- Chin: 6-10 U.
- Forehead: 15-30 U. (Avoid 1 cm above the brow unless risks of brow drop are reviewed and acceptable to the patient. In my experience patients would rather have a lower brow than obstructive sweating in their brow that can irritate the eyes, blur vision, and smudge skincare and makeup.)
- Nose: 10 U
- Cheeks: 10 U per side (staying very superficial with injections).
- Scalp: 30-50 U (using serial injections 1-2 cm apart in the area affected by hyperhidrosis).
Side effects include temporary erythema, bruising, and edema, as well as muscle paralysis and asymmetry if proper injection technique is not used, the dose is not diluted properly, or the injection is too deep.
There are scattered case studies of symbiotic techniques to help the penetration of botulinum toxin when treating craniofacial hyperhidrosis, including microneedling, radiofrequency, long-pulsed diode laser, and ultrasound. But the safety and efficacy of these procedures have not been properly evaluated.
In all of my patients with craniofacial hyperhidrosis treated with botulinum toxin, quality of life is significantly improved with almost no complications. Botulinum toxin is a safe, relatively quick in-office procedure to treat craniofacial hyperhidrosis that can be used to help patients – particularly those who experience anxiety or have social and occupational impairment related to their disease.
This procedure is cosmetic in nature, and therefore, not covered by insurance.
Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com. She had no relevant disclosures.
References
Parashar K et al. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 Mar;24(2):187-98.
Doolittle J et al. Arch Dermatol Res. 2016 Dec;308(10):743-9.
Wolosker N et al. J Vasc Bras. 2020 Nov 16;19:e20190152.
Garcia-Souto F et al. Dermatol Ther. 2021 Jan;34(1):e14658.
Ebrahim H et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2022 Sep;15(9):40-4.
Campanati A et al. Toxins (Basel). 2022 May 27;14(6):3727.
Hyperhidrosis has a significant impact on a person’s physical, psychological, and social aspects of life. The lack of treatment options and associated stigma limits access to care and treatment options.
Primary hyperhidrosis does not have an underlying cause; is symmetrical; can worsen with anxiety, fear, or stress; and may have a familial component. Palmar and axillary hyperhidrosis are the most common types of hyperhidrosis. The incidence of craniofacial hyperhidrosis has not been clearly defined but it is most commonly reported on the forehead, where the concentration of eccrine sweat glands is highest.
Treatment options for craniofacial hyperhidrosis include topical aluminum chloride, which blocks the eccrine sweat duct or causes eccrine cell atrophy. Although this option is a common treatment for palmar and axillary hyperhidrosis, use on the face has not been thoroughly studied, and may also cause skin irritation.
Topical and oral glycopyrrolate can be effective for all types of hyperhidrosis, but must be used daily and can have systemic side effects, with variable efficacy and longevity. Oral oxybutynin, beta-blockers, clonidine, and benzodiazepines have also been used with some limited studies available in patients with generalized hyperhidrosis.
Surgical treatments such as videothoracoscopy sympathectomy can be used in severe or recalcitrant cases of hyperhidrosis with good efficacy. However, surgical complications and inherent surgical risks limit these treatment options unless other modalities are exhausted.
OnabotulinumtoxinA is Food and Drug Administration approved for treating severe primary axillary hyperhidrosis, but is used off label for palmar, plantar, and craniofacial hyperhidrosis with great results and few side effects. Clinical pearls and guidelines for the use of botulinum toxin A in craniofacial hyperhidrosis were outlined by Wolosker and colleagues in a review article. As with any injection of neurotoxin, knowledge of the facial anatomy is critical to avoiding muscle paralysis.
double diluted. Treatment effects usually last 3 months, similar to cosmetic uses. Wolosker uses a dilution of 100 U botulinum toxin in 1.0 mL saline, which I find slightly more difficult to control and more likely to have loss of toxin.
In my experience, I have found the following dosing to be most effective with the least side effects for the following (dosages vary and can be titrated up to response):
- Upper lip: 6-10 U.
- Chin: 6-10 U.
- Forehead: 15-30 U. (Avoid 1 cm above the brow unless risks of brow drop are reviewed and acceptable to the patient. In my experience patients would rather have a lower brow than obstructive sweating in their brow that can irritate the eyes, blur vision, and smudge skincare and makeup.)
- Nose: 10 U
- Cheeks: 10 U per side (staying very superficial with injections).
- Scalp: 30-50 U (using serial injections 1-2 cm apart in the area affected by hyperhidrosis).
Side effects include temporary erythema, bruising, and edema, as well as muscle paralysis and asymmetry if proper injection technique is not used, the dose is not diluted properly, or the injection is too deep.
There are scattered case studies of symbiotic techniques to help the penetration of botulinum toxin when treating craniofacial hyperhidrosis, including microneedling, radiofrequency, long-pulsed diode laser, and ultrasound. But the safety and efficacy of these procedures have not been properly evaluated.
In all of my patients with craniofacial hyperhidrosis treated with botulinum toxin, quality of life is significantly improved with almost no complications. Botulinum toxin is a safe, relatively quick in-office procedure to treat craniofacial hyperhidrosis that can be used to help patients – particularly those who experience anxiety or have social and occupational impairment related to their disease.
This procedure is cosmetic in nature, and therefore, not covered by insurance.
Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com. She had no relevant disclosures.
References
Parashar K et al. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2023 Mar;24(2):187-98.
Doolittle J et al. Arch Dermatol Res. 2016 Dec;308(10):743-9.
Wolosker N et al. J Vasc Bras. 2020 Nov 16;19:e20190152.
Garcia-Souto F et al. Dermatol Ther. 2021 Jan;34(1):e14658.
Ebrahim H et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2022 Sep;15(9):40-4.
Campanati A et al. Toxins (Basel). 2022 May 27;14(6):3727.
Racial morphing: A conundrum in cosmetic dermatology
HONOLULU – In the opinion of Nazanin A. Saedi, MD, social media-induced dissatisfaction with appearance is getting out of hand in the field of cosmetic dermatology, with the emergence of apps to filter and edit images to the patient’s liking.
This, coupled with
“Overexposure of celebrity images and altered faces on social media have led to a trend of overarching brows, sculpted noses, enlarged cheeks, and sharply defined jawlines,” Dr. Saedi, cochair of the laser and aesthetics surgery center at Dermatology Associates of Plymouth Meeting, Pa., said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! “These trends have made people of different ethnicities morph into a similar appearance.”
At the meeting, she showed early career images of celebrities from different ethnic backgrounds, “and they all have unique features that make them look great,” said Dr. Saedi, clinical associate professor of dermatology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. She then showed images of the same celebrities after they had undergone cosmetic procedures, “and they look so much more similar,” with overarched brows, sculpted noses, enlarged cheeks, and sharply defined jawlines. “Whereas they were all beautiful before individually, now they look very similar,” she said. “This is what we see on social media.”
Referring to the Kardashians as an example of celebrities who have had a lot of aesthetic treatments, look different than they did years ago, and are seen “more and more,” she added, “it’s this repeated overexposure to people on social media, to celebrities, that’s created this different trend of attractiveness.”
This trend also affects patients seeking cosmetic treatments, she noted. Individuals can use an app to alter their appearance, “changing the way they look to create the best version of themselves, they might say, or a filtered version of themselves,” said Dr. Saedi, one of the authors of a commentary on patient perception of beauty on social media published several years ago.
“I tell people, ‘Don’t use filters in your photos. Embrace your beauty.’ I have patients coming in who want to look like the social media photos they’ve curated, maybe larger lips or more definition in their jawline. What they don’t understand is that it takes a long time for that to happen. It’s a process.” In other cases, their desired outcome is not possible due to limits of their individual facial anatomy.
In a study published almost 20 years ago in the journal Perception, Irish researchers manipulated the familiarity of typical and distinctive faces to measure the effect on attractiveness. They found that episodic familiarity affects attractiveness ratings independently of general or structural familiarity.
“So, the more you saw a face, the more familiar that face was to you,” said Dr. Saedi, who was not involved with the study. “Over time, you felt that to be more attractive. I think that’s a lot of what’s going on in the trends that we’re seeing – both in real life and on social media. I do think we need to be more mindful of maintaining features that make an individual unique, while also maintaining their ethnic beauty.”
In an interview at the meeting, Jacqueline D. Watchmaker, MD, a board-certified cosmetic and medical dermatologist who practices in Scottsdale, Ariz., said that she identifies with the notion of racial morphing in her own clinical experience. “Patients come in and specifically ask for chiseled jawlines, high cheekbones, and bigger lips,” Dr. Watchmaker said. “It’s a tricky situation when they ask for [a treatment] you don’t think they need. I prefer a more staged approach to maintain their individuality while giving them a little bit of the aesthetic benefit that they’re looking for.”
Dr. Saedi disclosed ties with AbbVie, Aerolase, Allergan, Alma, Cartessa, Cynosure, Galderma Laboratories, LP, Grand Cosmetics, Revelle Aesthetics, and Revision Skincare. Dr. Watchmaker reported having no financial disclosures.
Medscape and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
HONOLULU – In the opinion of Nazanin A. Saedi, MD, social media-induced dissatisfaction with appearance is getting out of hand in the field of cosmetic dermatology, with the emergence of apps to filter and edit images to the patient’s liking.
This, coupled with
“Overexposure of celebrity images and altered faces on social media have led to a trend of overarching brows, sculpted noses, enlarged cheeks, and sharply defined jawlines,” Dr. Saedi, cochair of the laser and aesthetics surgery center at Dermatology Associates of Plymouth Meeting, Pa., said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! “These trends have made people of different ethnicities morph into a similar appearance.”
At the meeting, she showed early career images of celebrities from different ethnic backgrounds, “and they all have unique features that make them look great,” said Dr. Saedi, clinical associate professor of dermatology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. She then showed images of the same celebrities after they had undergone cosmetic procedures, “and they look so much more similar,” with overarched brows, sculpted noses, enlarged cheeks, and sharply defined jawlines. “Whereas they were all beautiful before individually, now they look very similar,” she said. “This is what we see on social media.”
Referring to the Kardashians as an example of celebrities who have had a lot of aesthetic treatments, look different than they did years ago, and are seen “more and more,” she added, “it’s this repeated overexposure to people on social media, to celebrities, that’s created this different trend of attractiveness.”
This trend also affects patients seeking cosmetic treatments, she noted. Individuals can use an app to alter their appearance, “changing the way they look to create the best version of themselves, they might say, or a filtered version of themselves,” said Dr. Saedi, one of the authors of a commentary on patient perception of beauty on social media published several years ago.
“I tell people, ‘Don’t use filters in your photos. Embrace your beauty.’ I have patients coming in who want to look like the social media photos they’ve curated, maybe larger lips or more definition in their jawline. What they don’t understand is that it takes a long time for that to happen. It’s a process.” In other cases, their desired outcome is not possible due to limits of their individual facial anatomy.
In a study published almost 20 years ago in the journal Perception, Irish researchers manipulated the familiarity of typical and distinctive faces to measure the effect on attractiveness. They found that episodic familiarity affects attractiveness ratings independently of general or structural familiarity.
“So, the more you saw a face, the more familiar that face was to you,” said Dr. Saedi, who was not involved with the study. “Over time, you felt that to be more attractive. I think that’s a lot of what’s going on in the trends that we’re seeing – both in real life and on social media. I do think we need to be more mindful of maintaining features that make an individual unique, while also maintaining their ethnic beauty.”
In an interview at the meeting, Jacqueline D. Watchmaker, MD, a board-certified cosmetic and medical dermatologist who practices in Scottsdale, Ariz., said that she identifies with the notion of racial morphing in her own clinical experience. “Patients come in and specifically ask for chiseled jawlines, high cheekbones, and bigger lips,” Dr. Watchmaker said. “It’s a tricky situation when they ask for [a treatment] you don’t think they need. I prefer a more staged approach to maintain their individuality while giving them a little bit of the aesthetic benefit that they’re looking for.”
Dr. Saedi disclosed ties with AbbVie, Aerolase, Allergan, Alma, Cartessa, Cynosure, Galderma Laboratories, LP, Grand Cosmetics, Revelle Aesthetics, and Revision Skincare. Dr. Watchmaker reported having no financial disclosures.
Medscape and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
HONOLULU – In the opinion of Nazanin A. Saedi, MD, social media-induced dissatisfaction with appearance is getting out of hand in the field of cosmetic dermatology, with the emergence of apps to filter and edit images to the patient’s liking.
This, coupled with
“Overexposure of celebrity images and altered faces on social media have led to a trend of overarching brows, sculpted noses, enlarged cheeks, and sharply defined jawlines,” Dr. Saedi, cochair of the laser and aesthetics surgery center at Dermatology Associates of Plymouth Meeting, Pa., said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by MedscapeLIVE! “These trends have made people of different ethnicities morph into a similar appearance.”
At the meeting, she showed early career images of celebrities from different ethnic backgrounds, “and they all have unique features that make them look great,” said Dr. Saedi, clinical associate professor of dermatology at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia. She then showed images of the same celebrities after they had undergone cosmetic procedures, “and they look so much more similar,” with overarched brows, sculpted noses, enlarged cheeks, and sharply defined jawlines. “Whereas they were all beautiful before individually, now they look very similar,” she said. “This is what we see on social media.”
Referring to the Kardashians as an example of celebrities who have had a lot of aesthetic treatments, look different than they did years ago, and are seen “more and more,” she added, “it’s this repeated overexposure to people on social media, to celebrities, that’s created this different trend of attractiveness.”
This trend also affects patients seeking cosmetic treatments, she noted. Individuals can use an app to alter their appearance, “changing the way they look to create the best version of themselves, they might say, or a filtered version of themselves,” said Dr. Saedi, one of the authors of a commentary on patient perception of beauty on social media published several years ago.
“I tell people, ‘Don’t use filters in your photos. Embrace your beauty.’ I have patients coming in who want to look like the social media photos they’ve curated, maybe larger lips or more definition in their jawline. What they don’t understand is that it takes a long time for that to happen. It’s a process.” In other cases, their desired outcome is not possible due to limits of their individual facial anatomy.
In a study published almost 20 years ago in the journal Perception, Irish researchers manipulated the familiarity of typical and distinctive faces to measure the effect on attractiveness. They found that episodic familiarity affects attractiveness ratings independently of general or structural familiarity.
“So, the more you saw a face, the more familiar that face was to you,” said Dr. Saedi, who was not involved with the study. “Over time, you felt that to be more attractive. I think that’s a lot of what’s going on in the trends that we’re seeing – both in real life and on social media. I do think we need to be more mindful of maintaining features that make an individual unique, while also maintaining their ethnic beauty.”
In an interview at the meeting, Jacqueline D. Watchmaker, MD, a board-certified cosmetic and medical dermatologist who practices in Scottsdale, Ariz., said that she identifies with the notion of racial morphing in her own clinical experience. “Patients come in and specifically ask for chiseled jawlines, high cheekbones, and bigger lips,” Dr. Watchmaker said. “It’s a tricky situation when they ask for [a treatment] you don’t think they need. I prefer a more staged approach to maintain their individuality while giving them a little bit of the aesthetic benefit that they’re looking for.”
Dr. Saedi disclosed ties with AbbVie, Aerolase, Allergan, Alma, Cartessa, Cynosure, Galderma Laboratories, LP, Grand Cosmetics, Revelle Aesthetics, and Revision Skincare. Dr. Watchmaker reported having no financial disclosures.
Medscape and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
AT THE MEDSCAPELIVE! HAWAII DERMATOLOGY SEMINAR
Characterization of Blood-borne Pathogen Exposures During Dermatologic Procedures: The Mayo Clinic Experience
Dermatology providers are at an increased risk for blood-borne pathogen (BBP) exposures during procedures in clinical practice.1-3 Current data regarding the characterization of these exposures are limited. Prior studies are based on surveys that result in low response rates and potential for selection bias. Donnelly et al1 reported a 26% response rate in a national survey-based study evaluating BBP exposures in resident physicians, fellows, and practicing dermatologists, with 85% of respondents reporting at least 1 injury. Similarly, Goulart et al2 reported a 35% response rate in a survey evaluating sharps injuries in residents and medical students, with 85% reporting a sharps injury. In addition, there are conflicting data regarding characteristics of these exposures, including common implicated instruments and procedures.1-3 Prior studies also have not evaluated exposures in all members of dermatologic staff, including resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff.
To make appropriate quality improvements in dermatologic procedures, a more comprehensive understanding of BBP exposures is needed. We conducted a retrospective review of BBP incidence reports to identify the incidence of BBP events among all dermatologic staff, including resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff. We further investigated the type of exposure, the type of procedure associated with each exposure, anatomic locations of exposures, and instruments involved in each exposure.
Methods
Data on BBP exposures in the dermatology departments were obtained from the occupational health departments at each of 3 Mayo Clinic sites—Scottsdale, Arizona; Jacksonville, Florida; and Rochester, Minnesota—from March 2010 through January 2021. The institutional review board at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, granted approval of this study (IRB #20-012625). A retrospective review of each exposure was conducted to identify the incidence of BBP exposures. Occupational BBP exposure was defined as
Statistical Analysis—Variables were summarized using counts and percentages. The 3 most common categories for each variable were then compared among occupational groups using the Fisher exact test. All other categories were grouped for analysis purposes. Medical staff were categorized into 3 occupational groups: practicing dermatologists; resident physicians; and ancillary staff, including nurse/medical assistants, physician assistants, and clinical laboratory technologists. All analyses were 2 sided and considered statistically significant at P<.05. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).
Results
Type of Exposure—A total of 222 BBP exposures were identified through the trisite retrospective review from March 2010 through January 2021. One hundred ninety-nine (89.6%) of 222 exposures were attributed to needlesticks and medical sharps, while 23 (10.4%) of 222 exposures were attributed to splash incidents (Table).
Anatomic Sites Affected—The anatomic location most frequently involved was the thumb (130/217 events [59.9%]), followed by the hand (39/217 events [18.0%]) and finger (22/217 events [10.1%]). The arm, face, and knee were affected with the lowest frequency, with only 1 event reported at each anatomic site (0.5%)(eTable). Five incidents were excluded from the analysis of anatomic location because of insufficient details of events.
Incident Tasks and Tools—Most BBP exposures occurred during suturing or assisting with suturing (64/210 events [30.5%]), followed by handling of sharps, wires, or instruments (40/210 events [19.0%]) and medication administration (37/210 events [17.6%])(eTable). Twelve incidents were excluded from the analysis of implicated tasks because of insufficient details of events.
The tools involved in exposure events with the greatest prevalence included the suture needle (76/201 events [37.8%]), injection syringe/needle (43/201 events [21.4%]), and shave biopsy razor (24/201 events [11.9%])(eTable). Twenty-one incidents were excluded from the analysis of implicated instruments because of insufficient details of events.
Providers Affected by BBP Exposures—Resident physicians experienced the greatest number of BBP exposures (105/222 events [47.3%]), followed by ancillary providers (84/222 events [37.8%]) and practicing dermatologists (33/222 events [14.9%]). All occupational groups experienced more BBP exposures through needlesticks/medical sharps compared with splash incidents (resident physicians, 88.6%; ancillary staff, 91.7%; practicing dermatologists, 87.9%; P=.725)(Table).
Among resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff, the most frequent site of injury was the thumb. Suturing/assisting with suturing was the most common task leading to injury, and the suture needle was the most common instrument of injury for both resident physicians and practicing dermatologists. Handling of sharps, wires, or instruments was the most common task leading to injury for ancillary staff, and the injection syringe/needle was the most common instrument of injury in this cohort.
Resident physicians experienced the lowest rate of BBP exposures during administration of medications (12.7%; P=.003). Ancillary staff experienced the highest rate of BBP exposures with an injection needle (35.5%; P=.001). There were no statistically significant differences among occupational groups for the anatomic location of injury (P=.074)(eTable).
Comment
In the year 2000, the annual global incidence of occupational BBP exposures among health care workers worldwide for hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and HIV was estimated at 2.1 million, 926,000, and 327,000, respectively. Most of these exposures were due to sharps injuries.4 Dermatologists are particularly at risk for BBP exposures given their reliance on frequent procedures in practice. During an 11-year period, 222 BBP exposures were documented in the dermatology departments at 3 Mayo Clinic institutions. Most exposures were due to needlestick/sharps across all occupational groups compared with splash injuries. Prior survey studies confirm that sharps injuries are frequently implicated, with 75% to 94% of residents and practicing dermatologists reporting at least 1 sharps injury.1
Among occupational groups, resident physicians had the highest rate of BBP exposures, followed by nurse/medical assistants and practicing dermatologists, which may be secondary to lack of training or experience. Data from other surgical fields, including general surgery, support that resident physicians have the highest rate of sharps injuries.5 In a survey study (N=452), 51% of residents reported that extra training in safe techniques would be beneficial.2 Safety training may be beneficial in reducing the incidence of BBP exposures in residency programs.
The most common implicated task in resident physicians and practicing dermatologists was suturing or assisting with suturing, and the most common implicated instrument was the suture needle. Prior studies showed conflicting data regarding common implicated tasks and instruments in this cohort.1,2 The task of suturing and the suture needle also were the most implicated means of injury among other surgical specialties.6 Ancillary staff experienced most BBP exposures during handling of sharps, wires, or instruments, as well as the use of an injection needle. The designation of tasks among dermatologic staff likely explains the difference among occupational groups. This new information may provide the opportunity to improve safety measures among all members of the dermatologic team.
Limitations—There are several limitations to this study. This retrospective review was conducted at a single health system at 3 institutions. Hence, similar safety protocols likely were in place across all sites, which may reduce the generalizability of the results. In addition, there is risk of nonreporting bias among staff, as only documented incidence reports were evaluated. Prior studies demonstrated a nonreporting prevalence of 33% to 64% among dermatology staff.1-3 We also did not evaluate whether injuries resulted in BBP exposure or transmission. The rates of postexposure prophylaxis also were not studied. This information was not available for review because of concerns for privacy. Demographic features, such as gender or years of training, also were not evaluated.
Conclusion
This study provides additional insight on the incidence of BBP exposures in dermatology, as well as the implicated tasks, instruments, and anatomic locations of injury. Studies show that implementing formal education regarding the risks of BBP exposure may result in reduction of sharps injuries.7 Formal education in residency programs may be needed in the field of dermatology to reduce BBP exposures. Quality improvement measures should focus on identified risk factors among occupational groups to reduce BBP exposures in the workplace.
- Donnelly AF, Chang Y-HH, Nemeth-Ochoa SA. Sharps injuries and reporting practices of U.S. dermatologists [published online November 14, 2013]. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39:1813-1821.
- Goulart J, Oliveria S, Levitt J. Safety during dermatologic procedures and surgeries: a survey of resident injuries and prevention strategies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;65:648-650.
- Ken K, Golda N. Contaminated sharps injuries: a survey among dermatology residents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:1786-1788.
- Pruss-Ustun A, Rapiti E, Hutin Y. Estimation of global burden of disease attributable to contaminated sharps injuries among health-care workers. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48:482-490.
- Choi L, Torres R, Syed S, et al. Sharps and needlestick injuries among medical students, surgical residents, faculty, and operating room staff at a single academic institution. J Surg Educ. 2017;74:131-136.
- Bakaeen F, Awad S, Albo D, et al. Epidemiology of exposure to blood borne pathogens on a surgical service. Am J Surg. 2006;192:E18-E21.
- Li WJ, Zhang M, Shi CL, et al. Study on intervention of bloodborne pathogen exposure in a general hospital [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 2017;35:34-41.
Dermatology providers are at an increased risk for blood-borne pathogen (BBP) exposures during procedures in clinical practice.1-3 Current data regarding the characterization of these exposures are limited. Prior studies are based on surveys that result in low response rates and potential for selection bias. Donnelly et al1 reported a 26% response rate in a national survey-based study evaluating BBP exposures in resident physicians, fellows, and practicing dermatologists, with 85% of respondents reporting at least 1 injury. Similarly, Goulart et al2 reported a 35% response rate in a survey evaluating sharps injuries in residents and medical students, with 85% reporting a sharps injury. In addition, there are conflicting data regarding characteristics of these exposures, including common implicated instruments and procedures.1-3 Prior studies also have not evaluated exposures in all members of dermatologic staff, including resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff.
To make appropriate quality improvements in dermatologic procedures, a more comprehensive understanding of BBP exposures is needed. We conducted a retrospective review of BBP incidence reports to identify the incidence of BBP events among all dermatologic staff, including resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff. We further investigated the type of exposure, the type of procedure associated with each exposure, anatomic locations of exposures, and instruments involved in each exposure.
Methods
Data on BBP exposures in the dermatology departments were obtained from the occupational health departments at each of 3 Mayo Clinic sites—Scottsdale, Arizona; Jacksonville, Florida; and Rochester, Minnesota—from March 2010 through January 2021. The institutional review board at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, granted approval of this study (IRB #20-012625). A retrospective review of each exposure was conducted to identify the incidence of BBP exposures. Occupational BBP exposure was defined as
Statistical Analysis—Variables were summarized using counts and percentages. The 3 most common categories for each variable were then compared among occupational groups using the Fisher exact test. All other categories were grouped for analysis purposes. Medical staff were categorized into 3 occupational groups: practicing dermatologists; resident physicians; and ancillary staff, including nurse/medical assistants, physician assistants, and clinical laboratory technologists. All analyses were 2 sided and considered statistically significant at P<.05. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).
Results
Type of Exposure—A total of 222 BBP exposures were identified through the trisite retrospective review from March 2010 through January 2021. One hundred ninety-nine (89.6%) of 222 exposures were attributed to needlesticks and medical sharps, while 23 (10.4%) of 222 exposures were attributed to splash incidents (Table).
Anatomic Sites Affected—The anatomic location most frequently involved was the thumb (130/217 events [59.9%]), followed by the hand (39/217 events [18.0%]) and finger (22/217 events [10.1%]). The arm, face, and knee were affected with the lowest frequency, with only 1 event reported at each anatomic site (0.5%)(eTable). Five incidents were excluded from the analysis of anatomic location because of insufficient details of events.
Incident Tasks and Tools—Most BBP exposures occurred during suturing or assisting with suturing (64/210 events [30.5%]), followed by handling of sharps, wires, or instruments (40/210 events [19.0%]) and medication administration (37/210 events [17.6%])(eTable). Twelve incidents were excluded from the analysis of implicated tasks because of insufficient details of events.
The tools involved in exposure events with the greatest prevalence included the suture needle (76/201 events [37.8%]), injection syringe/needle (43/201 events [21.4%]), and shave biopsy razor (24/201 events [11.9%])(eTable). Twenty-one incidents were excluded from the analysis of implicated instruments because of insufficient details of events.
Providers Affected by BBP Exposures—Resident physicians experienced the greatest number of BBP exposures (105/222 events [47.3%]), followed by ancillary providers (84/222 events [37.8%]) and practicing dermatologists (33/222 events [14.9%]). All occupational groups experienced more BBP exposures through needlesticks/medical sharps compared with splash incidents (resident physicians, 88.6%; ancillary staff, 91.7%; practicing dermatologists, 87.9%; P=.725)(Table).
Among resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff, the most frequent site of injury was the thumb. Suturing/assisting with suturing was the most common task leading to injury, and the suture needle was the most common instrument of injury for both resident physicians and practicing dermatologists. Handling of sharps, wires, or instruments was the most common task leading to injury for ancillary staff, and the injection syringe/needle was the most common instrument of injury in this cohort.
Resident physicians experienced the lowest rate of BBP exposures during administration of medications (12.7%; P=.003). Ancillary staff experienced the highest rate of BBP exposures with an injection needle (35.5%; P=.001). There were no statistically significant differences among occupational groups for the anatomic location of injury (P=.074)(eTable).
Comment
In the year 2000, the annual global incidence of occupational BBP exposures among health care workers worldwide for hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and HIV was estimated at 2.1 million, 926,000, and 327,000, respectively. Most of these exposures were due to sharps injuries.4 Dermatologists are particularly at risk for BBP exposures given their reliance on frequent procedures in practice. During an 11-year period, 222 BBP exposures were documented in the dermatology departments at 3 Mayo Clinic institutions. Most exposures were due to needlestick/sharps across all occupational groups compared with splash injuries. Prior survey studies confirm that sharps injuries are frequently implicated, with 75% to 94% of residents and practicing dermatologists reporting at least 1 sharps injury.1
Among occupational groups, resident physicians had the highest rate of BBP exposures, followed by nurse/medical assistants and practicing dermatologists, which may be secondary to lack of training or experience. Data from other surgical fields, including general surgery, support that resident physicians have the highest rate of sharps injuries.5 In a survey study (N=452), 51% of residents reported that extra training in safe techniques would be beneficial.2 Safety training may be beneficial in reducing the incidence of BBP exposures in residency programs.
The most common implicated task in resident physicians and practicing dermatologists was suturing or assisting with suturing, and the most common implicated instrument was the suture needle. Prior studies showed conflicting data regarding common implicated tasks and instruments in this cohort.1,2 The task of suturing and the suture needle also were the most implicated means of injury among other surgical specialties.6 Ancillary staff experienced most BBP exposures during handling of sharps, wires, or instruments, as well as the use of an injection needle. The designation of tasks among dermatologic staff likely explains the difference among occupational groups. This new information may provide the opportunity to improve safety measures among all members of the dermatologic team.
Limitations—There are several limitations to this study. This retrospective review was conducted at a single health system at 3 institutions. Hence, similar safety protocols likely were in place across all sites, which may reduce the generalizability of the results. In addition, there is risk of nonreporting bias among staff, as only documented incidence reports were evaluated. Prior studies demonstrated a nonreporting prevalence of 33% to 64% among dermatology staff.1-3 We also did not evaluate whether injuries resulted in BBP exposure or transmission. The rates of postexposure prophylaxis also were not studied. This information was not available for review because of concerns for privacy. Demographic features, such as gender or years of training, also were not evaluated.
Conclusion
This study provides additional insight on the incidence of BBP exposures in dermatology, as well as the implicated tasks, instruments, and anatomic locations of injury. Studies show that implementing formal education regarding the risks of BBP exposure may result in reduction of sharps injuries.7 Formal education in residency programs may be needed in the field of dermatology to reduce BBP exposures. Quality improvement measures should focus on identified risk factors among occupational groups to reduce BBP exposures in the workplace.
Dermatology providers are at an increased risk for blood-borne pathogen (BBP) exposures during procedures in clinical practice.1-3 Current data regarding the characterization of these exposures are limited. Prior studies are based on surveys that result in low response rates and potential for selection bias. Donnelly et al1 reported a 26% response rate in a national survey-based study evaluating BBP exposures in resident physicians, fellows, and practicing dermatologists, with 85% of respondents reporting at least 1 injury. Similarly, Goulart et al2 reported a 35% response rate in a survey evaluating sharps injuries in residents and medical students, with 85% reporting a sharps injury. In addition, there are conflicting data regarding characteristics of these exposures, including common implicated instruments and procedures.1-3 Prior studies also have not evaluated exposures in all members of dermatologic staff, including resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff.
To make appropriate quality improvements in dermatologic procedures, a more comprehensive understanding of BBP exposures is needed. We conducted a retrospective review of BBP incidence reports to identify the incidence of BBP events among all dermatologic staff, including resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff. We further investigated the type of exposure, the type of procedure associated with each exposure, anatomic locations of exposures, and instruments involved in each exposure.
Methods
Data on BBP exposures in the dermatology departments were obtained from the occupational health departments at each of 3 Mayo Clinic sites—Scottsdale, Arizona; Jacksonville, Florida; and Rochester, Minnesota—from March 2010 through January 2021. The institutional review board at Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, Arizona, granted approval of this study (IRB #20-012625). A retrospective review of each exposure was conducted to identify the incidence of BBP exposures. Occupational BBP exposure was defined as
Statistical Analysis—Variables were summarized using counts and percentages. The 3 most common categories for each variable were then compared among occupational groups using the Fisher exact test. All other categories were grouped for analysis purposes. Medical staff were categorized into 3 occupational groups: practicing dermatologists; resident physicians; and ancillary staff, including nurse/medical assistants, physician assistants, and clinical laboratory technologists. All analyses were 2 sided and considered statistically significant at P<.05. Analyses were performed using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc).
Results
Type of Exposure—A total of 222 BBP exposures were identified through the trisite retrospective review from March 2010 through January 2021. One hundred ninety-nine (89.6%) of 222 exposures were attributed to needlesticks and medical sharps, while 23 (10.4%) of 222 exposures were attributed to splash incidents (Table).
Anatomic Sites Affected—The anatomic location most frequently involved was the thumb (130/217 events [59.9%]), followed by the hand (39/217 events [18.0%]) and finger (22/217 events [10.1%]). The arm, face, and knee were affected with the lowest frequency, with only 1 event reported at each anatomic site (0.5%)(eTable). Five incidents were excluded from the analysis of anatomic location because of insufficient details of events.
Incident Tasks and Tools—Most BBP exposures occurred during suturing or assisting with suturing (64/210 events [30.5%]), followed by handling of sharps, wires, or instruments (40/210 events [19.0%]) and medication administration (37/210 events [17.6%])(eTable). Twelve incidents were excluded from the analysis of implicated tasks because of insufficient details of events.
The tools involved in exposure events with the greatest prevalence included the suture needle (76/201 events [37.8%]), injection syringe/needle (43/201 events [21.4%]), and shave biopsy razor (24/201 events [11.9%])(eTable). Twenty-one incidents were excluded from the analysis of implicated instruments because of insufficient details of events.
Providers Affected by BBP Exposures—Resident physicians experienced the greatest number of BBP exposures (105/222 events [47.3%]), followed by ancillary providers (84/222 events [37.8%]) and practicing dermatologists (33/222 events [14.9%]). All occupational groups experienced more BBP exposures through needlesticks/medical sharps compared with splash incidents (resident physicians, 88.6%; ancillary staff, 91.7%; practicing dermatologists, 87.9%; P=.725)(Table).
Among resident physicians, practicing dermatologists, and ancillary staff, the most frequent site of injury was the thumb. Suturing/assisting with suturing was the most common task leading to injury, and the suture needle was the most common instrument of injury for both resident physicians and practicing dermatologists. Handling of sharps, wires, or instruments was the most common task leading to injury for ancillary staff, and the injection syringe/needle was the most common instrument of injury in this cohort.
Resident physicians experienced the lowest rate of BBP exposures during administration of medications (12.7%; P=.003). Ancillary staff experienced the highest rate of BBP exposures with an injection needle (35.5%; P=.001). There were no statistically significant differences among occupational groups for the anatomic location of injury (P=.074)(eTable).
Comment
In the year 2000, the annual global incidence of occupational BBP exposures among health care workers worldwide for hepatitis B virus, hepatitis C virus, and HIV was estimated at 2.1 million, 926,000, and 327,000, respectively. Most of these exposures were due to sharps injuries.4 Dermatologists are particularly at risk for BBP exposures given their reliance on frequent procedures in practice. During an 11-year period, 222 BBP exposures were documented in the dermatology departments at 3 Mayo Clinic institutions. Most exposures were due to needlestick/sharps across all occupational groups compared with splash injuries. Prior survey studies confirm that sharps injuries are frequently implicated, with 75% to 94% of residents and practicing dermatologists reporting at least 1 sharps injury.1
Among occupational groups, resident physicians had the highest rate of BBP exposures, followed by nurse/medical assistants and practicing dermatologists, which may be secondary to lack of training or experience. Data from other surgical fields, including general surgery, support that resident physicians have the highest rate of sharps injuries.5 In a survey study (N=452), 51% of residents reported that extra training in safe techniques would be beneficial.2 Safety training may be beneficial in reducing the incidence of BBP exposures in residency programs.
The most common implicated task in resident physicians and practicing dermatologists was suturing or assisting with suturing, and the most common implicated instrument was the suture needle. Prior studies showed conflicting data regarding common implicated tasks and instruments in this cohort.1,2 The task of suturing and the suture needle also were the most implicated means of injury among other surgical specialties.6 Ancillary staff experienced most BBP exposures during handling of sharps, wires, or instruments, as well as the use of an injection needle. The designation of tasks among dermatologic staff likely explains the difference among occupational groups. This new information may provide the opportunity to improve safety measures among all members of the dermatologic team.
Limitations—There are several limitations to this study. This retrospective review was conducted at a single health system at 3 institutions. Hence, similar safety protocols likely were in place across all sites, which may reduce the generalizability of the results. In addition, there is risk of nonreporting bias among staff, as only documented incidence reports were evaluated. Prior studies demonstrated a nonreporting prevalence of 33% to 64% among dermatology staff.1-3 We also did not evaluate whether injuries resulted in BBP exposure or transmission. The rates of postexposure prophylaxis also were not studied. This information was not available for review because of concerns for privacy. Demographic features, such as gender or years of training, also were not evaluated.
Conclusion
This study provides additional insight on the incidence of BBP exposures in dermatology, as well as the implicated tasks, instruments, and anatomic locations of injury. Studies show that implementing formal education regarding the risks of BBP exposure may result in reduction of sharps injuries.7 Formal education in residency programs may be needed in the field of dermatology to reduce BBP exposures. Quality improvement measures should focus on identified risk factors among occupational groups to reduce BBP exposures in the workplace.
- Donnelly AF, Chang Y-HH, Nemeth-Ochoa SA. Sharps injuries and reporting practices of U.S. dermatologists [published online November 14, 2013]. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39:1813-1821.
- Goulart J, Oliveria S, Levitt J. Safety during dermatologic procedures and surgeries: a survey of resident injuries and prevention strategies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;65:648-650.
- Ken K, Golda N. Contaminated sharps injuries: a survey among dermatology residents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:1786-1788.
- Pruss-Ustun A, Rapiti E, Hutin Y. Estimation of global burden of disease attributable to contaminated sharps injuries among health-care workers. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48:482-490.
- Choi L, Torres R, Syed S, et al. Sharps and needlestick injuries among medical students, surgical residents, faculty, and operating room staff at a single academic institution. J Surg Educ. 2017;74:131-136.
- Bakaeen F, Awad S, Albo D, et al. Epidemiology of exposure to blood borne pathogens on a surgical service. Am J Surg. 2006;192:E18-E21.
- Li WJ, Zhang M, Shi CL, et al. Study on intervention of bloodborne pathogen exposure in a general hospital [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 2017;35:34-41.
- Donnelly AF, Chang Y-HH, Nemeth-Ochoa SA. Sharps injuries and reporting practices of U.S. dermatologists [published online November 14, 2013]. Dermatol Surg. 2013;39:1813-1821.
- Goulart J, Oliveria S, Levitt J. Safety during dermatologic procedures and surgeries: a survey of resident injuries and prevention strategies. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;65:648-650.
- Ken K, Golda N. Contaminated sharps injuries: a survey among dermatology residents. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80:1786-1788.
- Pruss-Ustun A, Rapiti E, Hutin Y. Estimation of global burden of disease attributable to contaminated sharps injuries among health-care workers. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48:482-490.
- Choi L, Torres R, Syed S, et al. Sharps and needlestick injuries among medical students, surgical residents, faculty, and operating room staff at a single academic institution. J Surg Educ. 2017;74:131-136.
- Bakaeen F, Awad S, Albo D, et al. Epidemiology of exposure to blood borne pathogens on a surgical service. Am J Surg. 2006;192:E18-E21.
- Li WJ, Zhang M, Shi CL, et al. Study on intervention of bloodborne pathogen exposure in a general hospital [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Lao Dong Wei Sheng Zhi Ye Bing Za Zhi. 2017;35:34-41.
Practice Points
- Most blood-borne pathogen (BBP) exposures in dermatologic staff occur due to medical sharps as opposed to splash incidents.
- The most common implicated task in resident physicians and practicing dermatologists is suturing or assisting with suturing, and the most commonly associated instrument is the suture needle. In contrast, ancillary staff experience most BBP exposures during handling of sharps, wires, or instruments, and the injection syringe/needle is the most common instrument of injury.
- Quality improvement measures are needed in prevention of BBP exposures and should focus on identified risk factors among occupational groups in the workplace.
Facial lipoatrophy with semaglutide-related weight loss
Ozempic and Wegovy are two prescription drugs that have transformed the management of type 2 diabetes and obesity. Both are a form of semaglutide; the Food and Drug Administration approved Ozempic for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, followed by Wegovy in 2021 for weight loss in adults with obesity or those who are overweight and have least one weight-related health condition, such as hypertension or hypercholesterolemia. Ozempic is not approved for weight loss, but it has been prescribed off label for that purpose.
An effective treatment, participants with overweight or obesity in one study experienced almost a mean 15% drop in body weight with subcutaneous semaglutide administered once a week versus about 2% with placebo after 68 weeks.
In 2022, high demand and global supply constraints gave rise to shortages of both medications. The FDA reported a Wegovy shortage in March 2022, followed by an Ozempic shortage in August. Social media attention and increased off-label prescribing, with some patients purporting to have had significant improvements with weight loss and their quality of life, including having their clothing fit better and being able to bend over and tie their shoes, increased attention on these medications to the point that off-label prescribing of both drugs for weight loss resulted in some patients with type 2 diabetes unable to receive their medication on time. In late January 2023, NBC reported that Ozempic prescriptions had “tripled from 2021 to 2022,” based on data from the prescription drug discount company SingleCare.
Semaglutide is designed to mimic a hormone that signals to the brain when a person is full and promotes the release of insulin. In turn, the medications can result in lower blood glucose levels, appetite suppression, and reduced caloric intake. Injected once weekly, the medication, a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, specifically, activates GLP-1 receptors in the brain, increasing insulin secretion, decreasing glucagon secretion, and delaying gastric emptying (acting as an incretin mimetic).
‘Ozempic face’
Common adverse events with semaglutide can include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, constipation, and injection-site reactions. Rare, but more severe adverse events may include thyroid C-cell tumor (in animal studies), medullary thyroid cancer risk, hypersensitivity reaction, anaphylaxis, acute renal injury, chronic renal failure exacerbation, pancreatitis, and cholelithiasis.
A less severe but noticeable side effect that has gained attention is facial wasting and aging, reportedly coined “Ozempic face” by a dermatologist interviewed for an article published in January in The New York Times.
As of Feb. 9, TikTok videos from individuals describing their personal experiences, health care professionals, and others with the tag #ozempicface had 4.8 million views.
Theories as to why noticeable facial changes occur with these medications include: accelerated loss of facial pads that already tend to diminish or shift with normal aging, as well as the inability of skin elasticity to keep up with the loss of volume (fat), resulting in more prominent hanging skin and the appearance of “jowls.” Wan and colleagues have described the fat pad distribution in the face and the facial aging that occurs as a result of the loss and shifting of these fat pads over time.
In the same way that we use facial fillers to help treat and correct volume/fat loss associated with photoaging, facial fillers may be used to help restore volume where it’s been lost after weight loss. The sagging skin or loss of elasticity often associated with Ozempic-related weight loss or with rapid or noticeable weight loss in general, may or may not also require other interventions that include treatment with tissue tightening devices – such as radiofrequency energy, high-focused ultrasound energy, threads, and/or surgery – such as a face lift. The potential high cost of both off-label prescribing of these medications (especially without use of prescription health insurance) as well as treatment to correct any facial wasting has also received attention in news media and social media discussions of this topic.
Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com. She has no relevant disclosures.
*Correction 1/28/23: An earlier version of this story misstated the approval date of Wegovy. It was in 2021.
Ozempic and Wegovy are two prescription drugs that have transformed the management of type 2 diabetes and obesity. Both are a form of semaglutide; the Food and Drug Administration approved Ozempic for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, followed by Wegovy in 2021 for weight loss in adults with obesity or those who are overweight and have least one weight-related health condition, such as hypertension or hypercholesterolemia. Ozempic is not approved for weight loss, but it has been prescribed off label for that purpose.
An effective treatment, participants with overweight or obesity in one study experienced almost a mean 15% drop in body weight with subcutaneous semaglutide administered once a week versus about 2% with placebo after 68 weeks.
In 2022, high demand and global supply constraints gave rise to shortages of both medications. The FDA reported a Wegovy shortage in March 2022, followed by an Ozempic shortage in August. Social media attention and increased off-label prescribing, with some patients purporting to have had significant improvements with weight loss and their quality of life, including having their clothing fit better and being able to bend over and tie their shoes, increased attention on these medications to the point that off-label prescribing of both drugs for weight loss resulted in some patients with type 2 diabetes unable to receive their medication on time. In late January 2023, NBC reported that Ozempic prescriptions had “tripled from 2021 to 2022,” based on data from the prescription drug discount company SingleCare.
Semaglutide is designed to mimic a hormone that signals to the brain when a person is full and promotes the release of insulin. In turn, the medications can result in lower blood glucose levels, appetite suppression, and reduced caloric intake. Injected once weekly, the medication, a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, specifically, activates GLP-1 receptors in the brain, increasing insulin secretion, decreasing glucagon secretion, and delaying gastric emptying (acting as an incretin mimetic).
‘Ozempic face’
Common adverse events with semaglutide can include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, constipation, and injection-site reactions. Rare, but more severe adverse events may include thyroid C-cell tumor (in animal studies), medullary thyroid cancer risk, hypersensitivity reaction, anaphylaxis, acute renal injury, chronic renal failure exacerbation, pancreatitis, and cholelithiasis.
A less severe but noticeable side effect that has gained attention is facial wasting and aging, reportedly coined “Ozempic face” by a dermatologist interviewed for an article published in January in The New York Times.
As of Feb. 9, TikTok videos from individuals describing their personal experiences, health care professionals, and others with the tag #ozempicface had 4.8 million views.
Theories as to why noticeable facial changes occur with these medications include: accelerated loss of facial pads that already tend to diminish or shift with normal aging, as well as the inability of skin elasticity to keep up with the loss of volume (fat), resulting in more prominent hanging skin and the appearance of “jowls.” Wan and colleagues have described the fat pad distribution in the face and the facial aging that occurs as a result of the loss and shifting of these fat pads over time.
In the same way that we use facial fillers to help treat and correct volume/fat loss associated with photoaging, facial fillers may be used to help restore volume where it’s been lost after weight loss. The sagging skin or loss of elasticity often associated with Ozempic-related weight loss or with rapid or noticeable weight loss in general, may or may not also require other interventions that include treatment with tissue tightening devices – such as radiofrequency energy, high-focused ultrasound energy, threads, and/or surgery – such as a face lift. The potential high cost of both off-label prescribing of these medications (especially without use of prescription health insurance) as well as treatment to correct any facial wasting has also received attention in news media and social media discussions of this topic.
Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com. She has no relevant disclosures.
*Correction 1/28/23: An earlier version of this story misstated the approval date of Wegovy. It was in 2021.
Ozempic and Wegovy are two prescription drugs that have transformed the management of type 2 diabetes and obesity. Both are a form of semaglutide; the Food and Drug Administration approved Ozempic for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, followed by Wegovy in 2021 for weight loss in adults with obesity or those who are overweight and have least one weight-related health condition, such as hypertension or hypercholesterolemia. Ozempic is not approved for weight loss, but it has been prescribed off label for that purpose.
An effective treatment, participants with overweight or obesity in one study experienced almost a mean 15% drop in body weight with subcutaneous semaglutide administered once a week versus about 2% with placebo after 68 weeks.
In 2022, high demand and global supply constraints gave rise to shortages of both medications. The FDA reported a Wegovy shortage in March 2022, followed by an Ozempic shortage in August. Social media attention and increased off-label prescribing, with some patients purporting to have had significant improvements with weight loss and their quality of life, including having their clothing fit better and being able to bend over and tie their shoes, increased attention on these medications to the point that off-label prescribing of both drugs for weight loss resulted in some patients with type 2 diabetes unable to receive their medication on time. In late January 2023, NBC reported that Ozempic prescriptions had “tripled from 2021 to 2022,” based on data from the prescription drug discount company SingleCare.
Semaglutide is designed to mimic a hormone that signals to the brain when a person is full and promotes the release of insulin. In turn, the medications can result in lower blood glucose levels, appetite suppression, and reduced caloric intake. Injected once weekly, the medication, a glucagonlike peptide–1 receptor agonist, specifically, activates GLP-1 receptors in the brain, increasing insulin secretion, decreasing glucagon secretion, and delaying gastric emptying (acting as an incretin mimetic).
‘Ozempic face’
Common adverse events with semaglutide can include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, constipation, and injection-site reactions. Rare, but more severe adverse events may include thyroid C-cell tumor (in animal studies), medullary thyroid cancer risk, hypersensitivity reaction, anaphylaxis, acute renal injury, chronic renal failure exacerbation, pancreatitis, and cholelithiasis.
A less severe but noticeable side effect that has gained attention is facial wasting and aging, reportedly coined “Ozempic face” by a dermatologist interviewed for an article published in January in The New York Times.
As of Feb. 9, TikTok videos from individuals describing their personal experiences, health care professionals, and others with the tag #ozempicface had 4.8 million views.
Theories as to why noticeable facial changes occur with these medications include: accelerated loss of facial pads that already tend to diminish or shift with normal aging, as well as the inability of skin elasticity to keep up with the loss of volume (fat), resulting in more prominent hanging skin and the appearance of “jowls.” Wan and colleagues have described the fat pad distribution in the face and the facial aging that occurs as a result of the loss and shifting of these fat pads over time.
In the same way that we use facial fillers to help treat and correct volume/fat loss associated with photoaging, facial fillers may be used to help restore volume where it’s been lost after weight loss. The sagging skin or loss of elasticity often associated with Ozempic-related weight loss or with rapid or noticeable weight loss in general, may or may not also require other interventions that include treatment with tissue tightening devices – such as radiofrequency energy, high-focused ultrasound energy, threads, and/or surgery – such as a face lift. The potential high cost of both off-label prescribing of these medications (especially without use of prescription health insurance) as well as treatment to correct any facial wasting has also received attention in news media and social media discussions of this topic.
Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Write to her at dermnews@mdedge.com. She has no relevant disclosures.
*Correction 1/28/23: An earlier version of this story misstated the approval date of Wegovy. It was in 2021.