User login
Collagen drinks – do they really work?
The question is, do they really do anything? Previously, most collagen supplements in the beauty industry came in the form of a topical cream or an injectable, with collagen being the main filler of choice before hyaluronic acid fillers became available. Today, collagen supplementation in the form of oral pills and drinks is rampant. These drinks and “vitamins” are purported to improve skin and provide a more youthful appearance, both from an immediate and preventative standpoint. Some of the drinks come from companies in Japan and beyond. According to market forecasts, the collagen supplement industry is anticipated to be worth $6.63 billion by 2025, up from $3.71 billion in 2016. An email advertisement this month from NewBeauty magazine claims one brand of collagen supplementation “with grape seed extract [as] an effective collagen drink for the skin.” Each 1.7 oz. bottle contains 13,000 mg of marine hydrolyzed collagen with six antiaging ingredients that – the ad claims – will help visibly transform your skin to a fuller, firmer, younger look in as soon as 21 days.
Diet absolutely plays a role in our overall health and skin appearance. But can these concentrated collagen drinks provide an increased benefit?
We know from prior experience with injecting collagen in the lips – namely from bovine (such as Zyderm and Zyplast) or human-derived (such as Cosmoderm and CosmoPlast) sources – that it provided beautiful and often natural-appearing results, which, however, did not last. If longevity is an issue with collagen injections, assuming proper absorption from the gastrointestinal tract and subsequent integration into skin, how long should we expect the results from drinking collagen to last in skin, if any? If it does work and is something that improves skin when used on a continuous basis, is there an endpoint at which the benefit is maximized or where an excess of collagen could be detrimental?
Collagen disorders are those where there is inflammation or deficiency in collagen. Could supplementation improve these diseases? Or could supplementation exacerbate or bring on these disorders if consumed in excess? In collagen vascular diseases, such as scleroderma, where apparent autoimmune inflammation of collagen occurs, would supplementation exacerbate the disease by bringing about more collagen to attack, or would it improve the condition by providing new collagen where there may be a defect? Would it help in conditions of collagen deficiency, such as osteogenesis imperfecta?
Many questions about collagen drinks and supplementation remain to be answered. Photoprotection from an early age and a healthy diet that supports production of our bodies’ own natural collagen are the best measures for skin health. With the surplus of collagen drinks and supplements now on the market, objective studies should be conducted and are warranted to answer these question for ourselves and our patients.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
The question is, do they really do anything? Previously, most collagen supplements in the beauty industry came in the form of a topical cream or an injectable, with collagen being the main filler of choice before hyaluronic acid fillers became available. Today, collagen supplementation in the form of oral pills and drinks is rampant. These drinks and “vitamins” are purported to improve skin and provide a more youthful appearance, both from an immediate and preventative standpoint. Some of the drinks come from companies in Japan and beyond. According to market forecasts, the collagen supplement industry is anticipated to be worth $6.63 billion by 2025, up from $3.71 billion in 2016. An email advertisement this month from NewBeauty magazine claims one brand of collagen supplementation “with grape seed extract [as] an effective collagen drink for the skin.” Each 1.7 oz. bottle contains 13,000 mg of marine hydrolyzed collagen with six antiaging ingredients that – the ad claims – will help visibly transform your skin to a fuller, firmer, younger look in as soon as 21 days.
Diet absolutely plays a role in our overall health and skin appearance. But can these concentrated collagen drinks provide an increased benefit?
We know from prior experience with injecting collagen in the lips – namely from bovine (such as Zyderm and Zyplast) or human-derived (such as Cosmoderm and CosmoPlast) sources – that it provided beautiful and often natural-appearing results, which, however, did not last. If longevity is an issue with collagen injections, assuming proper absorption from the gastrointestinal tract and subsequent integration into skin, how long should we expect the results from drinking collagen to last in skin, if any? If it does work and is something that improves skin when used on a continuous basis, is there an endpoint at which the benefit is maximized or where an excess of collagen could be detrimental?
Collagen disorders are those where there is inflammation or deficiency in collagen. Could supplementation improve these diseases? Or could supplementation exacerbate or bring on these disorders if consumed in excess? In collagen vascular diseases, such as scleroderma, where apparent autoimmune inflammation of collagen occurs, would supplementation exacerbate the disease by bringing about more collagen to attack, or would it improve the condition by providing new collagen where there may be a defect? Would it help in conditions of collagen deficiency, such as osteogenesis imperfecta?
Many questions about collagen drinks and supplementation remain to be answered. Photoprotection from an early age and a healthy diet that supports production of our bodies’ own natural collagen are the best measures for skin health. With the surplus of collagen drinks and supplements now on the market, objective studies should be conducted and are warranted to answer these question for ourselves and our patients.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
The question is, do they really do anything? Previously, most collagen supplements in the beauty industry came in the form of a topical cream or an injectable, with collagen being the main filler of choice before hyaluronic acid fillers became available. Today, collagen supplementation in the form of oral pills and drinks is rampant. These drinks and “vitamins” are purported to improve skin and provide a more youthful appearance, both from an immediate and preventative standpoint. Some of the drinks come from companies in Japan and beyond. According to market forecasts, the collagen supplement industry is anticipated to be worth $6.63 billion by 2025, up from $3.71 billion in 2016. An email advertisement this month from NewBeauty magazine claims one brand of collagen supplementation “with grape seed extract [as] an effective collagen drink for the skin.” Each 1.7 oz. bottle contains 13,000 mg of marine hydrolyzed collagen with six antiaging ingredients that – the ad claims – will help visibly transform your skin to a fuller, firmer, younger look in as soon as 21 days.
Diet absolutely plays a role in our overall health and skin appearance. But can these concentrated collagen drinks provide an increased benefit?
We know from prior experience with injecting collagen in the lips – namely from bovine (such as Zyderm and Zyplast) or human-derived (such as Cosmoderm and CosmoPlast) sources – that it provided beautiful and often natural-appearing results, which, however, did not last. If longevity is an issue with collagen injections, assuming proper absorption from the gastrointestinal tract and subsequent integration into skin, how long should we expect the results from drinking collagen to last in skin, if any? If it does work and is something that improves skin when used on a continuous basis, is there an endpoint at which the benefit is maximized or where an excess of collagen could be detrimental?
Collagen disorders are those where there is inflammation or deficiency in collagen. Could supplementation improve these diseases? Or could supplementation exacerbate or bring on these disorders if consumed in excess? In collagen vascular diseases, such as scleroderma, where apparent autoimmune inflammation of collagen occurs, would supplementation exacerbate the disease by bringing about more collagen to attack, or would it improve the condition by providing new collagen where there may be a defect? Would it help in conditions of collagen deficiency, such as osteogenesis imperfecta?
Many questions about collagen drinks and supplementation remain to be answered. Photoprotection from an early age and a healthy diet that supports production of our bodies’ own natural collagen are the best measures for skin health. With the surplus of collagen drinks and supplements now on the market, objective studies should be conducted and are warranted to answer these question for ourselves and our patients.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
Skin rollers
, but only a few actually have any scientific data or clinical studies supporting their claims. In general, these rollers promise to increase collagen, depuff the skin, lift and firm, increase circulation, increase oxygenation, and decrease inflammation. But no clinically significant results have been reported with most of these over-the-counter devices. Furthermore, not every roller is meant for every skin type – and some should stay within the hands of an experienced professional.
Ice rollers have been used for many years and are very effective to cool the skin for in-office procedures. They are drum-shaped stainless steel rollers that are left in the freezer and cool the epidermis upon application. At-home ice rollers cause immediate vasoconstriction and are a quick fix for periorbital edema or skin erythema. Three-dimensional roller face massagers are simply a massage tool and can be used on any skin type to increase facial circulation; they do not provide any visible clinical benefits. Nanocurrent or vibrating rollers use nanocurrents and vibration alongside a conductor gel to glide across the skin; they massage the skin and help topically applied agents penetrate into the stratum corneum.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
References
Orentreich DS et al. Dermatol Surg. 1995;21(6):543-9.
Aust MC et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;21(4):1421-9.Fernandes D et al. Clin Dermatol. 2008 Mar-Apr;26(2):192-9.
Nair PA et al. GMJ. 2014;69:24-7.
, but only a few actually have any scientific data or clinical studies supporting their claims. In general, these rollers promise to increase collagen, depuff the skin, lift and firm, increase circulation, increase oxygenation, and decrease inflammation. But no clinically significant results have been reported with most of these over-the-counter devices. Furthermore, not every roller is meant for every skin type – and some should stay within the hands of an experienced professional.
Ice rollers have been used for many years and are very effective to cool the skin for in-office procedures. They are drum-shaped stainless steel rollers that are left in the freezer and cool the epidermis upon application. At-home ice rollers cause immediate vasoconstriction and are a quick fix for periorbital edema or skin erythema. Three-dimensional roller face massagers are simply a massage tool and can be used on any skin type to increase facial circulation; they do not provide any visible clinical benefits. Nanocurrent or vibrating rollers use nanocurrents and vibration alongside a conductor gel to glide across the skin; they massage the skin and help topically applied agents penetrate into the stratum corneum.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
References
Orentreich DS et al. Dermatol Surg. 1995;21(6):543-9.
Aust MC et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;21(4):1421-9.Fernandes D et al. Clin Dermatol. 2008 Mar-Apr;26(2):192-9.
Nair PA et al. GMJ. 2014;69:24-7.
, but only a few actually have any scientific data or clinical studies supporting their claims. In general, these rollers promise to increase collagen, depuff the skin, lift and firm, increase circulation, increase oxygenation, and decrease inflammation. But no clinically significant results have been reported with most of these over-the-counter devices. Furthermore, not every roller is meant for every skin type – and some should stay within the hands of an experienced professional.
Ice rollers have been used for many years and are very effective to cool the skin for in-office procedures. They are drum-shaped stainless steel rollers that are left in the freezer and cool the epidermis upon application. At-home ice rollers cause immediate vasoconstriction and are a quick fix for periorbital edema or skin erythema. Three-dimensional roller face massagers are simply a massage tool and can be used on any skin type to increase facial circulation; they do not provide any visible clinical benefits. Nanocurrent or vibrating rollers use nanocurrents and vibration alongside a conductor gel to glide across the skin; they massage the skin and help topically applied agents penetrate into the stratum corneum.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@mdedge.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
References
Orentreich DS et al. Dermatol Surg. 1995;21(6):543-9.
Aust MC et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008;21(4):1421-9.Fernandes D et al. Clin Dermatol. 2008 Mar-Apr;26(2):192-9.
Nair PA et al. GMJ. 2014;69:24-7.
Laser tattoo removal clinic closures: Are patients getting scammed?
A patient came into my office recently and informed me that a well-known laser tattoo removal clinic in Los Angeles that she had gone to for years had suddenly shut down. All locations closed. No one answered the phone. No information about the remainder of the money in the package she bought. After researching online, she found that the Better Business Bureau did not yet have much information but doubted she would get her money back. This particular patient had not gone to the clinic in more than a year but had a residual tattoo and had looked into returning for more treatments and using the remainder of her package. She was one of the lucky ones. Other online discussion groups had entries from numerous patients who paid for packages (some costing thousands of dollars) for multiple laser treatments. Some had paid recently and had not yet received a single treatment and were left with no information about their options or where their money had gone.
It turns out in Southern California and Texas. No notification was given to the patients in advance. Nor was any notification given to some of the staff members, who complained online that they suddenly lost their jobs. Ironically, the same clinics had posted a letter online several years ago honoring discounted first treatments and packages for patients of a different laser tattoo clinic that had suddenly shut down.
So how often is this happening? Are all these clinics owned by the same people? And what can our specialty do to protect patients from being scammed and, for that matter, receiving treatment from professionals who may not be properly trained or experienced to provide that treatment?
In a world in which insurance reimbursements keep getting cut, more and more medical professionals – physicians and nonphysicians alike – are looking to fee-for-service procedures and practice models for increasing income. Sometimes, this may involve physicians delegating procedures to nonphysicians. Franchised clinics open up with a physician to “oversee” the clinic, while extenders often perform the procedures (many times without the physician present). Physicians who are neither trained nor specialized to do certain cosmetic procedures start to perform them. Patients get used to receiving treatments from nonphysicians or from physicians who are not specialized to perform cosmetic procedures, and then may devalue the procedure, feeling it’s unnecessary for a physician or a specialized physician to perform it.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are co-contributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
A patient came into my office recently and informed me that a well-known laser tattoo removal clinic in Los Angeles that she had gone to for years had suddenly shut down. All locations closed. No one answered the phone. No information about the remainder of the money in the package she bought. After researching online, she found that the Better Business Bureau did not yet have much information but doubted she would get her money back. This particular patient had not gone to the clinic in more than a year but had a residual tattoo and had looked into returning for more treatments and using the remainder of her package. She was one of the lucky ones. Other online discussion groups had entries from numerous patients who paid for packages (some costing thousands of dollars) for multiple laser treatments. Some had paid recently and had not yet received a single treatment and were left with no information about their options or where their money had gone.
It turns out in Southern California and Texas. No notification was given to the patients in advance. Nor was any notification given to some of the staff members, who complained online that they suddenly lost their jobs. Ironically, the same clinics had posted a letter online several years ago honoring discounted first treatments and packages for patients of a different laser tattoo clinic that had suddenly shut down.
So how often is this happening? Are all these clinics owned by the same people? And what can our specialty do to protect patients from being scammed and, for that matter, receiving treatment from professionals who may not be properly trained or experienced to provide that treatment?
In a world in which insurance reimbursements keep getting cut, more and more medical professionals – physicians and nonphysicians alike – are looking to fee-for-service procedures and practice models for increasing income. Sometimes, this may involve physicians delegating procedures to nonphysicians. Franchised clinics open up with a physician to “oversee” the clinic, while extenders often perform the procedures (many times without the physician present). Physicians who are neither trained nor specialized to do certain cosmetic procedures start to perform them. Patients get used to receiving treatments from nonphysicians or from physicians who are not specialized to perform cosmetic procedures, and then may devalue the procedure, feeling it’s unnecessary for a physician or a specialized physician to perform it.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are co-contributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
A patient came into my office recently and informed me that a well-known laser tattoo removal clinic in Los Angeles that she had gone to for years had suddenly shut down. All locations closed. No one answered the phone. No information about the remainder of the money in the package she bought. After researching online, she found that the Better Business Bureau did not yet have much information but doubted she would get her money back. This particular patient had not gone to the clinic in more than a year but had a residual tattoo and had looked into returning for more treatments and using the remainder of her package. She was one of the lucky ones. Other online discussion groups had entries from numerous patients who paid for packages (some costing thousands of dollars) for multiple laser treatments. Some had paid recently and had not yet received a single treatment and were left with no information about their options or where their money had gone.
It turns out in Southern California and Texas. No notification was given to the patients in advance. Nor was any notification given to some of the staff members, who complained online that they suddenly lost their jobs. Ironically, the same clinics had posted a letter online several years ago honoring discounted first treatments and packages for patients of a different laser tattoo clinic that had suddenly shut down.
So how often is this happening? Are all these clinics owned by the same people? And what can our specialty do to protect patients from being scammed and, for that matter, receiving treatment from professionals who may not be properly trained or experienced to provide that treatment?
In a world in which insurance reimbursements keep getting cut, more and more medical professionals – physicians and nonphysicians alike – are looking to fee-for-service procedures and practice models for increasing income. Sometimes, this may involve physicians delegating procedures to nonphysicians. Franchised clinics open up with a physician to “oversee” the clinic, while extenders often perform the procedures (many times without the physician present). Physicians who are neither trained nor specialized to do certain cosmetic procedures start to perform them. Patients get used to receiving treatments from nonphysicians or from physicians who are not specialized to perform cosmetic procedures, and then may devalue the procedure, feeling it’s unnecessary for a physician or a specialized physician to perform it.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are co-contributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
Choosing noninvasive tightening treatments wisely
We all have one priority with all of our facial rejuvenation patients: Having happy, satisfied patients. With this in mind, I find I am torn by the armamentarium of noninvasive tightening devices to choose from. What are the critical factors in choosing a platform for your practice? Most practices look at pain, downtime, cost, and the number of treatments necessary to reach the expected outcome.
The treatment options are varied and include radio-frequency, ultrasound, and fractional resurfacing. There are numerous devices on the market that deliver energy into the dermis thereby causing collagen contraction and neocollagenesis. In my experience, the more “invasive” procedures or surgical tissue-tightening procedures provide the most reliable and immediate results. The radio-frequency and ultrasound devices that are “noninvasive” have little down-time, but multiple treatments are often needed and have inconsistent outcomes.
The technology for noninvasive modalities has improved over the last decade, but there are still no longterm clinical data, and results are highly varied. The difference in protocols and outcomes depends on proper patient selection, method of energy delivery, and sequential treatments.
We believe the optimal way to utilize these devices is as a combination approach with other procedures to optimize skin tightening and improvement in tone and texture. Tissue-tightening devices should be used with fractional ablative or nonablative resurfacing, fillers, and toxins. Often, we recommend starting with fillers and resurfacing treatments first to get the immediate “wow” factor and achieve immediate patient satisfaction. If patients want to then add skin tightening, this can be useful as an adjunct treatment and can even be used as a maintenance approach once per year. Actinic damage is also highly predictive of the degree of tissue laxity. Treating both the dermis and epidermis together delivers more immediate results. Using a fractional resurfacing device provides tissue tightening, improved skin color, decreased discoloration, and a reduction in the number of brown spots and freckles. Patients usually only need one to two treatments, there is minimal downtime, and satisfaction is very high.
In my practice, I choose fractional resurfacing treatments first. If patients want additional tissue tightening, radio-frequency is used as an adjunct treatment. This keeps costs lower, patients happier, and results more attainable.
When choosing devices for my practice, I follow a simple mantra: highest satisfaction per patient dollar spent. Happy patients build trust and integrity for the provider and practice. Don’t just buy a device because others are using it, and don’t just recommend a device because you have it.
Dr. Lily Talakoub and Dr. Naissan Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They have no relevant disclosures.
We all have one priority with all of our facial rejuvenation patients: Having happy, satisfied patients. With this in mind, I find I am torn by the armamentarium of noninvasive tightening devices to choose from. What are the critical factors in choosing a platform for your practice? Most practices look at pain, downtime, cost, and the number of treatments necessary to reach the expected outcome.
The treatment options are varied and include radio-frequency, ultrasound, and fractional resurfacing. There are numerous devices on the market that deliver energy into the dermis thereby causing collagen contraction and neocollagenesis. In my experience, the more “invasive” procedures or surgical tissue-tightening procedures provide the most reliable and immediate results. The radio-frequency and ultrasound devices that are “noninvasive” have little down-time, but multiple treatments are often needed and have inconsistent outcomes.
The technology for noninvasive modalities has improved over the last decade, but there are still no longterm clinical data, and results are highly varied. The difference in protocols and outcomes depends on proper patient selection, method of energy delivery, and sequential treatments.
We believe the optimal way to utilize these devices is as a combination approach with other procedures to optimize skin tightening and improvement in tone and texture. Tissue-tightening devices should be used with fractional ablative or nonablative resurfacing, fillers, and toxins. Often, we recommend starting with fillers and resurfacing treatments first to get the immediate “wow” factor and achieve immediate patient satisfaction. If patients want to then add skin tightening, this can be useful as an adjunct treatment and can even be used as a maintenance approach once per year. Actinic damage is also highly predictive of the degree of tissue laxity. Treating both the dermis and epidermis together delivers more immediate results. Using a fractional resurfacing device provides tissue tightening, improved skin color, decreased discoloration, and a reduction in the number of brown spots and freckles. Patients usually only need one to two treatments, there is minimal downtime, and satisfaction is very high.
In my practice, I choose fractional resurfacing treatments first. If patients want additional tissue tightening, radio-frequency is used as an adjunct treatment. This keeps costs lower, patients happier, and results more attainable.
When choosing devices for my practice, I follow a simple mantra: highest satisfaction per patient dollar spent. Happy patients build trust and integrity for the provider and practice. Don’t just buy a device because others are using it, and don’t just recommend a device because you have it.
Dr. Lily Talakoub and Dr. Naissan Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They have no relevant disclosures.
We all have one priority with all of our facial rejuvenation patients: Having happy, satisfied patients. With this in mind, I find I am torn by the armamentarium of noninvasive tightening devices to choose from. What are the critical factors in choosing a platform for your practice? Most practices look at pain, downtime, cost, and the number of treatments necessary to reach the expected outcome.
The treatment options are varied and include radio-frequency, ultrasound, and fractional resurfacing. There are numerous devices on the market that deliver energy into the dermis thereby causing collagen contraction and neocollagenesis. In my experience, the more “invasive” procedures or surgical tissue-tightening procedures provide the most reliable and immediate results. The radio-frequency and ultrasound devices that are “noninvasive” have little down-time, but multiple treatments are often needed and have inconsistent outcomes.
The technology for noninvasive modalities has improved over the last decade, but there are still no longterm clinical data, and results are highly varied. The difference in protocols and outcomes depends on proper patient selection, method of energy delivery, and sequential treatments.
We believe the optimal way to utilize these devices is as a combination approach with other procedures to optimize skin tightening and improvement in tone and texture. Tissue-tightening devices should be used with fractional ablative or nonablative resurfacing, fillers, and toxins. Often, we recommend starting with fillers and resurfacing treatments first to get the immediate “wow” factor and achieve immediate patient satisfaction. If patients want to then add skin tightening, this can be useful as an adjunct treatment and can even be used as a maintenance approach once per year. Actinic damage is also highly predictive of the degree of tissue laxity. Treating both the dermis and epidermis together delivers more immediate results. Using a fractional resurfacing device provides tissue tightening, improved skin color, decreased discoloration, and a reduction in the number of brown spots and freckles. Patients usually only need one to two treatments, there is minimal downtime, and satisfaction is very high.
In my practice, I choose fractional resurfacing treatments first. If patients want additional tissue tightening, radio-frequency is used as an adjunct treatment. This keeps costs lower, patients happier, and results more attainable.
When choosing devices for my practice, I follow a simple mantra: highest satisfaction per patient dollar spent. Happy patients build trust and integrity for the provider and practice. Don’t just buy a device because others are using it, and don’t just recommend a device because you have it.
Dr. Lily Talakoub and Dr. Naissan Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They have no relevant disclosures.
High-dose hydrogen peroxide for SKs
Formerly known as A-101, . It is a 40% hydrogen peroxide topical solution that is applied to raised SKs as an in-office procedure. As previously reported, SKs are composed of hyperadherent senescent cells that are arrested in the G1 phase of the cell cycle. They exhibit decreased apoptotic cell death, compared with normal skin.
Two double-blind vehicle-controlled studies demonstrated that more patients were clear or near clear of SKs after use of the 40% concentration solution than those in the vehicle group, according to the prescribing information. In the studies, patients with four raised SKs of the face, trunk or extremities were treated with Eskata at baseline and 3 weeks later, if necessary, or a vehicle. None of those in the vehicle group were cleared at follow-up (day 106), compared with 4% and 8% of those treated with Eskata, and at least three of the four lesions treated with Eskata had cleared in 13% and 23% at follow-up. Local skin reactions were mostly mild and transient, the most common being itching, stinging, crusting, swelling, redness, and scaling at the application site.
In the clinical studies, the solution was applied up to two times, on day 0 and again 3 weeks later on day 22. The lesion should first be cleansed with alcohol, and appropriate measures should be taken to ensure Eskata does not come in contact with the eyes. Nitrile or vinyl examination gloves should be used for application. Eskata is applied to the SKs with a pen-like applicator. The solution is applied uniformly in a circular motion with excess and the surrounding area patted dry with an absorbent wipe. Cotton gauze, tips, paper towels, or tissue should not be used as organic compounds can react with high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide. In a treatment session, one lesion may be treated up to four times, 1 minute apart. The applicator is used only once and may be discarded after lesions are treated. The packages may be stored at controlled room temperature (68° F to 77° F).
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Dr. Wesley has served on an advisory board panel for Aclaris, the manufacturer of Eskata. Dr. Talakoub had no related disclosures. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
Formerly known as A-101, . It is a 40% hydrogen peroxide topical solution that is applied to raised SKs as an in-office procedure. As previously reported, SKs are composed of hyperadherent senescent cells that are arrested in the G1 phase of the cell cycle. They exhibit decreased apoptotic cell death, compared with normal skin.
Two double-blind vehicle-controlled studies demonstrated that more patients were clear or near clear of SKs after use of the 40% concentration solution than those in the vehicle group, according to the prescribing information. In the studies, patients with four raised SKs of the face, trunk or extremities were treated with Eskata at baseline and 3 weeks later, if necessary, or a vehicle. None of those in the vehicle group were cleared at follow-up (day 106), compared with 4% and 8% of those treated with Eskata, and at least three of the four lesions treated with Eskata had cleared in 13% and 23% at follow-up. Local skin reactions were mostly mild and transient, the most common being itching, stinging, crusting, swelling, redness, and scaling at the application site.
In the clinical studies, the solution was applied up to two times, on day 0 and again 3 weeks later on day 22. The lesion should first be cleansed with alcohol, and appropriate measures should be taken to ensure Eskata does not come in contact with the eyes. Nitrile or vinyl examination gloves should be used for application. Eskata is applied to the SKs with a pen-like applicator. The solution is applied uniformly in a circular motion with excess and the surrounding area patted dry with an absorbent wipe. Cotton gauze, tips, paper towels, or tissue should not be used as organic compounds can react with high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide. In a treatment session, one lesion may be treated up to four times, 1 minute apart. The applicator is used only once and may be discarded after lesions are treated. The packages may be stored at controlled room temperature (68° F to 77° F).
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Dr. Wesley has served on an advisory board panel for Aclaris, the manufacturer of Eskata. Dr. Talakoub had no related disclosures. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
Formerly known as A-101, . It is a 40% hydrogen peroxide topical solution that is applied to raised SKs as an in-office procedure. As previously reported, SKs are composed of hyperadherent senescent cells that are arrested in the G1 phase of the cell cycle. They exhibit decreased apoptotic cell death, compared with normal skin.
Two double-blind vehicle-controlled studies demonstrated that more patients were clear or near clear of SKs after use of the 40% concentration solution than those in the vehicle group, according to the prescribing information. In the studies, patients with four raised SKs of the face, trunk or extremities were treated with Eskata at baseline and 3 weeks later, if necessary, or a vehicle. None of those in the vehicle group were cleared at follow-up (day 106), compared with 4% and 8% of those treated with Eskata, and at least three of the four lesions treated with Eskata had cleared in 13% and 23% at follow-up. Local skin reactions were mostly mild and transient, the most common being itching, stinging, crusting, swelling, redness, and scaling at the application site.
In the clinical studies, the solution was applied up to two times, on day 0 and again 3 weeks later on day 22. The lesion should first be cleansed with alcohol, and appropriate measures should be taken to ensure Eskata does not come in contact with the eyes. Nitrile or vinyl examination gloves should be used for application. Eskata is applied to the SKs with a pen-like applicator. The solution is applied uniformly in a circular motion with excess and the surrounding area patted dry with an absorbent wipe. Cotton gauze, tips, paper towels, or tissue should not be used as organic compounds can react with high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide. In a treatment session, one lesion may be treated up to four times, 1 minute apart. The applicator is used only once and may be discarded after lesions are treated. The packages may be stored at controlled room temperature (68° F to 77° F).
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Dr. Wesley has served on an advisory board panel for Aclaris, the manufacturer of Eskata. Dr. Talakoub had no related disclosures. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
Thread lifts: A face-lift alternative? Or not?
The rise of noninvasive procedures has shifted the aesthetic culture. Patients now are asking for less invasive, less painful, less expensive procedures with short recovery times. Thread-lifts are one of the newest approaches to nonsurgical facial tightening. However, are they of value? Where, and for whom?
The thread-lifts initially came onto the market in the late 1990s but were difficult to use. The nonabsorbable threads had to be anchored into the scalp, temple, and brow region. The anchoring knots were carefully tied and were permanent. The newest technology threads – NovaThreads and the Silhouette Instalift – have recently received Food and Drug Administration clearance and grown in popularity because of their “lunchtime” appeal and their ease of use. Primarily marketed for the neck, jowls, and lower face, these threads – available in various sizes, lengths, and diameters – can be used almost anywhere. The sutures dissolve over time and do not need any anchoring, making it a very simple in-office procedure.
Side effects include mild procedural pain, edema, erythema, bruising, and rarely, suture granuloma formation; and they may need to be replaced. If not done properly, buckling of the skin can occur and superficially placed sutures can be visible.
Similar to fillers that provide a “liquid face-lift,” the down time is minimal. Common side effects include bruising, and patients should refrain from heavy exercise and opening their mouth wide with chewing for 5-7 days (such as eating a large apple). Soreness, particularly in or near the hairline or jaw line, can occur and can last up to 2 weeks. Dimpling in the skin can occur and usually resolves on its own; however, if threads are placed incorrectly, dimpling can cause some disfigurement.
Results can vary based on the tissue laxity, and the type, amount, and location of the threads used. While results have been reported to last 18 months to 2 years, the procedure is not a replacement for fillers. Facial aging is caused by a combination of skeletal, soft tissue, and skin changes that lead to soft tissue laxity and volume loss. Fillers are essential in restoring lost volume in the aging face and are particularly helpful in combination with tissue tightening lasers, face-lifts and the thread-lift procedures. Fillers used in combination with thread-lifts also increase the longevity of the thread-lift because of additional collagen stimulation.
As the procedure is not indicated for severe laxity, thread-lifts also do not replace the traditional face-lift. Tissue is not released from its underlying attachments, and skin contraction and gravitational pull limit its extent of improvement and its longevity.
Long-term success of the thread-lift procedure for facial rejuvenation was evaluated in a retrospective review of 33 patients who underwent the traditional thread-lift procedure alone or in combination with other facial rejuvenation procedures to the brow, mid-face, jowl, and neck published in 2009.1 The study compared results in 10 patients who had a thread-lift alone, 23 who had thread-lifts combined with other procedures, and controls, who were 10 ten patients who had non–thread-lift rejuvenation procedures, which included lipotransfer, chemical peels, and rhytidectomies. Independent, blinded, board-certified facial plastic surgeons evaluated pre- and postoperative photos. Patients were followed-up for a mean of 21 months.
While thread-lifts are a beneficial addition to our armamentarium of noninvasive aesthetic procedures, they have better outcomes and higher patient satisfaction when used in combination with fillers, radiofrequency, and fractional lasers and neuromodulators.
Reference
1. Abraham RF et al. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2009 May-Jun;11(3):178-83.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
The rise of noninvasive procedures has shifted the aesthetic culture. Patients now are asking for less invasive, less painful, less expensive procedures with short recovery times. Thread-lifts are one of the newest approaches to nonsurgical facial tightening. However, are they of value? Where, and for whom?
The thread-lifts initially came onto the market in the late 1990s but were difficult to use. The nonabsorbable threads had to be anchored into the scalp, temple, and brow region. The anchoring knots were carefully tied and were permanent. The newest technology threads – NovaThreads and the Silhouette Instalift – have recently received Food and Drug Administration clearance and grown in popularity because of their “lunchtime” appeal and their ease of use. Primarily marketed for the neck, jowls, and lower face, these threads – available in various sizes, lengths, and diameters – can be used almost anywhere. The sutures dissolve over time and do not need any anchoring, making it a very simple in-office procedure.
Side effects include mild procedural pain, edema, erythema, bruising, and rarely, suture granuloma formation; and they may need to be replaced. If not done properly, buckling of the skin can occur and superficially placed sutures can be visible.
Similar to fillers that provide a “liquid face-lift,” the down time is minimal. Common side effects include bruising, and patients should refrain from heavy exercise and opening their mouth wide with chewing for 5-7 days (such as eating a large apple). Soreness, particularly in or near the hairline or jaw line, can occur and can last up to 2 weeks. Dimpling in the skin can occur and usually resolves on its own; however, if threads are placed incorrectly, dimpling can cause some disfigurement.
Results can vary based on the tissue laxity, and the type, amount, and location of the threads used. While results have been reported to last 18 months to 2 years, the procedure is not a replacement for fillers. Facial aging is caused by a combination of skeletal, soft tissue, and skin changes that lead to soft tissue laxity and volume loss. Fillers are essential in restoring lost volume in the aging face and are particularly helpful in combination with tissue tightening lasers, face-lifts and the thread-lift procedures. Fillers used in combination with thread-lifts also increase the longevity of the thread-lift because of additional collagen stimulation.
As the procedure is not indicated for severe laxity, thread-lifts also do not replace the traditional face-lift. Tissue is not released from its underlying attachments, and skin contraction and gravitational pull limit its extent of improvement and its longevity.
Long-term success of the thread-lift procedure for facial rejuvenation was evaluated in a retrospective review of 33 patients who underwent the traditional thread-lift procedure alone or in combination with other facial rejuvenation procedures to the brow, mid-face, jowl, and neck published in 2009.1 The study compared results in 10 patients who had a thread-lift alone, 23 who had thread-lifts combined with other procedures, and controls, who were 10 ten patients who had non–thread-lift rejuvenation procedures, which included lipotransfer, chemical peels, and rhytidectomies. Independent, blinded, board-certified facial plastic surgeons evaluated pre- and postoperative photos. Patients were followed-up for a mean of 21 months.
While thread-lifts are a beneficial addition to our armamentarium of noninvasive aesthetic procedures, they have better outcomes and higher patient satisfaction when used in combination with fillers, radiofrequency, and fractional lasers and neuromodulators.
Reference
1. Abraham RF et al. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2009 May-Jun;11(3):178-83.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
The rise of noninvasive procedures has shifted the aesthetic culture. Patients now are asking for less invasive, less painful, less expensive procedures with short recovery times. Thread-lifts are one of the newest approaches to nonsurgical facial tightening. However, are they of value? Where, and for whom?
The thread-lifts initially came onto the market in the late 1990s but were difficult to use. The nonabsorbable threads had to be anchored into the scalp, temple, and brow region. The anchoring knots were carefully tied and were permanent. The newest technology threads – NovaThreads and the Silhouette Instalift – have recently received Food and Drug Administration clearance and grown in popularity because of their “lunchtime” appeal and their ease of use. Primarily marketed for the neck, jowls, and lower face, these threads – available in various sizes, lengths, and diameters – can be used almost anywhere. The sutures dissolve over time and do not need any anchoring, making it a very simple in-office procedure.
Side effects include mild procedural pain, edema, erythema, bruising, and rarely, suture granuloma formation; and they may need to be replaced. If not done properly, buckling of the skin can occur and superficially placed sutures can be visible.
Similar to fillers that provide a “liquid face-lift,” the down time is minimal. Common side effects include bruising, and patients should refrain from heavy exercise and opening their mouth wide with chewing for 5-7 days (such as eating a large apple). Soreness, particularly in or near the hairline or jaw line, can occur and can last up to 2 weeks. Dimpling in the skin can occur and usually resolves on its own; however, if threads are placed incorrectly, dimpling can cause some disfigurement.
Results can vary based on the tissue laxity, and the type, amount, and location of the threads used. While results have been reported to last 18 months to 2 years, the procedure is not a replacement for fillers. Facial aging is caused by a combination of skeletal, soft tissue, and skin changes that lead to soft tissue laxity and volume loss. Fillers are essential in restoring lost volume in the aging face and are particularly helpful in combination with tissue tightening lasers, face-lifts and the thread-lift procedures. Fillers used in combination with thread-lifts also increase the longevity of the thread-lift because of additional collagen stimulation.
As the procedure is not indicated for severe laxity, thread-lifts also do not replace the traditional face-lift. Tissue is not released from its underlying attachments, and skin contraction and gravitational pull limit its extent of improvement and its longevity.
Long-term success of the thread-lift procedure for facial rejuvenation was evaluated in a retrospective review of 33 patients who underwent the traditional thread-lift procedure alone or in combination with other facial rejuvenation procedures to the brow, mid-face, jowl, and neck published in 2009.1 The study compared results in 10 patients who had a thread-lift alone, 23 who had thread-lifts combined with other procedures, and controls, who were 10 ten patients who had non–thread-lift rejuvenation procedures, which included lipotransfer, chemical peels, and rhytidectomies. Independent, blinded, board-certified facial plastic surgeons evaluated pre- and postoperative photos. Patients were followed-up for a mean of 21 months.
While thread-lifts are a beneficial addition to our armamentarium of noninvasive aesthetic procedures, they have better outcomes and higher patient satisfaction when used in combination with fillers, radiofrequency, and fractional lasers and neuromodulators.
Reference
1. Abraham RF et al. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2009 May-Jun;11(3):178-83.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
Barnacles that come with wisdom
One of the most common reasons for visits to the dermatologist is a brown or flesh-colored lesion on the face or body that is concerning to the patient either because it’s changing; it’s scabbing or bleeding; it feels rough on the surface, and they can’t stand touching it – or because the patient just thinks they’re plain unsightly. After assessing and ruling out a malignant skin cancer or precancerous lesion clinically, the good news is that, in most cases, these turn out to be seborrheic keratoses (SK), benign growths. Patients are often reassured and relieved when we tell them we nickname SKs “barnacles that come with wisdom.” But then they often ask, “can I get rid of them?”
The answer is yes. There are many ways to rid people of these pesky lesions, but the reality is that, even with coding and documentation of an irritated SK, they are rarely covered by insurance. This leaves patients with the choice of whether to pay out of pocket for a cosmetic procedure and puts the dermatologist in a position of either charging the patient for a cosmetic procedure or treating to make the patient happy and not getting compensated for their services. For the cosmetic dermatologist, discussing cosmetic procedures with patients is an easy transition, but for the dermatologist who does not regularly practice cosmetic or fee-for-service dermatology – the majority of dermatologists in the United States – this can put them in an awkward position. According to a 2013 workforce survey, 20% of the dermatology market is cosmetic, while 80% is medical, surgical, and dermatopathology.1
Given the clinically verrucous nature of SKs, a viral etiology, particularly human papilloma virus (HPV), has often been sought. HPV subtypes have been seen in genital “SKs” and HPV-23 has been associated with stucco keratoses, which often resemble the SK family and are found on the legs of aging patients. However, multiple reports have refuted the presence of HPV in nongenital SK lesions.3
Until a potential gene therapy is available, current treatment options for patients who want to have their SKs treated include cryotherapy, electrodesiccation, curettage, or laser therapy with a KTP (potassium titanyl phosphate) laser or an ablative laser, such as a CO2 laser. Cryotherapy, curettage, and electrodesiccation, while effective, run a risk of dyspigmentation, especially hypopigmentation in Fitzpatrick Skin Types III-VI. KTP and ablative lasers can be effective, but are often less cost-effective methods to achieve similar results as cryotherapy or electrodesiccation. Clinical trial data have been published on a topical hydrogen peroxide–based solution, A-101, which is not currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration. In a recently published study, 68% of patients were clear or near clear of SKs on the face with the 40% A-101 solution after up to two treatments.4
SKs are a part of a cosmetic dermatology practice that arises on a daily basis and are often a concern for patients. Discussion of their management, coverage, and treatment options will resonate with every practicing dermatologist.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Dr. Wesley has served on an advisory board panel for Aclaris, which is developing A-101. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
References:
1: www.harriswilliams.com/system/files/industry_update/dermatology_market_overview.pdf
2: Am J Dermatopathol. 2014 Aug;36(8):635-42.
3: Indian J Dermatol. 2013 Jul;58(4):326.
4. Dermatol Surg. 2017 Sep 4. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000001302..
One of the most common reasons for visits to the dermatologist is a brown or flesh-colored lesion on the face or body that is concerning to the patient either because it’s changing; it’s scabbing or bleeding; it feels rough on the surface, and they can’t stand touching it – or because the patient just thinks they’re plain unsightly. After assessing and ruling out a malignant skin cancer or precancerous lesion clinically, the good news is that, in most cases, these turn out to be seborrheic keratoses (SK), benign growths. Patients are often reassured and relieved when we tell them we nickname SKs “barnacles that come with wisdom.” But then they often ask, “can I get rid of them?”
The answer is yes. There are many ways to rid people of these pesky lesions, but the reality is that, even with coding and documentation of an irritated SK, they are rarely covered by insurance. This leaves patients with the choice of whether to pay out of pocket for a cosmetic procedure and puts the dermatologist in a position of either charging the patient for a cosmetic procedure or treating to make the patient happy and not getting compensated for their services. For the cosmetic dermatologist, discussing cosmetic procedures with patients is an easy transition, but for the dermatologist who does not regularly practice cosmetic or fee-for-service dermatology – the majority of dermatologists in the United States – this can put them in an awkward position. According to a 2013 workforce survey, 20% of the dermatology market is cosmetic, while 80% is medical, surgical, and dermatopathology.1
Given the clinically verrucous nature of SKs, a viral etiology, particularly human papilloma virus (HPV), has often been sought. HPV subtypes have been seen in genital “SKs” and HPV-23 has been associated with stucco keratoses, which often resemble the SK family and are found on the legs of aging patients. However, multiple reports have refuted the presence of HPV in nongenital SK lesions.3
Until a potential gene therapy is available, current treatment options for patients who want to have their SKs treated include cryotherapy, electrodesiccation, curettage, or laser therapy with a KTP (potassium titanyl phosphate) laser or an ablative laser, such as a CO2 laser. Cryotherapy, curettage, and electrodesiccation, while effective, run a risk of dyspigmentation, especially hypopigmentation in Fitzpatrick Skin Types III-VI. KTP and ablative lasers can be effective, but are often less cost-effective methods to achieve similar results as cryotherapy or electrodesiccation. Clinical trial data have been published on a topical hydrogen peroxide–based solution, A-101, which is not currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration. In a recently published study, 68% of patients were clear or near clear of SKs on the face with the 40% A-101 solution after up to two treatments.4
SKs are a part of a cosmetic dermatology practice that arises on a daily basis and are often a concern for patients. Discussion of their management, coverage, and treatment options will resonate with every practicing dermatologist.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Dr. Wesley has served on an advisory board panel for Aclaris, which is developing A-101. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
References:
1: www.harriswilliams.com/system/files/industry_update/dermatology_market_overview.pdf
2: Am J Dermatopathol. 2014 Aug;36(8):635-42.
3: Indian J Dermatol. 2013 Jul;58(4):326.
4. Dermatol Surg. 2017 Sep 4. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000001302..
One of the most common reasons for visits to the dermatologist is a brown or flesh-colored lesion on the face or body that is concerning to the patient either because it’s changing; it’s scabbing or bleeding; it feels rough on the surface, and they can’t stand touching it – or because the patient just thinks they’re plain unsightly. After assessing and ruling out a malignant skin cancer or precancerous lesion clinically, the good news is that, in most cases, these turn out to be seborrheic keratoses (SK), benign growths. Patients are often reassured and relieved when we tell them we nickname SKs “barnacles that come with wisdom.” But then they often ask, “can I get rid of them?”
The answer is yes. There are many ways to rid people of these pesky lesions, but the reality is that, even with coding and documentation of an irritated SK, they are rarely covered by insurance. This leaves patients with the choice of whether to pay out of pocket for a cosmetic procedure and puts the dermatologist in a position of either charging the patient for a cosmetic procedure or treating to make the patient happy and not getting compensated for their services. For the cosmetic dermatologist, discussing cosmetic procedures with patients is an easy transition, but for the dermatologist who does not regularly practice cosmetic or fee-for-service dermatology – the majority of dermatologists in the United States – this can put them in an awkward position. According to a 2013 workforce survey, 20% of the dermatology market is cosmetic, while 80% is medical, surgical, and dermatopathology.1
Given the clinically verrucous nature of SKs, a viral etiology, particularly human papilloma virus (HPV), has often been sought. HPV subtypes have been seen in genital “SKs” and HPV-23 has been associated with stucco keratoses, which often resemble the SK family and are found on the legs of aging patients. However, multiple reports have refuted the presence of HPV in nongenital SK lesions.3
Until a potential gene therapy is available, current treatment options for patients who want to have their SKs treated include cryotherapy, electrodesiccation, curettage, or laser therapy with a KTP (potassium titanyl phosphate) laser or an ablative laser, such as a CO2 laser. Cryotherapy, curettage, and electrodesiccation, while effective, run a risk of dyspigmentation, especially hypopigmentation in Fitzpatrick Skin Types III-VI. KTP and ablative lasers can be effective, but are often less cost-effective methods to achieve similar results as cryotherapy or electrodesiccation. Clinical trial data have been published on a topical hydrogen peroxide–based solution, A-101, which is not currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration. In a recently published study, 68% of patients were clear or near clear of SKs on the face with the 40% A-101 solution after up to two treatments.4
SKs are a part of a cosmetic dermatology practice that arises on a daily basis and are often a concern for patients. Discussion of their management, coverage, and treatment options will resonate with every practicing dermatologist.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Dr. Wesley has served on an advisory board panel for Aclaris, which is developing A-101. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com.
References:
1: www.harriswilliams.com/system/files/industry_update/dermatology_market_overview.pdf
2: Am J Dermatopathol. 2014 Aug;36(8):635-42.
3: Indian J Dermatol. 2013 Jul;58(4):326.
4. Dermatol Surg. 2017 Sep 4. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000001302..
Don’t discount your face
I admit it ... I am a victim too. The hype was real. Offer a service, at a hefty discount, and increase your patient volume. I didn’t need to increase my patient load. But with more overhead, getting the new providers in my practice busy fast was alluring. There are, however, so many inherent risks to discounting. So I offer you this column as my own version of a consumer alert on discount coupon sites.
After falling victim to this fad myself, I realize that it was the worst business decision I have ever made – from the perspectives of the risks to the patient and the risks to the business.
The risks to the patient are transparent. The most obvious risk is the abundance of inexperienced injectors doing procedures. Self explanatory. Discount sites obtain medical license information prior to approving any medical treatment; however, not everyone with a medical license should be doing cosmetic procedures.
The second risk is a lack of proper evaluation and management, which leads to poor medical management and dissatisfaction. We should be approaching each cosmetic patient with treatments and procedures that are right for them, their skin, their medical history, their anatomy, and their specific needs. There is no screening through these sites. Patients buy the service, and even if the procedure is not right for them, they expect the service. Even if there is a statement on a site that services are contingent on screening, the promise of the service has already been made. If you do not provide the service, often the now-disgruntled patient will complain about you, your staff, your ethics, to anyone and everyone. If you do the procedure despite your best intentions, you are setting yourself up for disaster ... complications, unsatisfied patients, and unmet expectations. There is a reason consultations are necessary.
Third, the margins on this type of service are negligible. If a practice if offering injectable treatments at a too-good-to-be-true price, it probably is. Neurotoxins might be diluted, fillers could be mixed, products may be purchased from substandard overseas manufacturers, and subpar treatments and bad results can happen.
First, there are the legal implications of fee-splitting in some states, such as New York and California. The laws are set up to avoid conflicts of interest and kickbacks among health care organizations. An organization cannot be paid for referring a patient to a medical practice. Second, a customer who is willing to buy a discounted cosmetic procedure offers a reason enough not to do that treatment. Many online bargain shoppers are dissatisfied customers or patients that you do not want do a cosmetic procedure on in the first place. Finally, the cost of acquiring new patients through marketing is daunting for small businesses and what these discounters offer are “free” marketing tools. Through geolocation and search engine optimization, they increase brand visibility and deliver a steady influx of customers. However, very few of the massive surge of these initial clients become return customers and, given the hefty discount and processing fees involved, the business model may not prove to be worthwhile.
Everyone loves a deal, myself included. However, for your practice, there are health and ethical issues with these discount businesses. Good treatments aren’t cheap, and cheap treatments aren’t good.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
References
Sisler J. Discount deals becoming medical rage. CMAJ. 2012 Feb 21;184(3):E167-8.
Krieger LM. Discount cosmetic surgery: industry trends and strategies for success. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002 Aug;110(2):614-9.
Atiyeh BS et al. Aesthetic/Cosmetic surgery and ethical challenges. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008 Nov;32(6):829-39.
Groupon’s Hidden Influence on Reputation. MIT Technology Review. Sept. 12, 2011.
I admit it ... I am a victim too. The hype was real. Offer a service, at a hefty discount, and increase your patient volume. I didn’t need to increase my patient load. But with more overhead, getting the new providers in my practice busy fast was alluring. There are, however, so many inherent risks to discounting. So I offer you this column as my own version of a consumer alert on discount coupon sites.
After falling victim to this fad myself, I realize that it was the worst business decision I have ever made – from the perspectives of the risks to the patient and the risks to the business.
The risks to the patient are transparent. The most obvious risk is the abundance of inexperienced injectors doing procedures. Self explanatory. Discount sites obtain medical license information prior to approving any medical treatment; however, not everyone with a medical license should be doing cosmetic procedures.
The second risk is a lack of proper evaluation and management, which leads to poor medical management and dissatisfaction. We should be approaching each cosmetic patient with treatments and procedures that are right for them, their skin, their medical history, their anatomy, and their specific needs. There is no screening through these sites. Patients buy the service, and even if the procedure is not right for them, they expect the service. Even if there is a statement on a site that services are contingent on screening, the promise of the service has already been made. If you do not provide the service, often the now-disgruntled patient will complain about you, your staff, your ethics, to anyone and everyone. If you do the procedure despite your best intentions, you are setting yourself up for disaster ... complications, unsatisfied patients, and unmet expectations. There is a reason consultations are necessary.
Third, the margins on this type of service are negligible. If a practice if offering injectable treatments at a too-good-to-be-true price, it probably is. Neurotoxins might be diluted, fillers could be mixed, products may be purchased from substandard overseas manufacturers, and subpar treatments and bad results can happen.
First, there are the legal implications of fee-splitting in some states, such as New York and California. The laws are set up to avoid conflicts of interest and kickbacks among health care organizations. An organization cannot be paid for referring a patient to a medical practice. Second, a customer who is willing to buy a discounted cosmetic procedure offers a reason enough not to do that treatment. Many online bargain shoppers are dissatisfied customers or patients that you do not want do a cosmetic procedure on in the first place. Finally, the cost of acquiring new patients through marketing is daunting for small businesses and what these discounters offer are “free” marketing tools. Through geolocation and search engine optimization, they increase brand visibility and deliver a steady influx of customers. However, very few of the massive surge of these initial clients become return customers and, given the hefty discount and processing fees involved, the business model may not prove to be worthwhile.
Everyone loves a deal, myself included. However, for your practice, there are health and ethical issues with these discount businesses. Good treatments aren’t cheap, and cheap treatments aren’t good.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
References
Sisler J. Discount deals becoming medical rage. CMAJ. 2012 Feb 21;184(3):E167-8.
Krieger LM. Discount cosmetic surgery: industry trends and strategies for success. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002 Aug;110(2):614-9.
Atiyeh BS et al. Aesthetic/Cosmetic surgery and ethical challenges. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008 Nov;32(6):829-39.
Groupon’s Hidden Influence on Reputation. MIT Technology Review. Sept. 12, 2011.
I admit it ... I am a victim too. The hype was real. Offer a service, at a hefty discount, and increase your patient volume. I didn’t need to increase my patient load. But with more overhead, getting the new providers in my practice busy fast was alluring. There are, however, so many inherent risks to discounting. So I offer you this column as my own version of a consumer alert on discount coupon sites.
After falling victim to this fad myself, I realize that it was the worst business decision I have ever made – from the perspectives of the risks to the patient and the risks to the business.
The risks to the patient are transparent. The most obvious risk is the abundance of inexperienced injectors doing procedures. Self explanatory. Discount sites obtain medical license information prior to approving any medical treatment; however, not everyone with a medical license should be doing cosmetic procedures.
The second risk is a lack of proper evaluation and management, which leads to poor medical management and dissatisfaction. We should be approaching each cosmetic patient with treatments and procedures that are right for them, their skin, their medical history, their anatomy, and their specific needs. There is no screening through these sites. Patients buy the service, and even if the procedure is not right for them, they expect the service. Even if there is a statement on a site that services are contingent on screening, the promise of the service has already been made. If you do not provide the service, often the now-disgruntled patient will complain about you, your staff, your ethics, to anyone and everyone. If you do the procedure despite your best intentions, you are setting yourself up for disaster ... complications, unsatisfied patients, and unmet expectations. There is a reason consultations are necessary.
Third, the margins on this type of service are negligible. If a practice if offering injectable treatments at a too-good-to-be-true price, it probably is. Neurotoxins might be diluted, fillers could be mixed, products may be purchased from substandard overseas manufacturers, and subpar treatments and bad results can happen.
First, there are the legal implications of fee-splitting in some states, such as New York and California. The laws are set up to avoid conflicts of interest and kickbacks among health care organizations. An organization cannot be paid for referring a patient to a medical practice. Second, a customer who is willing to buy a discounted cosmetic procedure offers a reason enough not to do that treatment. Many online bargain shoppers are dissatisfied customers or patients that you do not want do a cosmetic procedure on in the first place. Finally, the cost of acquiring new patients through marketing is daunting for small businesses and what these discounters offer are “free” marketing tools. Through geolocation and search engine optimization, they increase brand visibility and deliver a steady influx of customers. However, very few of the massive surge of these initial clients become return customers and, given the hefty discount and processing fees involved, the business model may not prove to be worthwhile.
Everyone loves a deal, myself included. However, for your practice, there are health and ethical issues with these discount businesses. Good treatments aren’t cheap, and cheap treatments aren’t good.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
References
Sisler J. Discount deals becoming medical rage. CMAJ. 2012 Feb 21;184(3):E167-8.
Krieger LM. Discount cosmetic surgery: industry trends and strategies for success. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2002 Aug;110(2):614-9.
Atiyeh BS et al. Aesthetic/Cosmetic surgery and ethical challenges. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008 Nov;32(6):829-39.
Groupon’s Hidden Influence on Reputation. MIT Technology Review. Sept. 12, 2011.
Climate change may lead to more cellulitis
As a follow-up to our previous column on the effects of climate change on the skin (Dermatology News, June 2016, p. 28), this month’s column will focus on a study recently published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that explores warmer weather as a possible risk factor for cellulitis.1 As the summer continues with sweltering weather, humidity, and the recent spate of hurricanes in North America, it’s interesting to think about how the climate affects our patients and puts them at risk.
Much attention has been given to global warming and climate change over the past several years. The results of this study demonstrate that, if temperatures consistently increase, the odds of cellulitis also may increase in regions exposed to warmer temperatures.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
Reference
1. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Jul 31. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix487.
As a follow-up to our previous column on the effects of climate change on the skin (Dermatology News, June 2016, p. 28), this month’s column will focus on a study recently published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that explores warmer weather as a possible risk factor for cellulitis.1 As the summer continues with sweltering weather, humidity, and the recent spate of hurricanes in North America, it’s interesting to think about how the climate affects our patients and puts them at risk.
Much attention has been given to global warming and climate change over the past several years. The results of this study demonstrate that, if temperatures consistently increase, the odds of cellulitis also may increase in regions exposed to warmer temperatures.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
Reference
1. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Jul 31. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix487.
As a follow-up to our previous column on the effects of climate change on the skin (Dermatology News, June 2016, p. 28), this month’s column will focus on a study recently published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that explores warmer weather as a possible risk factor for cellulitis.1 As the summer continues with sweltering weather, humidity, and the recent spate of hurricanes in North America, it’s interesting to think about how the climate affects our patients and puts them at risk.
Much attention has been given to global warming and climate change over the past several years. The results of this study demonstrate that, if temperatures consistently increase, the odds of cellulitis also may increase in regions exposed to warmer temperatures.
Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
Reference
1. Clin Infect Dis. 2017 Jul 31. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix487.
Why you should use sunscreens indoors
It may be surprising that there are dermatologic risks of UV exposure from lamps and other indoor light sources that we use daily. Is long-term daily exposure to presumably low-irradiance lights of clinical significance to photodermatoses? Recent findings suggest that skin protection must be practiced indoors to adequately protect the skin against UV rays.
Photodermatoses, such as lupus, actinic prurigo, and xeroderma pigmentosum, are only a few of the skin diseases that are triggered by UV exposure; however, chronic low-dose exposures to UV light, such as those associated with indoor lighting, may also be triggers of such conditions. Melasma, for example, can be triggered by heat or UV light. Chronic exposure to ambient light may darken the skin, necessitating daily UV protection in both indoor and outdoor settings.
A study examining light sources in the environment of a child with xeroderma pigmentosum suggested that indoor lights emit unexpected amounts of UV light as measured by a spectral radiometer. This finding illustrated that cumulative, chronic doses of indoor lighting may be of clinical significance.
Interior lighting is also implicated in worsening of melasma and other photosensitive dermatoses. Incandescent bulbs have little to no UV irradiance. However, fluorescent lighting has been shown to increase lifetime UV exposure by 3% based on the distance the lamp is from the skin. If the lamp is close – particularly desk lamps, bed lamps, and overhead lamps – the light and heat emitted can worsen photoexacerbated dermatitidis. Avoiding close contact with the light or adding acrylic or plastic diffusers to the light can help reduce exposure.
Halogen bulbs are filled with an inert gas and a halogen, such as iodine. These bulbs are usually made of quartz because quartz is more resistant to the high heat emitted by these bulbs. But the quartz, however, does not block UV radiation, which is why manufacturers add UV-blocking agents and heat-resistant glass to block the UV; however, the amount blocked is usually unknown. As with fluorescent bulbs, the distance from the bulb is essential to protect against both the UV and heat emitted. Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) generate a light from a semiconductor material that converts blue light into white light with the use of phosphorus; LEDs do not emit UV rays and, therefore, are a safer light source for the skin.
In addition to the use of lamps, the light that passes through glass is easy to underestimate. Unlike UVB rays, UVA rays pass through glass and affect the skin. The percentage of UVA rays that pass through glass depends on the type of glass and the coating on the glass. There are three types of window glass: clear, reflective, and tinted. Clear glass allows 75% of UVA through,while reflective and tinted glass allow only 25%-50% of UVA rays to pass through. Low-emissivity glass (Low-E) is made to reduce heat transfer and is similar to clear glass. The most protective glass is laminated or UV-coated glass that filters out 95%-99% of all UVA rays. Unfortunately, most residential and commercial buildings do not have UVA protection. The use of blinds, shades, and tinted glass, and increasing the distance from windows and doors are the best methods of protection from chronic daily UVA exposures.
In most cars, windshield is made of laminated glass (two layers of glass with a layer of plastic in between), which blocks all UVB and approximately 50% of UVA rays. However, side and rear windows are often clear glass, which does not prevent UVA rays from penetrating through. Patients with photosensitive dermatoses and all melasma patients are encouraged to tint the side windows of their vehicles to reduce UVA exposures to 15%-30%. Tinting, however, must be in compliance with federally mandated standard of 70% minimum visible light transmittance. In my practice, daily UV protection is recommended for all patients, even within an automobile or in an office. Daily cumulative exposure can cause chronic skin damage and early signs of photoaging.
Other sources of indoor exposures include TV monitors, computers, tablets, and UV sterilization devices in the workplace. Older cathode ray tube screens emit UV radiation; however, newer liquid crystal display (LCD) or flat panel monitors most commonly on laptops, desktops, and mobile devices do not emit UV radiation. They do emit blue light – although a small fraction compared to that emitted by the sun. The amount of time spent in front of these screens and their proximity can pose a problem as blue light can increase reactive oxygen species, which is the most common contributor to premature aging. These devices also emit heat, which can exacerbate erythema ab igne and other heat-sensitive skin conditions.
The risks of indoor UV and blue light exposures are commonly overlooked. Skin protection with broad-spectrum sunscreen both inside and outside should be used daily for maximum protection. Care should also be taken to limit exposure times and increase distance of these objects from the skin and eyes.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
References
It may be surprising that there are dermatologic risks of UV exposure from lamps and other indoor light sources that we use daily. Is long-term daily exposure to presumably low-irradiance lights of clinical significance to photodermatoses? Recent findings suggest that skin protection must be practiced indoors to adequately protect the skin against UV rays.
Photodermatoses, such as lupus, actinic prurigo, and xeroderma pigmentosum, are only a few of the skin diseases that are triggered by UV exposure; however, chronic low-dose exposures to UV light, such as those associated with indoor lighting, may also be triggers of such conditions. Melasma, for example, can be triggered by heat or UV light. Chronic exposure to ambient light may darken the skin, necessitating daily UV protection in both indoor and outdoor settings.
A study examining light sources in the environment of a child with xeroderma pigmentosum suggested that indoor lights emit unexpected amounts of UV light as measured by a spectral radiometer. This finding illustrated that cumulative, chronic doses of indoor lighting may be of clinical significance.
Interior lighting is also implicated in worsening of melasma and other photosensitive dermatoses. Incandescent bulbs have little to no UV irradiance. However, fluorescent lighting has been shown to increase lifetime UV exposure by 3% based on the distance the lamp is from the skin. If the lamp is close – particularly desk lamps, bed lamps, and overhead lamps – the light and heat emitted can worsen photoexacerbated dermatitidis. Avoiding close contact with the light or adding acrylic or plastic diffusers to the light can help reduce exposure.
Halogen bulbs are filled with an inert gas and a halogen, such as iodine. These bulbs are usually made of quartz because quartz is more resistant to the high heat emitted by these bulbs. But the quartz, however, does not block UV radiation, which is why manufacturers add UV-blocking agents and heat-resistant glass to block the UV; however, the amount blocked is usually unknown. As with fluorescent bulbs, the distance from the bulb is essential to protect against both the UV and heat emitted. Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) generate a light from a semiconductor material that converts blue light into white light with the use of phosphorus; LEDs do not emit UV rays and, therefore, are a safer light source for the skin.
In addition to the use of lamps, the light that passes through glass is easy to underestimate. Unlike UVB rays, UVA rays pass through glass and affect the skin. The percentage of UVA rays that pass through glass depends on the type of glass and the coating on the glass. There are three types of window glass: clear, reflective, and tinted. Clear glass allows 75% of UVA through,while reflective and tinted glass allow only 25%-50% of UVA rays to pass through. Low-emissivity glass (Low-E) is made to reduce heat transfer and is similar to clear glass. The most protective glass is laminated or UV-coated glass that filters out 95%-99% of all UVA rays. Unfortunately, most residential and commercial buildings do not have UVA protection. The use of blinds, shades, and tinted glass, and increasing the distance from windows and doors are the best methods of protection from chronic daily UVA exposures.
In most cars, windshield is made of laminated glass (two layers of glass with a layer of plastic in between), which blocks all UVB and approximately 50% of UVA rays. However, side and rear windows are often clear glass, which does not prevent UVA rays from penetrating through. Patients with photosensitive dermatoses and all melasma patients are encouraged to tint the side windows of their vehicles to reduce UVA exposures to 15%-30%. Tinting, however, must be in compliance with federally mandated standard of 70% minimum visible light transmittance. In my practice, daily UV protection is recommended for all patients, even within an automobile or in an office. Daily cumulative exposure can cause chronic skin damage and early signs of photoaging.
Other sources of indoor exposures include TV monitors, computers, tablets, and UV sterilization devices in the workplace. Older cathode ray tube screens emit UV radiation; however, newer liquid crystal display (LCD) or flat panel monitors most commonly on laptops, desktops, and mobile devices do not emit UV radiation. They do emit blue light – although a small fraction compared to that emitted by the sun. The amount of time spent in front of these screens and their proximity can pose a problem as blue light can increase reactive oxygen species, which is the most common contributor to premature aging. These devices also emit heat, which can exacerbate erythema ab igne and other heat-sensitive skin conditions.
The risks of indoor UV and blue light exposures are commonly overlooked. Skin protection with broad-spectrum sunscreen both inside and outside should be used daily for maximum protection. Care should also be taken to limit exposure times and increase distance of these objects from the skin and eyes.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They had no relevant disclosures.
References
It may be surprising that there are dermatologic risks of UV exposure from lamps and other indoor light sources that we use daily. Is long-term daily exposure to presumably low-irradiance lights of clinical significance to photodermatoses? Recent findings suggest that skin protection must be practiced indoors to adequately protect the skin against UV rays.
Photodermatoses, such as lupus, actinic prurigo, and xeroderma pigmentosum, are only a few of the skin diseases that are triggered by UV exposure; however, chronic low-dose exposures to UV light, such as those associated with indoor lighting, may also be triggers of such conditions. Melasma, for example, can be triggered by heat or UV light. Chronic exposure to ambient light may darken the skin, necessitating daily UV protection in both indoor and outdoor settings.
A study examining light sources in the environment of a child with xeroderma pigmentosum suggested that indoor lights emit unexpected amounts of UV light as measured by a spectral radiometer. This finding illustrated that cumulative, chronic doses of indoor lighting may be of clinical significance.
Interior lighting is also implicated in worsening of melasma and other photosensitive dermatoses. Incandescent bulbs have little to no UV irradiance. However, fluorescent lighting has been shown to increase lifetime UV exposure by 3% based on the distance the lamp is from the skin. If the lamp is close – particularly desk lamps, bed lamps, and overhead lamps – the light and heat emitted can worsen photoexacerbated dermatitidis. Avoiding close contact with the light or adding acrylic or plastic diffusers to the light can help reduce exposure.
Halogen bulbs are filled with an inert gas and a halogen, such as iodine. These bulbs are usually made of quartz because quartz is more resistant to the high heat emitted by these bulbs. But the quartz, however, does not block UV radiation, which is why manufacturers add UV-blocking agents and heat-resistant glass to block the UV; however, the amount blocked is usually unknown. As with fluorescent bulbs, the distance from the bulb is essential to protect against both the UV and heat emitted. Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) generate a light from a semiconductor material that converts blue light into white light with the use of phosphorus; LEDs do not emit UV rays and, therefore, are a safer light source for the skin.
In addition to the use of lamps, the light that passes through glass is easy to underestimate. Unlike UVB rays, UVA rays pass through glass and affect the skin. The percentage of UVA rays that pass through glass depends on the type of glass and the coating on the glass. There are three types of window glass: clear, reflective, and tinted. Clear glass allows 75% of UVA through,while reflective and tinted glass allow only 25%-50% of UVA rays to pass through. Low-emissivity glass (Low-E) is made to reduce heat transfer and is similar to clear glass. The most protective glass is laminated or UV-coated glass that filters out 95%-99% of all UVA rays. Unfortunately, most residential and commercial buildings do not have UVA protection. The use of blinds, shades, and tinted glass, and increasing the distance from windows and doors are the best methods of protection from chronic daily UVA exposures.
In most cars, windshield is made of laminated glass (two layers of glass with a layer of plastic in between), which blocks all UVB and approximately 50% of UVA rays. However, side and rear windows are often clear glass, which does not prevent UVA rays from penetrating through. Patients with photosensitive dermatoses and all melasma patients are encouraged to tint the side windows of their vehicles to reduce UVA exposures to 15%-30%. Tinting, however, must be in compliance with federally mandated standard of 70% minimum visible light transmittance. In my practice, daily UV protection is recommended for all patients, even within an automobile or in an office. Daily cumulative exposure can cause chronic skin damage and early signs of photoaging.
Other sources of indoor exposures include TV monitors, computers, tablets, and UV sterilization devices in the workplace. Older cathode ray tube screens emit UV radiation; however, newer liquid crystal display (LCD) or flat panel monitors most commonly on laptops, desktops, and mobile devices do not emit UV radiation. They do emit blue light – although a small fraction compared to that emitted by the sun. The amount of time spent in front of these screens and their proximity can pose a problem as blue light can increase reactive oxygen species, which is the most common contributor to premature aging. These devices also emit heat, which can exacerbate erythema ab igne and other heat-sensitive skin conditions.
The risks of indoor UV and blue light exposures are commonly overlooked. Skin protection with broad-spectrum sunscreen both inside and outside should be used daily for maximum protection. Care should also be taken to limit exposure times and increase distance of these objects from the skin and eyes.
Dr. Talakoub and Dr. Wesley are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. Write to them at dermnews@frontlinemedcom.com. They had no relevant disclosures.