Aesthetic Dermatology

BALTIMORE — A 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser, approved 2 years ago by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has demonstrated a high degree of improvement for facial photoaging and rhytides along with relatively high rates of patient satisfaction — while causing less discomfort and downtime compared with conventional fractional lasers, a small single-center study showed.

The study enrolled 15 patients who had three treatment sessions with the 2910-nm laser. “It’s highly customizable,” the study’s lead author, Taryn Murray, MD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. “It has a really fast time in healing compared to traditional abatable lasers; the healing time is 5-7 days vs several weeks.” Dr. Murray presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS).
 

The Technology Behind the Laser

The 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser is a mid-infrared ablative fractional device that operates at peak water absorption. It’s designed to cause minimal residual thermal damage, resulting in less discomfort, shorter downtime, and potentially fewer side effects than conventional ablative lasers, Dr. Murray said.

Murray_Taryn_Ohio_web.jpg

Because of the way the pulses are delivered, “it’s far less painful than traditional fractional ablative lasers, so you can use mainly topical numbing; you don’t need nerve blocks, you don’t have to infiltrate lidocaine, you don’t have to put the patient under anesthesia,” she said.

“Because of the wavelength, how pulses are delivered and how customizable the settings are, it’s safer to use in darker skin types,” and the density, depth, and the amount of coagulation applied into the skin are customizable, Dr. Murray added. 

The laser also delivers pulses in a different way than the conventional 2940-nm erbium and CO₂ lasers, she explained. “Traditional lasers do it all in one pulse. This laser uses micropulses with relaxation time in between pulses, so the body interprets it as less painful and allows pressure and steam to escape out of the channel, which results in faster healing.”

[embed:render:related:node:265602]

The study patients had topical anesthetic cream applied to their faces 45-60 minutes before the procedure. Multiple passes were made using both superficial and deep laser modes. The average patient age was 65.7 years, and Fitzpatrick skin types included I (n = 3), II (n = 3), III (n = 7), and IV (n = 2). On a scale of 0-10, the average level of discomfort was 4.9, and the average patient satisfaction after three treatments was 4.8, Dr. Murray said.

For cosmetic improvement, the study used the 5-point Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). Blinded reviewers evaluated digital images and determined an average GAIS score of 3.2 for overall appearance, 2.9 for wrinkles, 3.6 for pigment, 3.1 for skin texture, and 2.6 for skin laxity. 

When the patients themselves reviewed the digital images, the average GAIS score was 3.8 for overall appearance. 

Side effects, said Dr. Murray, were transient, with edema and soft-tissue crusting lasting 3-5 days and erythema resolving in 1-2 weeks on average. One case of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) did arise, which was linked to allergic contact dermatitis from the healing ointment. That patient stayed in the study and had complete resolution of the PIH.

Study Stands Out

A number of studies of the 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser have emerged over the past half year, Ritu Swali, MD, who was an American Society of Dermatologic Surgery fellow at a practice in Houston, said in an interview at the meeting. But this one stands out because of the evidence surrounding its use.

Most people are using this laser for facial resurfacing, “and we want to know that we have a technology ... with shorter downtime and easier wound care and just more comfort,” she said.

Swali_Ritu_web.jpg

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — A 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser, approved 2 years ago by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has demonstrated a high degree of improvement for facial photoaging and rhytides along with relatively high rates of patient satisfaction — while causing less discomfort and downtime compared with conventional fractional lasers, a small single-center study showed.

The study enrolled 15 patients who had three treatment sessions with the 2910-nm laser. “It’s highly customizable,” the study’s lead author, Taryn Murray, MD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. “It has a really fast time in healing compared to traditional abatable lasers; the healing time is 5-7 days vs several weeks.” Dr. Murray presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS).
 

The Technology Behind the Laser

The 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser is a mid-infrared ablative fractional device that operates at peak water absorption. It’s designed to cause minimal residual thermal damage, resulting in less discomfort, shorter downtime, and potentially fewer side effects than conventional ablative lasers, Dr. Murray said.

Murray_Taryn_Ohio_web.jpg

Because of the way the pulses are delivered, “it’s far less painful than traditional fractional ablative lasers, so you can use mainly topical numbing; you don’t need nerve blocks, you don’t have to infiltrate lidocaine, you don’t have to put the patient under anesthesia,” she said.

“Because of the wavelength, how pulses are delivered and how customizable the settings are, it’s safer to use in darker skin types,” and the density, depth, and the amount of coagulation applied into the skin are customizable, Dr. Murray added. 

The laser also delivers pulses in a different way than the conventional 2940-nm erbium and CO₂ lasers, she explained. “Traditional lasers do it all in one pulse. This laser uses micropulses with relaxation time in between pulses, so the body interprets it as less painful and allows pressure and steam to escape out of the channel, which results in faster healing.”

[embed:render:related:node:265602]

The study patients had topical anesthetic cream applied to their faces 45-60 minutes before the procedure. Multiple passes were made using both superficial and deep laser modes. The average patient age was 65.7 years, and Fitzpatrick skin types included I (n = 3), II (n = 3), III (n = 7), and IV (n = 2). On a scale of 0-10, the average level of discomfort was 4.9, and the average patient satisfaction after three treatments was 4.8, Dr. Murray said.

For cosmetic improvement, the study used the 5-point Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). Blinded reviewers evaluated digital images and determined an average GAIS score of 3.2 for overall appearance, 2.9 for wrinkles, 3.6 for pigment, 3.1 for skin texture, and 2.6 for skin laxity. 

When the patients themselves reviewed the digital images, the average GAIS score was 3.8 for overall appearance. 

Side effects, said Dr. Murray, were transient, with edema and soft-tissue crusting lasting 3-5 days and erythema resolving in 1-2 weeks on average. One case of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) did arise, which was linked to allergic contact dermatitis from the healing ointment. That patient stayed in the study and had complete resolution of the PIH.

Study Stands Out

A number of studies of the 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser have emerged over the past half year, Ritu Swali, MD, who was an American Society of Dermatologic Surgery fellow at a practice in Houston, said in an interview at the meeting. But this one stands out because of the evidence surrounding its use.

Most people are using this laser for facial resurfacing, “and we want to know that we have a technology ... with shorter downtime and easier wound care and just more comfort,” she said.

Swali_Ritu_web.jpg

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — A 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser, approved 2 years ago by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has demonstrated a high degree of improvement for facial photoaging and rhytides along with relatively high rates of patient satisfaction — while causing less discomfort and downtime compared with conventional fractional lasers, a small single-center study showed.

The study enrolled 15 patients who had three treatment sessions with the 2910-nm laser. “It’s highly customizable,” the study’s lead author, Taryn Murray, MD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, told this news organization. “It has a really fast time in healing compared to traditional abatable lasers; the healing time is 5-7 days vs several weeks.” Dr. Murray presented the results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS).
 

The Technology Behind the Laser

The 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser is a mid-infrared ablative fractional device that operates at peak water absorption. It’s designed to cause minimal residual thermal damage, resulting in less discomfort, shorter downtime, and potentially fewer side effects than conventional ablative lasers, Dr. Murray said.

Murray_Taryn_Ohio_web.jpg

Because of the way the pulses are delivered, “it’s far less painful than traditional fractional ablative lasers, so you can use mainly topical numbing; you don’t need nerve blocks, you don’t have to infiltrate lidocaine, you don’t have to put the patient under anesthesia,” she said.

“Because of the wavelength, how pulses are delivered and how customizable the settings are, it’s safer to use in darker skin types,” and the density, depth, and the amount of coagulation applied into the skin are customizable, Dr. Murray added. 

The laser also delivers pulses in a different way than the conventional 2940-nm erbium and CO₂ lasers, she explained. “Traditional lasers do it all in one pulse. This laser uses micropulses with relaxation time in between pulses, so the body interprets it as less painful and allows pressure and steam to escape out of the channel, which results in faster healing.”

[embed:render:related:node:265602]

The study patients had topical anesthetic cream applied to their faces 45-60 minutes before the procedure. Multiple passes were made using both superficial and deep laser modes. The average patient age was 65.7 years, and Fitzpatrick skin types included I (n = 3), II (n = 3), III (n = 7), and IV (n = 2). On a scale of 0-10, the average level of discomfort was 4.9, and the average patient satisfaction after three treatments was 4.8, Dr. Murray said.

For cosmetic improvement, the study used the 5-point Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). Blinded reviewers evaluated digital images and determined an average GAIS score of 3.2 for overall appearance, 2.9 for wrinkles, 3.6 for pigment, 3.1 for skin texture, and 2.6 for skin laxity. 

When the patients themselves reviewed the digital images, the average GAIS score was 3.8 for overall appearance. 

Side effects, said Dr. Murray, were transient, with edema and soft-tissue crusting lasting 3-5 days and erythema resolving in 1-2 weeks on average. One case of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) did arise, which was linked to allergic contact dermatitis from the healing ointment. That patient stayed in the study and had complete resolution of the PIH.

Study Stands Out

A number of studies of the 2910-nm erbium-doped fluoride glass fiber laser have emerged over the past half year, Ritu Swali, MD, who was an American Society of Dermatologic Surgery fellow at a practice in Houston, said in an interview at the meeting. But this one stands out because of the evidence surrounding its use.

Most people are using this laser for facial resurfacing, “and we want to know that we have a technology ... with shorter downtime and easier wound care and just more comfort,” she said.

Swali_Ritu_web.jpg

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — A relatively new registry of complications from dermatologic surgery has posted its first results, showing that among laser and energy device treatments, the most common adverse events (AEs) were blistering, hypopigmentation, scars, and burns. But the process of reporting AEs to the registry needs to be made easier to attract more cases and provide a more complete picture of complications after dermatologic procedures, a researcher and observer said.

The Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting Registry (CAPER) was established in 2021 to track AEs from dermatologic procedures. Since then, it has logged a total of 81 cases and 147 AEs from 27 unique procedures, Eric Koza, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, reported at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

Koza_Eric_Illinois_web.jpg

“The takeaways from this project is that 20 laser and energy device treatments have been reported to the registry, half of which were nonablative laser treatments,” Dr. Koza said in presenting the results. “Of the adverse events reported, nonphysicians and non-dermatologic physicians were more likely to be associated with severe or persistent adverse events.”

[embed:render:related:node:262554]

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association and the Northwestern University Department of Dermatology launched CAPER. Previously, Dr. Koza said, AEs were typically reported only through the Food and Drug Administration’s AE reporting system. He noted that CAPER is the only voluntary national reporting registry for AEs from dermatologic procedures.

What the Registry Shows So Far

The registry matched 72 of the 81 cases with type of provider, with dermatologist-conducted procedures (51, 70.8%) comprising the majority, followed by nonphysician-conducted procedures (14, 19.4%) and nondermatologist physician–conducted procedures (7, 9.7%).

Of the 81 total cases, the following reports were related to laser and energy device treatments: 12 (14.3%) from nonablative laser treatments, five (6%) from light treatments, and three (3.6%) from ablative laser treatments, Dr. Koza said.

Among nonablative laser treatments, the most common AE was blistering (six reports, 50%). Scar, pain, and hypopigmentation accounted for two cases each (16.67%). Dermatologists performed seven of these cases (58.3%); nonphysicians, four (33.3%); and a non-dermatologist physician, one (8.3%).

For intense pulsed-light treatments, burns were the most common AEs (three reports, 60%), with swelling and inflammation each accounting for one case (20%). Three of these cases (75%) were confirmed to have been performed by nonphysicians.

The ablative laser treatment AEs included one case each of hypopigmentation, scar, and erythema. Two of the three cases were confirmed to have been performed by dermatologists.

Dr. Koza acknowledged the low number of cases is a limitation of this analysis of registry reports. A future goal for CAPER is to publicize it more, he said. “The registry is only 3 years old,” he told this news organization. “Hopefully, we can get more data as time goes on. We’ve been getting more and more each year.” CAPER adapted data entry forms used in other registries.

Submitting a case to the registry takes about 15 minutes of the provider’s time, Dr. Koza said. “We can streamline that to make it easier for people to submit their adverse events,” he said in an interview.

Only registry staff have access to the reports, and when reported, the data “is de-identified and any identifying information pertaining to the patient or reporter is removed,” according to a statement on the CAPER website.
 

‘Needs a Little Help’

Jennifer Lin, MD, a dermatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was at the meeting, commented on the onerous reporting process and the “low” enrollment. “It’s such an important initiative and with everyone over-logging e-mails, a 15-minute entry just is not going to cut it,” she told this news organization.

For providers, reporting AEs is stressful, she said. “As it is, it’s hard to voluntarily submit an adverse event,” Dr. Lin continued. “There’s a feeling of shame. Hospitals require it in order to monitor adverse events, but there’s no monitoring when you’re out in your own private practice.”

“The idea is excellent, but I think to facilitate better enrollment, the word has to get out at all these meetings” and make it easier to submit cases, Dr. Lin added. “It’s a good idea, but it needs a little help.”

Information on submitting AE reports to CAPER is available on the CAPER website.

Dr. Koza and Dr. Lin had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — A relatively new registry of complications from dermatologic surgery has posted its first results, showing that among laser and energy device treatments, the most common adverse events (AEs) were blistering, hypopigmentation, scars, and burns. But the process of reporting AEs to the registry needs to be made easier to attract more cases and provide a more complete picture of complications after dermatologic procedures, a researcher and observer said.

The Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting Registry (CAPER) was established in 2021 to track AEs from dermatologic procedures. Since then, it has logged a total of 81 cases and 147 AEs from 27 unique procedures, Eric Koza, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, reported at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

Koza_Eric_Illinois_web.jpg

“The takeaways from this project is that 20 laser and energy device treatments have been reported to the registry, half of which were nonablative laser treatments,” Dr. Koza said in presenting the results. “Of the adverse events reported, nonphysicians and non-dermatologic physicians were more likely to be associated with severe or persistent adverse events.”

[embed:render:related:node:262554]

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association and the Northwestern University Department of Dermatology launched CAPER. Previously, Dr. Koza said, AEs were typically reported only through the Food and Drug Administration’s AE reporting system. He noted that CAPER is the only voluntary national reporting registry for AEs from dermatologic procedures.

What the Registry Shows So Far

The registry matched 72 of the 81 cases with type of provider, with dermatologist-conducted procedures (51, 70.8%) comprising the majority, followed by nonphysician-conducted procedures (14, 19.4%) and nondermatologist physician–conducted procedures (7, 9.7%).

Of the 81 total cases, the following reports were related to laser and energy device treatments: 12 (14.3%) from nonablative laser treatments, five (6%) from light treatments, and three (3.6%) from ablative laser treatments, Dr. Koza said.

Among nonablative laser treatments, the most common AE was blistering (six reports, 50%). Scar, pain, and hypopigmentation accounted for two cases each (16.67%). Dermatologists performed seven of these cases (58.3%); nonphysicians, four (33.3%); and a non-dermatologist physician, one (8.3%).

For intense pulsed-light treatments, burns were the most common AEs (three reports, 60%), with swelling and inflammation each accounting for one case (20%). Three of these cases (75%) were confirmed to have been performed by nonphysicians.

The ablative laser treatment AEs included one case each of hypopigmentation, scar, and erythema. Two of the three cases were confirmed to have been performed by dermatologists.

Dr. Koza acknowledged the low number of cases is a limitation of this analysis of registry reports. A future goal for CAPER is to publicize it more, he said. “The registry is only 3 years old,” he told this news organization. “Hopefully, we can get more data as time goes on. We’ve been getting more and more each year.” CAPER adapted data entry forms used in other registries.

Submitting a case to the registry takes about 15 minutes of the provider’s time, Dr. Koza said. “We can streamline that to make it easier for people to submit their adverse events,” he said in an interview.

Only registry staff have access to the reports, and when reported, the data “is de-identified and any identifying information pertaining to the patient or reporter is removed,” according to a statement on the CAPER website.
 

‘Needs a Little Help’

Jennifer Lin, MD, a dermatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was at the meeting, commented on the onerous reporting process and the “low” enrollment. “It’s such an important initiative and with everyone over-logging e-mails, a 15-minute entry just is not going to cut it,” she told this news organization.

For providers, reporting AEs is stressful, she said. “As it is, it’s hard to voluntarily submit an adverse event,” Dr. Lin continued. “There’s a feeling of shame. Hospitals require it in order to monitor adverse events, but there’s no monitoring when you’re out in your own private practice.”

“The idea is excellent, but I think to facilitate better enrollment, the word has to get out at all these meetings” and make it easier to submit cases, Dr. Lin added. “It’s a good idea, but it needs a little help.”

Information on submitting AE reports to CAPER is available on the CAPER website.

Dr. Koza and Dr. Lin had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — A relatively new registry of complications from dermatologic surgery has posted its first results, showing that among laser and energy device treatments, the most common adverse events (AEs) were blistering, hypopigmentation, scars, and burns. But the process of reporting AEs to the registry needs to be made easier to attract more cases and provide a more complete picture of complications after dermatologic procedures, a researcher and observer said.

The Cutaneous Procedures Adverse Events Reporting Registry (CAPER) was established in 2021 to track AEs from dermatologic procedures. Since then, it has logged a total of 81 cases and 147 AEs from 27 unique procedures, Eric Koza, MD, a postdoctoral research fellow in the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, reported at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

Koza_Eric_Illinois_web.jpg

“The takeaways from this project is that 20 laser and energy device treatments have been reported to the registry, half of which were nonablative laser treatments,” Dr. Koza said in presenting the results. “Of the adverse events reported, nonphysicians and non-dermatologic physicians were more likely to be associated with severe or persistent adverse events.”

[embed:render:related:node:262554]

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association and the Northwestern University Department of Dermatology launched CAPER. Previously, Dr. Koza said, AEs were typically reported only through the Food and Drug Administration’s AE reporting system. He noted that CAPER is the only voluntary national reporting registry for AEs from dermatologic procedures.

What the Registry Shows So Far

The registry matched 72 of the 81 cases with type of provider, with dermatologist-conducted procedures (51, 70.8%) comprising the majority, followed by nonphysician-conducted procedures (14, 19.4%) and nondermatologist physician–conducted procedures (7, 9.7%).

Of the 81 total cases, the following reports were related to laser and energy device treatments: 12 (14.3%) from nonablative laser treatments, five (6%) from light treatments, and three (3.6%) from ablative laser treatments, Dr. Koza said.

Among nonablative laser treatments, the most common AE was blistering (six reports, 50%). Scar, pain, and hypopigmentation accounted for two cases each (16.67%). Dermatologists performed seven of these cases (58.3%); nonphysicians, four (33.3%); and a non-dermatologist physician, one (8.3%).

For intense pulsed-light treatments, burns were the most common AEs (three reports, 60%), with swelling and inflammation each accounting for one case (20%). Three of these cases (75%) were confirmed to have been performed by nonphysicians.

The ablative laser treatment AEs included one case each of hypopigmentation, scar, and erythema. Two of the three cases were confirmed to have been performed by dermatologists.

Dr. Koza acknowledged the low number of cases is a limitation of this analysis of registry reports. A future goal for CAPER is to publicize it more, he said. “The registry is only 3 years old,” he told this news organization. “Hopefully, we can get more data as time goes on. We’ve been getting more and more each year.” CAPER adapted data entry forms used in other registries.

Submitting a case to the registry takes about 15 minutes of the provider’s time, Dr. Koza said. “We can streamline that to make it easier for people to submit their adverse events,” he said in an interview.

Only registry staff have access to the reports, and when reported, the data “is de-identified and any identifying information pertaining to the patient or reporter is removed,” according to a statement on the CAPER website.
 

‘Needs a Little Help’

Jennifer Lin, MD, a dermatologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, who was at the meeting, commented on the onerous reporting process and the “low” enrollment. “It’s such an important initiative and with everyone over-logging e-mails, a 15-minute entry just is not going to cut it,” she told this news organization.

For providers, reporting AEs is stressful, she said. “As it is, it’s hard to voluntarily submit an adverse event,” Dr. Lin continued. “There’s a feeling of shame. Hospitals require it in order to monitor adverse events, but there’s no monitoring when you’re out in your own private practice.”

“The idea is excellent, but I think to facilitate better enrollment, the word has to get out at all these meetings” and make it easier to submit cases, Dr. Lin added. “It’s a good idea, but it needs a little help.”

Information on submitting AE reports to CAPER is available on the CAPER website.

Dr. Koza and Dr. Lin had no relevant relationships to disclose.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — Laser treatment for solar lentigines in individuals with darker skin types has long been associated with a higher risk of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), but a small study in Thailand has shown the 532-nm picosecond laser with a fractional beam microlens array (MLA) had a significantly lower incidence of PIH than the full-beam treatment without MLA.

The study enrolled 27 patients with solar lentigines and Fitzpatrick skin types (FSTs) III-IV, Woraphong Manuskiatti, MD, professor of dermatology at Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. They received the fractional beam treatment on one side of the face and the full-beam on the other side. At 6 months, the incidence of PIH was about 81% lower on the fractional-beam side, Dr. Manuskiatti said.

“In the past, when we used laser to treat pigmented lesions, we used the so-called full-beam technique on the pigmented area,” Dr. Manuskiatti told this news organization. “From the study, we found that you don’t need to treat it at 100%. You can fractionally treat the pigmented lesion and get a really comparable treatment outcome and, at that reduced beam, less incidence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.”
 

Study Design and Results

Of the 27 patients in the study, 12 were FST III (44%), 14 were FST IV (52%), and one was FST V (4%). On the fractional-beam side, the laser was delivered through a 9-mm spot size with an average fluence of 0.47 J/cm² at a frequency of 2 Hz for a total of two passes without pulse overlapping. On the full-beam side, the laser was operated with a 4.5-mm handpiece, with fluence ranging from 0.3 to 0.7 J/cm² (using an endpoint of slight darkening of the pigmented lesion) at 2 Hz.

The patients received a single treatment and had a clinical evaluation and color reading assessments at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the treatment. Twenty-five patients completed the study.

The researchers found no statistically significant differences in lesional clearance between the two techniques at any of the follow-up assessments, Dr. Manuskiatti said. “This might be one of the alternative treatments of treating solar lentigines in dark-skinned patients,” he said when presenting the study results.

He reported the rates of PIH on the full-beam and fractional-beam sides, respectively, at the following intervals were: 64% and 8% at 2 weeks, 80% and 32% at 1 month, 96% and 36% at 3 months, and 88% and 16% at 6 months.

“The incidence of PIH on the full-beam side was statistically higher than that on the fractional-beam side throughout the follow-up period,” he said. Transient and mild hypopigmentation was observed in one patient (4%) on the fractional-beam side and in five (20%) on the full-beam side. Dr. Manuskiatti added that no other adverse effects were documented during the study.

“ Normally when you use laser to treat skin type I or II, you don’t have … PIH or darkening of the skin,” Dr. Manuskiatti told this news organization, “but when you have skin type III and above, you run into a really high incidence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation — and treating that with fractional beam can lead to a reduced incidence of darkening of the skin afterward.”
 

A Lower-Cost Option

This study showed that the 532-nm picosecond laser with fractional beam MLA is a useful option for patients with darker skin types, Kelly Stankiewicz, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Park City, Utah, and moderated the session where these results were presented, told this news organization.

“The most challenging thing about treating lentigines in darker skin types is preventing potential side effects, mainly dyspigmentation,” she said after the meeting. “These side effects are, for the most part, temporary, but they can take 6-18 months to resolve, so it’s important to prevent them in the first place.”

She noted that the 532-nm and 1064-nm wavelengths are the most commonly available for picosecond lasers and that they’re easier to produce and less expensive. “There are picosecond lasers with middle wavelengths in the red light to near-infrared range (650-785 nm) that are better for darker skin types because they are more gentle yet still effective at targeting pigment, but these lasers are more expensive and less widely available,” Dr. Stankiewicz said. 

“The microlens array, used in this study with the 532-nm wavelength, is an inexpensive piece that fits at the end of the laser,” she added. “So, to have an option that turns a 532-nm laser into a safer device for the treatment of lentigines in darker skin types is very helpful.”

Dr. Manuskiatti and Dr. Stankiewicz had no relevant disclosures to report.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — Laser treatment for solar lentigines in individuals with darker skin types has long been associated with a higher risk of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), but a small study in Thailand has shown the 532-nm picosecond laser with a fractional beam microlens array (MLA) had a significantly lower incidence of PIH than the full-beam treatment without MLA.

The study enrolled 27 patients with solar lentigines and Fitzpatrick skin types (FSTs) III-IV, Woraphong Manuskiatti, MD, professor of dermatology at Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. They received the fractional beam treatment on one side of the face and the full-beam on the other side. At 6 months, the incidence of PIH was about 81% lower on the fractional-beam side, Dr. Manuskiatti said.

“In the past, when we used laser to treat pigmented lesions, we used the so-called full-beam technique on the pigmented area,” Dr. Manuskiatti told this news organization. “From the study, we found that you don’t need to treat it at 100%. You can fractionally treat the pigmented lesion and get a really comparable treatment outcome and, at that reduced beam, less incidence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.”
 

Study Design and Results

Of the 27 patients in the study, 12 were FST III (44%), 14 were FST IV (52%), and one was FST V (4%). On the fractional-beam side, the laser was delivered through a 9-mm spot size with an average fluence of 0.47 J/cm² at a frequency of 2 Hz for a total of two passes without pulse overlapping. On the full-beam side, the laser was operated with a 4.5-mm handpiece, with fluence ranging from 0.3 to 0.7 J/cm² (using an endpoint of slight darkening of the pigmented lesion) at 2 Hz.

The patients received a single treatment and had a clinical evaluation and color reading assessments at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the treatment. Twenty-five patients completed the study.

The researchers found no statistically significant differences in lesional clearance between the two techniques at any of the follow-up assessments, Dr. Manuskiatti said. “This might be one of the alternative treatments of treating solar lentigines in dark-skinned patients,” he said when presenting the study results.

He reported the rates of PIH on the full-beam and fractional-beam sides, respectively, at the following intervals were: 64% and 8% at 2 weeks, 80% and 32% at 1 month, 96% and 36% at 3 months, and 88% and 16% at 6 months.

“The incidence of PIH on the full-beam side was statistically higher than that on the fractional-beam side throughout the follow-up period,” he said. Transient and mild hypopigmentation was observed in one patient (4%) on the fractional-beam side and in five (20%) on the full-beam side. Dr. Manuskiatti added that no other adverse effects were documented during the study.

“ Normally when you use laser to treat skin type I or II, you don’t have … PIH or darkening of the skin,” Dr. Manuskiatti told this news organization, “but when you have skin type III and above, you run into a really high incidence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation — and treating that with fractional beam can lead to a reduced incidence of darkening of the skin afterward.”
 

A Lower-Cost Option

This study showed that the 532-nm picosecond laser with fractional beam MLA is a useful option for patients with darker skin types, Kelly Stankiewicz, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Park City, Utah, and moderated the session where these results were presented, told this news organization.

“The most challenging thing about treating lentigines in darker skin types is preventing potential side effects, mainly dyspigmentation,” she said after the meeting. “These side effects are, for the most part, temporary, but they can take 6-18 months to resolve, so it’s important to prevent them in the first place.”

She noted that the 532-nm and 1064-nm wavelengths are the most commonly available for picosecond lasers and that they’re easier to produce and less expensive. “There are picosecond lasers with middle wavelengths in the red light to near-infrared range (650-785 nm) that are better for darker skin types because they are more gentle yet still effective at targeting pigment, but these lasers are more expensive and less widely available,” Dr. Stankiewicz said. 

“The microlens array, used in this study with the 532-nm wavelength, is an inexpensive piece that fits at the end of the laser,” she added. “So, to have an option that turns a 532-nm laser into a safer device for the treatment of lentigines in darker skin types is very helpful.”

Dr. Manuskiatti and Dr. Stankiewicz had no relevant disclosures to report.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — Laser treatment for solar lentigines in individuals with darker skin types has long been associated with a higher risk of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH), but a small study in Thailand has shown the 532-nm picosecond laser with a fractional beam microlens array (MLA) had a significantly lower incidence of PIH than the full-beam treatment without MLA.

The study enrolled 27 patients with solar lentigines and Fitzpatrick skin types (FSTs) III-IV, Woraphong Manuskiatti, MD, professor of dermatology at Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, reported at the annual meeting of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. They received the fractional beam treatment on one side of the face and the full-beam on the other side. At 6 months, the incidence of PIH was about 81% lower on the fractional-beam side, Dr. Manuskiatti said.

“In the past, when we used laser to treat pigmented lesions, we used the so-called full-beam technique on the pigmented area,” Dr. Manuskiatti told this news organization. “From the study, we found that you don’t need to treat it at 100%. You can fractionally treat the pigmented lesion and get a really comparable treatment outcome and, at that reduced beam, less incidence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.”
 

Study Design and Results

Of the 27 patients in the study, 12 were FST III (44%), 14 were FST IV (52%), and one was FST V (4%). On the fractional-beam side, the laser was delivered through a 9-mm spot size with an average fluence of 0.47 J/cm² at a frequency of 2 Hz for a total of two passes without pulse overlapping. On the full-beam side, the laser was operated with a 4.5-mm handpiece, with fluence ranging from 0.3 to 0.7 J/cm² (using an endpoint of slight darkening of the pigmented lesion) at 2 Hz.

The patients received a single treatment and had a clinical evaluation and color reading assessments at 2 weeks, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the treatment. Twenty-five patients completed the study.

The researchers found no statistically significant differences in lesional clearance between the two techniques at any of the follow-up assessments, Dr. Manuskiatti said. “This might be one of the alternative treatments of treating solar lentigines in dark-skinned patients,” he said when presenting the study results.

He reported the rates of PIH on the full-beam and fractional-beam sides, respectively, at the following intervals were: 64% and 8% at 2 weeks, 80% and 32% at 1 month, 96% and 36% at 3 months, and 88% and 16% at 6 months.

“The incidence of PIH on the full-beam side was statistically higher than that on the fractional-beam side throughout the follow-up period,” he said. Transient and mild hypopigmentation was observed in one patient (4%) on the fractional-beam side and in five (20%) on the full-beam side. Dr. Manuskiatti added that no other adverse effects were documented during the study.

“ Normally when you use laser to treat skin type I or II, you don’t have … PIH or darkening of the skin,” Dr. Manuskiatti told this news organization, “but when you have skin type III and above, you run into a really high incidence of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation — and treating that with fractional beam can lead to a reduced incidence of darkening of the skin afterward.”
 

A Lower-Cost Option

This study showed that the 532-nm picosecond laser with fractional beam MLA is a useful option for patients with darker skin types, Kelly Stankiewicz, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Park City, Utah, and moderated the session where these results were presented, told this news organization.

“The most challenging thing about treating lentigines in darker skin types is preventing potential side effects, mainly dyspigmentation,” she said after the meeting. “These side effects are, for the most part, temporary, but they can take 6-18 months to resolve, so it’s important to prevent them in the first place.”

She noted that the 532-nm and 1064-nm wavelengths are the most commonly available for picosecond lasers and that they’re easier to produce and less expensive. “There are picosecond lasers with middle wavelengths in the red light to near-infrared range (650-785 nm) that are better for darker skin types because they are more gentle yet still effective at targeting pigment, but these lasers are more expensive and less widely available,” Dr. Stankiewicz said. 

“The microlens array, used in this study with the 532-nm wavelength, is an inexpensive piece that fits at the end of the laser,” she added. “So, to have an option that turns a 532-nm laser into a safer device for the treatment of lentigines in darker skin types is very helpful.”

Dr. Manuskiatti and Dr. Stankiewicz had no relevant disclosures to report.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Botulinum toxin and dermal fillers are safe as cosmetic and antiaging treatments in individuals with skin of color (SOC), with the largest amount of data supporting its use in Asians, and more data on Black and Latinx populations are needed, according to a literature review.

METHODOLOGY:

• Understanding the efficacy and safety of cosmetic injectables in diverse skin types is important because individuals identifying as racial and ethnic minorities accounted for 18% of neuromodulator procedures and 22% of soft tissue augmentation procedures in 2020 in the United States.
• Researchers reviewed available literature on the usability and efficacy of neuromodulators and soft tissue augmentation in individuals with SOC because of the limited data available in these populations, particularly non-Asian, SOC populations.
• Overall, 88 studies in English were included, which were either dedicated to discussing safety and/or efficacy of injectables in SOC populations or enrolled more than 20% of participants from SOC populations.
• High-quality level I and II evidence was found in 50 studies, and 9940 patients were analyzed in this review.

TAKEAWAY:

• Studies considered high quality indicated that botulinum toxin is safe and effective for treating glabellar lines in Asians; tailored guidelines recommended specific strategies; and adverse events, such as eyelid issues, were more common in Asians.
• Hyaluronic acid fillers showed significant improvement in moderate to severe cases of nasolabial folds in Asians, and adverse effects like swelling and pain were mild to moderate — some cases of granuloma formation and vascular compromise have been reported.
• In Black individuals, botulinum toxin was well tolerated; hyaluronic acid fillers showed favorable safety, with mild to moderate adverse events; and measures like slower injections and subdermal techniques minimized risks.
• In Latinx populations, there was a lack of robust study data on safety and efficacy of botulinum toxin, whereas hyaluronic acid and poly-L-lactic acid fillers were well tolerated.

IN PRACTICE:

“Neuromodulators and dermal fillers are useful and safe as cosmetic and antiaging treatments in SOC populations, with the greatest amount of data supporting its use in Asian populations,” although more data on Black and Latinx populations are needed, the authors concluded. “During cosmetic consultations, physicians should consider the impact of different cultural beauty norms on the aesthetic goals of diverse patient populations,” they added.

SOURCE:

This study led by Shanice McKenzie, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, was published online in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Most of the recent data and formal consensus guidelines on injectables in the review came from Asian countries, and there was “a relative paucity of research on Black and Latinx populations,” the authors noted.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. Two authors declared serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for various companies; the rest had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Botulinum toxin and dermal fillers are safe as cosmetic and antiaging treatments in individuals with skin of color (SOC), with the largest amount of data supporting its use in Asians, and more data on Black and Latinx populations are needed, according to a literature review.

METHODOLOGY:

• Understanding the efficacy and safety of cosmetic injectables in diverse skin types is important because individuals identifying as racial and ethnic minorities accounted for 18% of neuromodulator procedures and 22% of soft tissue augmentation procedures in 2020 in the United States.
• Researchers reviewed available literature on the usability and efficacy of neuromodulators and soft tissue augmentation in individuals with SOC because of the limited data available in these populations, particularly non-Asian, SOC populations.
• Overall, 88 studies in English were included, which were either dedicated to discussing safety and/or efficacy of injectables in SOC populations or enrolled more than 20% of participants from SOC populations.
• High-quality level I and II evidence was found in 50 studies, and 9940 patients were analyzed in this review.

TAKEAWAY:

• Studies considered high quality indicated that botulinum toxin is safe and effective for treating glabellar lines in Asians; tailored guidelines recommended specific strategies; and adverse events, such as eyelid issues, were more common in Asians.
• Hyaluronic acid fillers showed significant improvement in moderate to severe cases of nasolabial folds in Asians, and adverse effects like swelling and pain were mild to moderate — some cases of granuloma formation and vascular compromise have been reported.
• In Black individuals, botulinum toxin was well tolerated; hyaluronic acid fillers showed favorable safety, with mild to moderate adverse events; and measures like slower injections and subdermal techniques minimized risks.
• In Latinx populations, there was a lack of robust study data on safety and efficacy of botulinum toxin, whereas hyaluronic acid and poly-L-lactic acid fillers were well tolerated.

IN PRACTICE:

“Neuromodulators and dermal fillers are useful and safe as cosmetic and antiaging treatments in SOC populations, with the greatest amount of data supporting its use in Asian populations,” although more data on Black and Latinx populations are needed, the authors concluded. “During cosmetic consultations, physicians should consider the impact of different cultural beauty norms on the aesthetic goals of diverse patient populations,” they added.

SOURCE:

This study led by Shanice McKenzie, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, was published online in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Most of the recent data and formal consensus guidelines on injectables in the review came from Asian countries, and there was “a relative paucity of research on Black and Latinx populations,” the authors noted.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. Two authors declared serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for various companies; the rest had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Botulinum toxin and dermal fillers are safe as cosmetic and antiaging treatments in individuals with skin of color (SOC), with the largest amount of data supporting its use in Asians, and more data on Black and Latinx populations are needed, according to a literature review.

METHODOLOGY:

• Understanding the efficacy and safety of cosmetic injectables in diverse skin types is important because individuals identifying as racial and ethnic minorities accounted for 18% of neuromodulator procedures and 22% of soft tissue augmentation procedures in 2020 in the United States.
• Researchers reviewed available literature on the usability and efficacy of neuromodulators and soft tissue augmentation in individuals with SOC because of the limited data available in these populations, particularly non-Asian, SOC populations.
• Overall, 88 studies in English were included, which were either dedicated to discussing safety and/or efficacy of injectables in SOC populations or enrolled more than 20% of participants from SOC populations.
• High-quality level I and II evidence was found in 50 studies, and 9940 patients were analyzed in this review.

TAKEAWAY:

• Studies considered high quality indicated that botulinum toxin is safe and effective for treating glabellar lines in Asians; tailored guidelines recommended specific strategies; and adverse events, such as eyelid issues, were more common in Asians.
• Hyaluronic acid fillers showed significant improvement in moderate to severe cases of nasolabial folds in Asians, and adverse effects like swelling and pain were mild to moderate — some cases of granuloma formation and vascular compromise have been reported.
• In Black individuals, botulinum toxin was well tolerated; hyaluronic acid fillers showed favorable safety, with mild to moderate adverse events; and measures like slower injections and subdermal techniques minimized risks.
• In Latinx populations, there was a lack of robust study data on safety and efficacy of botulinum toxin, whereas hyaluronic acid and poly-L-lactic acid fillers were well tolerated.

IN PRACTICE:

“Neuromodulators and dermal fillers are useful and safe as cosmetic and antiaging treatments in SOC populations, with the greatest amount of data supporting its use in Asian populations,” although more data on Black and Latinx populations are needed, the authors concluded. “During cosmetic consultations, physicians should consider the impact of different cultural beauty norms on the aesthetic goals of diverse patient populations,” they added.

SOURCE:

This study led by Shanice McKenzie, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, was published online in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Most of the recent data and formal consensus guidelines on injectables in the review came from Asian countries, and there was “a relative paucity of research on Black and Latinx populations,” the authors noted.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. Two authors declared serving as a consultant, investigator, and/or speaker for various companies; the rest had no disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BY DEEPA VARMA

TOPLINE:

In patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), laser and light therapies, alone or in combination with pharmacological agents, improve hirsutism and psychological well-being in women, according to the results of a systematic review.

METHODOLOGY:

• Hirsutism, which affects 70%-80% of women with PCOS, is frequently marginalized as a cosmetic issue by healthcare providers, despite its significant psychological repercussions, including diminished self-esteem, reduced quality of life, and heightened depression.
• The 2023 international evidence-based PCOS guideline considers managing hirsutism a priority in women with PCOS.
• Researchers reviewed six studies (four randomized controlled trials and two cohort studies), which included 423 patients with PCOS who underwent laser or light-based hair reduction therapies, published through 2022.
• The studies evaluated the alexandrite laser, diode laser, and intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy, with and without pharmacological treatments. The main outcomes were hirsutism severity, psychological outcome, and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Alexandrite laser (wavelength, 755 nm) showed effective hair reduction and improved patient satisfaction (one study); high-fluence treatment yielded better outcomes than low-fluence treatment (one study). Alexandrite laser 755 nm also showed longer hair-free intervals and greater hair reduction than IPL therapy at 650-1000 nm (one study).
• Combined IPL (600 nm) and metformin therapy improved hirsutism and hair count reduction compared with IPL alone, but with more side effects (one study).
• Diode laser treatments (810 nm) with combined oral contraceptives improved hirsutism and related quality of life measures compared with diode laser alone or with metformin (one study).
• Comparing two diode lasers (wavelengths, 810 nm), low-fluence, high repetition laser showed superior hair width reduction and lower pain scores than high fluence, low-repetition laser (one study).

IN PRACTICE:

Laser and light treatments alone or combined with other treatments have demonstrated “encouraging results in reducing hirsutism severity, enhancing psychological well-being, and improving overall quality of life for affected individuals,” the authors wrote, noting that additional high-quality trials evaluating these treatments, which include more patients with different skin tones, are needed.

SOURCE:

The first author of the review is Katrina Tan, MD, Monash Health, Department of Dermatology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and it was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include low certainty of evidence because of the observational nature of some of the studies, the small number of studies, and underrepresentation of darker skin types, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The review is part of an update to the PCOS guideline, which was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council through various organizations. Several authors reported receiving grants and personal fees outside this work. Dr. Tan was a member of the 2023 PCOS guideline evidence team. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BY DEEPA VARMA

TOPLINE:

In patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), laser and light therapies, alone or in combination with pharmacological agents, improve hirsutism and psychological well-being in women, according to the results of a systematic review.

METHODOLOGY:

• Hirsutism, which affects 70%-80% of women with PCOS, is frequently marginalized as a cosmetic issue by healthcare providers, despite its significant psychological repercussions, including diminished self-esteem, reduced quality of life, and heightened depression.
• The 2023 international evidence-based PCOS guideline considers managing hirsutism a priority in women with PCOS.
• Researchers reviewed six studies (four randomized controlled trials and two cohort studies), which included 423 patients with PCOS who underwent laser or light-based hair reduction therapies, published through 2022.
• The studies evaluated the alexandrite laser, diode laser, and intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy, with and without pharmacological treatments. The main outcomes were hirsutism severity, psychological outcome, and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Alexandrite laser (wavelength, 755 nm) showed effective hair reduction and improved patient satisfaction (one study); high-fluence treatment yielded better outcomes than low-fluence treatment (one study). Alexandrite laser 755 nm also showed longer hair-free intervals and greater hair reduction than IPL therapy at 650-1000 nm (one study).
• Combined IPL (600 nm) and metformin therapy improved hirsutism and hair count reduction compared with IPL alone, but with more side effects (one study).
• Diode laser treatments (810 nm) with combined oral contraceptives improved hirsutism and related quality of life measures compared with diode laser alone or with metformin (one study).
• Comparing two diode lasers (wavelengths, 810 nm), low-fluence, high repetition laser showed superior hair width reduction and lower pain scores than high fluence, low-repetition laser (one study).

IN PRACTICE:

Laser and light treatments alone or combined with other treatments have demonstrated “encouraging results in reducing hirsutism severity, enhancing psychological well-being, and improving overall quality of life for affected individuals,” the authors wrote, noting that additional high-quality trials evaluating these treatments, which include more patients with different skin tones, are needed.

SOURCE:

The first author of the review is Katrina Tan, MD, Monash Health, Department of Dermatology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and it was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include low certainty of evidence because of the observational nature of some of the studies, the small number of studies, and underrepresentation of darker skin types, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The review is part of an update to the PCOS guideline, which was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council through various organizations. Several authors reported receiving grants and personal fees outside this work. Dr. Tan was a member of the 2023 PCOS guideline evidence team. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BY DEEPA VARMA

TOPLINE:

In patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), laser and light therapies, alone or in combination with pharmacological agents, improve hirsutism and psychological well-being in women, according to the results of a systematic review.

METHODOLOGY:

• Hirsutism, which affects 70%-80% of women with PCOS, is frequently marginalized as a cosmetic issue by healthcare providers, despite its significant psychological repercussions, including diminished self-esteem, reduced quality of life, and heightened depression.
• The 2023 international evidence-based PCOS guideline considers managing hirsutism a priority in women with PCOS.
• Researchers reviewed six studies (four randomized controlled trials and two cohort studies), which included 423 patients with PCOS who underwent laser or light-based hair reduction therapies, published through 2022.
• The studies evaluated the alexandrite laser, diode laser, and intense pulsed light (IPL) therapy, with and without pharmacological treatments. The main outcomes were hirsutism severity, psychological outcome, and adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Alexandrite laser (wavelength, 755 nm) showed effective hair reduction and improved patient satisfaction (one study); high-fluence treatment yielded better outcomes than low-fluence treatment (one study). Alexandrite laser 755 nm also showed longer hair-free intervals and greater hair reduction than IPL therapy at 650-1000 nm (one study).
• Combined IPL (600 nm) and metformin therapy improved hirsutism and hair count reduction compared with IPL alone, but with more side effects (one study).
• Diode laser treatments (810 nm) with combined oral contraceptives improved hirsutism and related quality of life measures compared with diode laser alone or with metformin (one study).
• Comparing two diode lasers (wavelengths, 810 nm), low-fluence, high repetition laser showed superior hair width reduction and lower pain scores than high fluence, low-repetition laser (one study).

IN PRACTICE:

Laser and light treatments alone or combined with other treatments have demonstrated “encouraging results in reducing hirsutism severity, enhancing psychological well-being, and improving overall quality of life for affected individuals,” the authors wrote, noting that additional high-quality trials evaluating these treatments, which include more patients with different skin tones, are needed.

SOURCE:

The first author of the review is Katrina Tan, MD, Monash Health, Department of Dermatology, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, and it was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include low certainty of evidence because of the observational nature of some of the studies, the small number of studies, and underrepresentation of darker skin types, limiting generalizability.

DISCLOSURES:

The review is part of an update to the PCOS guideline, which was funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council through various organizations. Several authors reported receiving grants and personal fees outside this work. Dr. Tan was a member of the 2023 PCOS guideline evidence team. Other authors declared no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with the use of topical minoxidil for hair loss, the used of low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive or logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, leaves unwanted product residue, causes skin irritation, or exacerbates the inflammatory process.

Those are among the key recommendations that resulted from a modified eDelphi consensus of experts who convened to develop guidelines for LDOM prescribing and monitoring.

“Topical minoxidil is safe, effective, over-the-counter, and FDA-approved to treat the most common form of hair loss, androgenetic alopecia,” one of the study authors, Jennifer Fu, MD, a dermatologist who directs the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The results of the expert consensus were presented during a poster session at the meeting. “It is often used off label for other types of hair loss, yet clinicians who treat hair loss know that patient compliance with topical minoxidil can be poor for a variety of reasons,” she said. “Patients report that it can be difficult to apply and complicate hair styling. For many patients, topical minoxidil can be drying or cause irritant or allergic contact reactions.”

Fu_Jennifer_CA_web.jpg

LDOM has become a popular alternative for patients for whom topical minoxidil is logistically challenging, irritating, or ineffective, she continued. Although oral minoxidil is no longer a first-line antihypertensive agent given the risk of cardiovascular adverse effects at higher antihypertensive dosing (10-40 mg daily), a growing number of small studies have documented the use of LDOM at doses ranging from 0.25 mg to 5 mg daily as a safe, effective option for various types of hair loss.

“Given the current absence of larger trials on this topic, our research group identified a need for expert-based guidelines for prescribing and monitoring LDOM use in hair loss patients,” Dr. Fu said. “Our goal was to provide clinicians who treat hair loss patients a road map for using LDOM effectively, maximizing hair growth, and minimizing potential cardiovascular adverse effects.”


 

Arriving at a Consensus

The process involved 43 hair loss specialists from 12 countries with an average of 6.29 years of experience with LDOM for hair loss, who participated in a multi-round modified Delphi process. They considered questions that addressed LDOM safety, efficacy, dosing, and monitoring for hair loss, and consensus was reached if at least 70% of participants indicated “agree” or “strongly agree” on a five-point Likert scale. Round 1 consisted of 180 open-ended, multiple-choice, or Likert-scale questions, while round 2 involved 121 Likert-scale questions, round 3 consisted of 16 Likert-scale questions, and round 4 included 11 Likert-scale questions. In all, 94 items achieved Likert-scale consensus.

Specifically, experts on the panel found a direct benefit of LDOM for androgenetic alopecia, age-related patterned thinning, alopecia areata, telogen effluvium, traction alopecia, persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia, and endocrine therapy-induced alopecia. They found a supportive benefit of LDOM for lichen planopilaris, frontal fibrosing alopecia, central centrifugal alopecia, and fibrosing alopecia in a patterned distribution.

“LDOM can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive, logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, results in undesirable product residue/skin irritation,” or exacerbates inflammatory processes (ie eczema, psoriasis), they added.

Contraindications to LDOM listed in the consensus recommendations include hypersensitivity to minoxidil, significant drug-drug interactions with LDOM, a history of pericardial effusion/tamponade, pericarditis, heart failure, pulmonary hypertension associated with mitral stenosis, pheochromocytoma, and pregnancy/breastfeeding. Cited precautions of LDOM use include a history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, renal impairment, and being on dialysis.

Dr. Fu and colleagues noted that the earliest time point at which LDOM should be expected to demonstrate efficacy is 3-6 months. “Baseline testing is not routine but may be considered in case of identified precautions,” they wrote. They also noted that LDOM can possibly be co-administered with beta-blockers with a specialty consultation, and with spironolactone in biologic female or transgender female patients with hirsutism, acne, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and with lower extremity and facial edema.

According to the consensus statement, the most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adult females aged 18 years and older includes a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range between 0.625 mg and 5 mg daily. For adult males, the most frequently prescribed dosing regimen is a starting dose of 2.5 daily, with a dosing range between 1.25 mg and 5 mg daily. The most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adolescent females aged 12-17 years is a starting dose of 0.625 mg daily, with a dosing range of 0.625 to 2.5 mg daily. For adolescent males, the recommended regimen is a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range of 1.25 mg to 5 mg daily.

“We hope that this consensus statement will guide our colleagues who would like to use LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patients,” Dr. Fu told this news organization. “These recommendations may be used to inform clinical practice until additional evidence-based data becomes available.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the effort, including the fact that the expert panel was underrepresented in treating hair loss in pediatric patients, “and therefore failed to reach consensus on LDOM pediatric use and dosing,” she said. “We encourage our pediatric dermatology colleagues to further research LDOM in pediatric patients.”

In an interview, Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment, but was not involved with the work, characterized the consensus as a “helpful, concise reference guide for dermatologists.”

Lipner_Shari_R_NY_web.jpg

The advantages of the study are the standardized methods used, “and the experience of the panel,” she said. “Study limitations include the response rate, which was less than 60%, and the risk of potential side effects are not stratified by age, sex, or comorbidities,” she added.

Dr. Fu disclosed that she is a consultant to Pfizer. Dr. Lipner reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with the use of topical minoxidil for hair loss, the used of low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive or logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, leaves unwanted product residue, causes skin irritation, or exacerbates the inflammatory process.

Those are among the key recommendations that resulted from a modified eDelphi consensus of experts who convened to develop guidelines for LDOM prescribing and monitoring.

“Topical minoxidil is safe, effective, over-the-counter, and FDA-approved to treat the most common form of hair loss, androgenetic alopecia,” one of the study authors, Jennifer Fu, MD, a dermatologist who directs the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The results of the expert consensus were presented during a poster session at the meeting. “It is often used off label for other types of hair loss, yet clinicians who treat hair loss know that patient compliance with topical minoxidil can be poor for a variety of reasons,” she said. “Patients report that it can be difficult to apply and complicate hair styling. For many patients, topical minoxidil can be drying or cause irritant or allergic contact reactions.”

Fu_Jennifer_CA_web.jpg

LDOM has become a popular alternative for patients for whom topical minoxidil is logistically challenging, irritating, or ineffective, she continued. Although oral minoxidil is no longer a first-line antihypertensive agent given the risk of cardiovascular adverse effects at higher antihypertensive dosing (10-40 mg daily), a growing number of small studies have documented the use of LDOM at doses ranging from 0.25 mg to 5 mg daily as a safe, effective option for various types of hair loss.

“Given the current absence of larger trials on this topic, our research group identified a need for expert-based guidelines for prescribing and monitoring LDOM use in hair loss patients,” Dr. Fu said. “Our goal was to provide clinicians who treat hair loss patients a road map for using LDOM effectively, maximizing hair growth, and minimizing potential cardiovascular adverse effects.”


 

Arriving at a Consensus

The process involved 43 hair loss specialists from 12 countries with an average of 6.29 years of experience with LDOM for hair loss, who participated in a multi-round modified Delphi process. They considered questions that addressed LDOM safety, efficacy, dosing, and monitoring for hair loss, and consensus was reached if at least 70% of participants indicated “agree” or “strongly agree” on a five-point Likert scale. Round 1 consisted of 180 open-ended, multiple-choice, or Likert-scale questions, while round 2 involved 121 Likert-scale questions, round 3 consisted of 16 Likert-scale questions, and round 4 included 11 Likert-scale questions. In all, 94 items achieved Likert-scale consensus.

Specifically, experts on the panel found a direct benefit of LDOM for androgenetic alopecia, age-related patterned thinning, alopecia areata, telogen effluvium, traction alopecia, persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia, and endocrine therapy-induced alopecia. They found a supportive benefit of LDOM for lichen planopilaris, frontal fibrosing alopecia, central centrifugal alopecia, and fibrosing alopecia in a patterned distribution.

“LDOM can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive, logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, results in undesirable product residue/skin irritation,” or exacerbates inflammatory processes (ie eczema, psoriasis), they added.

Contraindications to LDOM listed in the consensus recommendations include hypersensitivity to minoxidil, significant drug-drug interactions with LDOM, a history of pericardial effusion/tamponade, pericarditis, heart failure, pulmonary hypertension associated with mitral stenosis, pheochromocytoma, and pregnancy/breastfeeding. Cited precautions of LDOM use include a history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, renal impairment, and being on dialysis.

Dr. Fu and colleagues noted that the earliest time point at which LDOM should be expected to demonstrate efficacy is 3-6 months. “Baseline testing is not routine but may be considered in case of identified precautions,” they wrote. They also noted that LDOM can possibly be co-administered with beta-blockers with a specialty consultation, and with spironolactone in biologic female or transgender female patients with hirsutism, acne, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and with lower extremity and facial edema.

According to the consensus statement, the most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adult females aged 18 years and older includes a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range between 0.625 mg and 5 mg daily. For adult males, the most frequently prescribed dosing regimen is a starting dose of 2.5 daily, with a dosing range between 1.25 mg and 5 mg daily. The most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adolescent females aged 12-17 years is a starting dose of 0.625 mg daily, with a dosing range of 0.625 to 2.5 mg daily. For adolescent males, the recommended regimen is a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range of 1.25 mg to 5 mg daily.

“We hope that this consensus statement will guide our colleagues who would like to use LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patients,” Dr. Fu told this news organization. “These recommendations may be used to inform clinical practice until additional evidence-based data becomes available.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the effort, including the fact that the expert panel was underrepresented in treating hair loss in pediatric patients, “and therefore failed to reach consensus on LDOM pediatric use and dosing,” she said. “We encourage our pediatric dermatology colleagues to further research LDOM in pediatric patients.”

In an interview, Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment, but was not involved with the work, characterized the consensus as a “helpful, concise reference guide for dermatologists.”

Lipner_Shari_R_NY_web.jpg

The advantages of the study are the standardized methods used, “and the experience of the panel,” she said. “Study limitations include the response rate, which was less than 60%, and the risk of potential side effects are not stratified by age, sex, or comorbidities,” she added.

Dr. Fu disclosed that she is a consultant to Pfizer. Dr. Lipner reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with the use of topical minoxidil for hair loss, the used of low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive or logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, leaves unwanted product residue, causes skin irritation, or exacerbates the inflammatory process.

Those are among the key recommendations that resulted from a modified eDelphi consensus of experts who convened to develop guidelines for LDOM prescribing and monitoring.

“Topical minoxidil is safe, effective, over-the-counter, and FDA-approved to treat the most common form of hair loss, androgenetic alopecia,” one of the study authors, Jennifer Fu, MD, a dermatologist who directs the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The results of the expert consensus were presented during a poster session at the meeting. “It is often used off label for other types of hair loss, yet clinicians who treat hair loss know that patient compliance with topical minoxidil can be poor for a variety of reasons,” she said. “Patients report that it can be difficult to apply and complicate hair styling. For many patients, topical minoxidil can be drying or cause irritant or allergic contact reactions.”

Fu_Jennifer_CA_web.jpg

LDOM has become a popular alternative for patients for whom topical minoxidil is logistically challenging, irritating, or ineffective, she continued. Although oral minoxidil is no longer a first-line antihypertensive agent given the risk of cardiovascular adverse effects at higher antihypertensive dosing (10-40 mg daily), a growing number of small studies have documented the use of LDOM at doses ranging from 0.25 mg to 5 mg daily as a safe, effective option for various types of hair loss.

“Given the current absence of larger trials on this topic, our research group identified a need for expert-based guidelines for prescribing and monitoring LDOM use in hair loss patients,” Dr. Fu said. “Our goal was to provide clinicians who treat hair loss patients a road map for using LDOM effectively, maximizing hair growth, and minimizing potential cardiovascular adverse effects.”


 

Arriving at a Consensus

The process involved 43 hair loss specialists from 12 countries with an average of 6.29 years of experience with LDOM for hair loss, who participated in a multi-round modified Delphi process. They considered questions that addressed LDOM safety, efficacy, dosing, and monitoring for hair loss, and consensus was reached if at least 70% of participants indicated “agree” or “strongly agree” on a five-point Likert scale. Round 1 consisted of 180 open-ended, multiple-choice, or Likert-scale questions, while round 2 involved 121 Likert-scale questions, round 3 consisted of 16 Likert-scale questions, and round 4 included 11 Likert-scale questions. In all, 94 items achieved Likert-scale consensus.

Specifically, experts on the panel found a direct benefit of LDOM for androgenetic alopecia, age-related patterned thinning, alopecia areata, telogen effluvium, traction alopecia, persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia, and endocrine therapy-induced alopecia. They found a supportive benefit of LDOM for lichen planopilaris, frontal fibrosing alopecia, central centrifugal alopecia, and fibrosing alopecia in a patterned distribution.

“LDOM can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive, logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, results in undesirable product residue/skin irritation,” or exacerbates inflammatory processes (ie eczema, psoriasis), they added.

Contraindications to LDOM listed in the consensus recommendations include hypersensitivity to minoxidil, significant drug-drug interactions with LDOM, a history of pericardial effusion/tamponade, pericarditis, heart failure, pulmonary hypertension associated with mitral stenosis, pheochromocytoma, and pregnancy/breastfeeding. Cited precautions of LDOM use include a history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, renal impairment, and being on dialysis.

Dr. Fu and colleagues noted that the earliest time point at which LDOM should be expected to demonstrate efficacy is 3-6 months. “Baseline testing is not routine but may be considered in case of identified precautions,” they wrote. They also noted that LDOM can possibly be co-administered with beta-blockers with a specialty consultation, and with spironolactone in biologic female or transgender female patients with hirsutism, acne, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and with lower extremity and facial edema.

According to the consensus statement, the most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adult females aged 18 years and older includes a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range between 0.625 mg and 5 mg daily. For adult males, the most frequently prescribed dosing regimen is a starting dose of 2.5 daily, with a dosing range between 1.25 mg and 5 mg daily. The most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adolescent females aged 12-17 years is a starting dose of 0.625 mg daily, with a dosing range of 0.625 to 2.5 mg daily. For adolescent males, the recommended regimen is a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range of 1.25 mg to 5 mg daily.

“We hope that this consensus statement will guide our colleagues who would like to use LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patients,” Dr. Fu told this news organization. “These recommendations may be used to inform clinical practice until additional evidence-based data becomes available.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the effort, including the fact that the expert panel was underrepresented in treating hair loss in pediatric patients, “and therefore failed to reach consensus on LDOM pediatric use and dosing,” she said. “We encourage our pediatric dermatology colleagues to further research LDOM in pediatric patients.”

In an interview, Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment, but was not involved with the work, characterized the consensus as a “helpful, concise reference guide for dermatologists.”

Lipner_Shari_R_NY_web.jpg

The advantages of the study are the standardized methods used, “and the experience of the panel,” she said. “Study limitations include the response rate, which was less than 60%, and the risk of potential side effects are not stratified by age, sex, or comorbidities,” she added.

Dr. Fu disclosed that she is a consultant to Pfizer. Dr. Lipner reported having no relevant disclosures.

BALTIMORE — Patients who have complications after dermatologic cosmetic procedures are prone to high rates of a host of mental health issues, ranging from anxiety disorder and depression to body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to a survey-based study of patients with dermatology-related complications. 

The study used an anonymous 40-question survey circulated to a Facebook cosmetic complication support group. Seventy-one of 100 individuals completed the questionnaire, reporting significantly higher rates of mental health issues after their complications than before. Results were presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS). Almost all the survey respondents (99%) were female, with 61% aged 25-44 years and 34% aged 45-64 years.

Murray_Taryn_Ohio_web.jpg

“Cosmetic procedures have increased over the past decade, with procedures being increasingly performed by an evolving variety of providers,” the study’s lead author, Taryn Murray, MD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, told this news organization. “Appropriate patient assessment and counseling and proper procedure technique are important for obtaining safe and effective results. Complications may not only impact patients physically but can also be harmful to their mental health.”
 

Rise in Mental Health Issues

The study found that before respondents had the treatment that led to their complications, 16% reported a history of generalized anxiety disorder, 15% a history of depression, and 1% a history of either BDD or PTSD. Following the complication, 50% reported a positive depression screening, 63% a positive BDD Questionnaire – Dermatology Version, and 63% a positive Primary Care PTSD screen, Dr. Murray said. “Almost half of respondents (46%) reported thinking about their complication for more than 3 hours a day,” she said in presenting the results. 

Dr. Murray said the idea for the study grew out of her experience as a fellow working with Paul Friedman, MD, at the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center at University of Texas Health in Houston.

“We were seeing a lot of complications,” Dr. Murray said in an interview. “Some of these were local. Some of these patients were flying in from out-of-state looking for help with the complication, and we could see what a mental and emotional burden this put on these patients. They were routinely in the office in tears saying it was interfering with their daily life, it was interfering with their job, saying they were going to lose their job, all because they were so distressed over what was happening to them.”

Yet, the research into psychological distress in patients with dermatologic complications is minimal, Dr. Murray added. “We think that body dysmorphic disorder is prevalent for patients seeking dermatology or plastic surgery services, but I don’t think either of the specialties do a great job in screening people for that when they come for treatment, so I think a lot of it goes undiagnosed. There’s been a trend looking at more at complications lately, but there’s been a gap in the literature.”

The treatments the patients in the survey had were microneedling with radiofrequency (29%), laser (24%), ultrasound for skin tightening (11%), radiofrequency for skin tightening (11%), microneedling (4%), chemical peel (3%), body contouring/sculpting (1%), and “other” (17%).

The study found that the largest share of procedures, 47%, were done by an esthetician/laser technician, followed by a nondermatologist physician (17%), a board-certified dermatologist (14%), an advanced practice provider (12%), and “other” (10%).

Self-reported complications included scarring (38%), hyperpigmentation (26%), erythema (24%), burn (23%), blisters (11%), and hypopigmentation (3%); 71% characterized their complications as “other,” and one respondent reported multiple complications.

“Respondents said they were satisfied with the previous cosmetic care they received,” Dr. Murray said during her presentation at the meeting. “And there was a consensus among the respondents that they did not feel adequately counseled on the risks of the procedure and that it did not meet their expectations and anticipated outcome.”
 

Take-Home Lesson

The lesson here is that practitioners who perform cosmetic procedures should be well-versed in the task and potential complications, Dr. Murray said in the interview. “If you’re going to be doing a procedure, make sure you know the proper techniques, the proper endpoints, and how to treat if you’re to have a complication,” she said. “If you don’t know how to treat a complication from the device, then you should think twice about using it.”

She also suggested screening patients for potentially undiagnosed mental health disorders. “It can play a role in the initial consultation and potentially any after-care they might need if there is a complication,” she said. “We may not have the adequate tools at this time to know how to best handle these patients and these scenarios, but hopefully my abstract will shed a little more light on it.”

She said she hopes her findings lead to more research in the future.

Asked to comment on the study, Jennifer Lin, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said one finding of the study stood out to her. “ I was very surprised from her dataset that patients think about it more than 3 hours a day,” she told this news organization. “That’s really significant. We talk about the side effects, but we don’t necessarily talk about the burden of how long the recovery will be or the psychological burden of potentially dealing with it.”

[embed:render:related:node:262554]

She noted that “there’s a bit of movement” toward developing guidelines for laser treatments, which would address the risk of complications. “That’s the goal: To have better guidelines to avoid these complications in the first place,” Dr. Lin said.

The study findings also point to a need for “premonitoring” individuals before procedures, she added. “We talked about patient selection and make sure someone doesn’t have body dysmorphic disorder, but we don’t formally screen for it,” she said. “We don’t our train our residents to screen for it. And I think doing more pre- and post-testing of how people are affected by laser treatment is going to become more important.”

Dr. Murray disclosed relationships with R2 Technologies. Dr. Lin had no relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — Patients who have complications after dermatologic cosmetic procedures are prone to high rates of a host of mental health issues, ranging from anxiety disorder and depression to body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to a survey-based study of patients with dermatology-related complications. 

The study used an anonymous 40-question survey circulated to a Facebook cosmetic complication support group. Seventy-one of 100 individuals completed the questionnaire, reporting significantly higher rates of mental health issues after their complications than before. Results were presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS). Almost all the survey respondents (99%) were female, with 61% aged 25-44 years and 34% aged 45-64 years.

Murray_Taryn_Ohio_web.jpg

“Cosmetic procedures have increased over the past decade, with procedures being increasingly performed by an evolving variety of providers,” the study’s lead author, Taryn Murray, MD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, told this news organization. “Appropriate patient assessment and counseling and proper procedure technique are important for obtaining safe and effective results. Complications may not only impact patients physically but can also be harmful to their mental health.”
 

Rise in Mental Health Issues

The study found that before respondents had the treatment that led to their complications, 16% reported a history of generalized anxiety disorder, 15% a history of depression, and 1% a history of either BDD or PTSD. Following the complication, 50% reported a positive depression screening, 63% a positive BDD Questionnaire – Dermatology Version, and 63% a positive Primary Care PTSD screen, Dr. Murray said. “Almost half of respondents (46%) reported thinking about their complication for more than 3 hours a day,” she said in presenting the results. 

Dr. Murray said the idea for the study grew out of her experience as a fellow working with Paul Friedman, MD, at the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center at University of Texas Health in Houston.

“We were seeing a lot of complications,” Dr. Murray said in an interview. “Some of these were local. Some of these patients were flying in from out-of-state looking for help with the complication, and we could see what a mental and emotional burden this put on these patients. They were routinely in the office in tears saying it was interfering with their daily life, it was interfering with their job, saying they were going to lose their job, all because they were so distressed over what was happening to them.”

Yet, the research into psychological distress in patients with dermatologic complications is minimal, Dr. Murray added. “We think that body dysmorphic disorder is prevalent for patients seeking dermatology or plastic surgery services, but I don’t think either of the specialties do a great job in screening people for that when they come for treatment, so I think a lot of it goes undiagnosed. There’s been a trend looking at more at complications lately, but there’s been a gap in the literature.”

The treatments the patients in the survey had were microneedling with radiofrequency (29%), laser (24%), ultrasound for skin tightening (11%), radiofrequency for skin tightening (11%), microneedling (4%), chemical peel (3%), body contouring/sculpting (1%), and “other” (17%).

The study found that the largest share of procedures, 47%, were done by an esthetician/laser technician, followed by a nondermatologist physician (17%), a board-certified dermatologist (14%), an advanced practice provider (12%), and “other” (10%).

Self-reported complications included scarring (38%), hyperpigmentation (26%), erythema (24%), burn (23%), blisters (11%), and hypopigmentation (3%); 71% characterized their complications as “other,” and one respondent reported multiple complications.

“Respondents said they were satisfied with the previous cosmetic care they received,” Dr. Murray said during her presentation at the meeting. “And there was a consensus among the respondents that they did not feel adequately counseled on the risks of the procedure and that it did not meet their expectations and anticipated outcome.”
 

Take-Home Lesson

The lesson here is that practitioners who perform cosmetic procedures should be well-versed in the task and potential complications, Dr. Murray said in the interview. “If you’re going to be doing a procedure, make sure you know the proper techniques, the proper endpoints, and how to treat if you’re to have a complication,” she said. “If you don’t know how to treat a complication from the device, then you should think twice about using it.”

She also suggested screening patients for potentially undiagnosed mental health disorders. “It can play a role in the initial consultation and potentially any after-care they might need if there is a complication,” she said. “We may not have the adequate tools at this time to know how to best handle these patients and these scenarios, but hopefully my abstract will shed a little more light on it.”

She said she hopes her findings lead to more research in the future.

Asked to comment on the study, Jennifer Lin, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said one finding of the study stood out to her. “ I was very surprised from her dataset that patients think about it more than 3 hours a day,” she told this news organization. “That’s really significant. We talk about the side effects, but we don’t necessarily talk about the burden of how long the recovery will be or the psychological burden of potentially dealing with it.”

[embed:render:related:node:262554]

She noted that “there’s a bit of movement” toward developing guidelines for laser treatments, which would address the risk of complications. “That’s the goal: To have better guidelines to avoid these complications in the first place,” Dr. Lin said.

The study findings also point to a need for “premonitoring” individuals before procedures, she added. “We talked about patient selection and make sure someone doesn’t have body dysmorphic disorder, but we don’t formally screen for it,” she said. “We don’t our train our residents to screen for it. And I think doing more pre- and post-testing of how people are affected by laser treatment is going to become more important.”

Dr. Murray disclosed relationships with R2 Technologies. Dr. Lin had no relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — Patients who have complications after dermatologic cosmetic procedures are prone to high rates of a host of mental health issues, ranging from anxiety disorder and depression to body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), according to a survey-based study of patients with dermatology-related complications. 

The study used an anonymous 40-question survey circulated to a Facebook cosmetic complication support group. Seventy-one of 100 individuals completed the questionnaire, reporting significantly higher rates of mental health issues after their complications than before. Results were presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery (ASLMS). Almost all the survey respondents (99%) were female, with 61% aged 25-44 years and 34% aged 45-64 years.

Murray_Taryn_Ohio_web.jpg

“Cosmetic procedures have increased over the past decade, with procedures being increasingly performed by an evolving variety of providers,” the study’s lead author, Taryn Murray, MD, a dermatologist at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, told this news organization. “Appropriate patient assessment and counseling and proper procedure technique are important for obtaining safe and effective results. Complications may not only impact patients physically but can also be harmful to their mental health.”
 

Rise in Mental Health Issues

The study found that before respondents had the treatment that led to their complications, 16% reported a history of generalized anxiety disorder, 15% a history of depression, and 1% a history of either BDD or PTSD. Following the complication, 50% reported a positive depression screening, 63% a positive BDD Questionnaire – Dermatology Version, and 63% a positive Primary Care PTSD screen, Dr. Murray said. “Almost half of respondents (46%) reported thinking about their complication for more than 3 hours a day,” she said in presenting the results. 

Dr. Murray said the idea for the study grew out of her experience as a fellow working with Paul Friedman, MD, at the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center at University of Texas Health in Houston.

“We were seeing a lot of complications,” Dr. Murray said in an interview. “Some of these were local. Some of these patients were flying in from out-of-state looking for help with the complication, and we could see what a mental and emotional burden this put on these patients. They were routinely in the office in tears saying it was interfering with their daily life, it was interfering with their job, saying they were going to lose their job, all because they were so distressed over what was happening to them.”

Yet, the research into psychological distress in patients with dermatologic complications is minimal, Dr. Murray added. “We think that body dysmorphic disorder is prevalent for patients seeking dermatology or plastic surgery services, but I don’t think either of the specialties do a great job in screening people for that when they come for treatment, so I think a lot of it goes undiagnosed. There’s been a trend looking at more at complications lately, but there’s been a gap in the literature.”

The treatments the patients in the survey had were microneedling with radiofrequency (29%), laser (24%), ultrasound for skin tightening (11%), radiofrequency for skin tightening (11%), microneedling (4%), chemical peel (3%), body contouring/sculpting (1%), and “other” (17%).

The study found that the largest share of procedures, 47%, were done by an esthetician/laser technician, followed by a nondermatologist physician (17%), a board-certified dermatologist (14%), an advanced practice provider (12%), and “other” (10%).

Self-reported complications included scarring (38%), hyperpigmentation (26%), erythema (24%), burn (23%), blisters (11%), and hypopigmentation (3%); 71% characterized their complications as “other,” and one respondent reported multiple complications.

“Respondents said they were satisfied with the previous cosmetic care they received,” Dr. Murray said during her presentation at the meeting. “And there was a consensus among the respondents that they did not feel adequately counseled on the risks of the procedure and that it did not meet their expectations and anticipated outcome.”
 

Take-Home Lesson

The lesson here is that practitioners who perform cosmetic procedures should be well-versed in the task and potential complications, Dr. Murray said in the interview. “If you’re going to be doing a procedure, make sure you know the proper techniques, the proper endpoints, and how to treat if you’re to have a complication,” she said. “If you don’t know how to treat a complication from the device, then you should think twice about using it.”

She also suggested screening patients for potentially undiagnosed mental health disorders. “It can play a role in the initial consultation and potentially any after-care they might need if there is a complication,” she said. “We may not have the adequate tools at this time to know how to best handle these patients and these scenarios, but hopefully my abstract will shed a little more light on it.”

She said she hopes her findings lead to more research in the future.

Asked to comment on the study, Jennifer Lin, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Dana Farber Cancer Institute in Boston, Massachusetts, said one finding of the study stood out to her. “ I was very surprised from her dataset that patients think about it more than 3 hours a day,” she told this news organization. “That’s really significant. We talk about the side effects, but we don’t necessarily talk about the burden of how long the recovery will be or the psychological burden of potentially dealing with it.”

[embed:render:related:node:262554]

She noted that “there’s a bit of movement” toward developing guidelines for laser treatments, which would address the risk of complications. “That’s the goal: To have better guidelines to avoid these complications in the first place,” Dr. Lin said.

The study findings also point to a need for “premonitoring” individuals before procedures, she added. “We talked about patient selection and make sure someone doesn’t have body dysmorphic disorder, but we don’t formally screen for it,” she said. “We don’t our train our residents to screen for it. And I think doing more pre- and post-testing of how people are affected by laser treatment is going to become more important.”

Dr. Murray disclosed relationships with R2 Technologies. Dr. Lin had no relationships to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent cases of botulism-like illness following neurotoxin injections in nonmedical settings have prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas.

In a press release issued on April 12, the ASDSA referenced investigations in Illinois and Tennessee in which suspected counterfeit neurotoxins were associated with individuals’ symptoms resembling botulism, including several that required hospitalization. These cases “emphasize the patient safety risks associated with receiving medical procedures in unlicensed, unapproved settings without proper oversight of medical care,” the release adds.

[embed:render:related:node:267216]

The cases also “highlight the need for increased public protection measures, like the recommendations in the ASDSA’s “Medical Spa Safety Act” to ensure patients’ safety,” according to the press release, which notes the increasing demand for facial fillers and neuromodulators in the United States.

Enforcement is needed to ensure that all patients receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products “and not counterfeit products or unsafe treatments,” ASDSA president Seth L. Matarasso, MD, who practices dermatology in San Francisco, said in the press release. “Lack of regulation and enforcement has enabled many to offer medical procedures for cosmetic purposes outside of their training and expertise,” he said.

Key Takeaways

All clinicians need to understand that aesthetic procedures are medical procedures and require a level of due diligence in patient evaluation and care before, during, and after the procedure, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

Sodha_Pooja_DC_web.jpg

“FDA-approved medications should only be offered, and these should be obtained through well-defined sources to ensure their safety and purity,” she said.

However, some challenges to the enforcement of safety in medical spa settings persist, Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “To my knowledge, state and federal policies providing clear and up-to-date safety and legal guidelines for aesthetic procedures performed at medical spas by registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians are limited, and in our current medical care structure, national oversight is challenging,” she said.

A pretreatment checklist assessment, she suggested, could be helpful “to ensure patient safety and help to standardize clinical practice in nonmedical settings.”

Other challenges include a lack of clear guidelines for aesthetic providers regarding initial assessment examinations, postprocedure follow-up, and evaluation for any future medical treatment, as well as “continued ambiguity on the exact meaning of physician oversight for those sites that delegate aesthetic services and appropriate and clear guidelines on what procedures require a licensed provider to perform versus oversee the treatment,” she said.
 

Additional Guidance, Actions Needed

As for additional guidance or actions, “we may be migrating towards a system that designates and assigns clearer licenses and authorizations to perform these services and care for patients,” said Dr. Sodha. A licensing process would entail academic understanding of anatomy, pharmacology, and tissue interactions, as well as practical hands-on training that emphasizes the importance of the preprocedure consultation and postprocedure follow-up and care, she said. “Experience in caring for the unintended outcomes is vital to delivering the best care we can,” she added.

D. Sodha had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent cases of botulism-like illness following neurotoxin injections in nonmedical settings have prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas.

In a press release issued on April 12, the ASDSA referenced investigations in Illinois and Tennessee in which suspected counterfeit neurotoxins were associated with individuals’ symptoms resembling botulism, including several that required hospitalization. These cases “emphasize the patient safety risks associated with receiving medical procedures in unlicensed, unapproved settings without proper oversight of medical care,” the release adds.

[embed:render:related:node:267216]

The cases also “highlight the need for increased public protection measures, like the recommendations in the ASDSA’s “Medical Spa Safety Act” to ensure patients’ safety,” according to the press release, which notes the increasing demand for facial fillers and neuromodulators in the United States.

Enforcement is needed to ensure that all patients receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products “and not counterfeit products or unsafe treatments,” ASDSA president Seth L. Matarasso, MD, who practices dermatology in San Francisco, said in the press release. “Lack of regulation and enforcement has enabled many to offer medical procedures for cosmetic purposes outside of their training and expertise,” he said.

Key Takeaways

All clinicians need to understand that aesthetic procedures are medical procedures and require a level of due diligence in patient evaluation and care before, during, and after the procedure, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

Sodha_Pooja_DC_web.jpg

“FDA-approved medications should only be offered, and these should be obtained through well-defined sources to ensure their safety and purity,” she said.

However, some challenges to the enforcement of safety in medical spa settings persist, Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “To my knowledge, state and federal policies providing clear and up-to-date safety and legal guidelines for aesthetic procedures performed at medical spas by registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians are limited, and in our current medical care structure, national oversight is challenging,” she said.

A pretreatment checklist assessment, she suggested, could be helpful “to ensure patient safety and help to standardize clinical practice in nonmedical settings.”

Other challenges include a lack of clear guidelines for aesthetic providers regarding initial assessment examinations, postprocedure follow-up, and evaluation for any future medical treatment, as well as “continued ambiguity on the exact meaning of physician oversight for those sites that delegate aesthetic services and appropriate and clear guidelines on what procedures require a licensed provider to perform versus oversee the treatment,” she said.
 

Additional Guidance, Actions Needed

As for additional guidance or actions, “we may be migrating towards a system that designates and assigns clearer licenses and authorizations to perform these services and care for patients,” said Dr. Sodha. A licensing process would entail academic understanding of anatomy, pharmacology, and tissue interactions, as well as practical hands-on training that emphasizes the importance of the preprocedure consultation and postprocedure follow-up and care, she said. “Experience in caring for the unintended outcomes is vital to delivering the best care we can,” she added.

D. Sodha had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Recent cases of botulism-like illness following neurotoxin injections in nonmedical settings have prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas.

In a press release issued on April 12, the ASDSA referenced investigations in Illinois and Tennessee in which suspected counterfeit neurotoxins were associated with individuals’ symptoms resembling botulism, including several that required hospitalization. These cases “emphasize the patient safety risks associated with receiving medical procedures in unlicensed, unapproved settings without proper oversight of medical care,” the release adds.

[embed:render:related:node:267216]

The cases also “highlight the need for increased public protection measures, like the recommendations in the ASDSA’s “Medical Spa Safety Act” to ensure patients’ safety,” according to the press release, which notes the increasing demand for facial fillers and neuromodulators in the United States.

Enforcement is needed to ensure that all patients receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved products “and not counterfeit products or unsafe treatments,” ASDSA president Seth L. Matarasso, MD, who practices dermatology in San Francisco, said in the press release. “Lack of regulation and enforcement has enabled many to offer medical procedures for cosmetic purposes outside of their training and expertise,” he said.

Key Takeaways

All clinicians need to understand that aesthetic procedures are medical procedures and require a level of due diligence in patient evaluation and care before, during, and after the procedure, Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the Center for Laser and Cosmetic Dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, said in an interview.

Sodha_Pooja_DC_web.jpg

“FDA-approved medications should only be offered, and these should be obtained through well-defined sources to ensure their safety and purity,” she said.

However, some challenges to the enforcement of safety in medical spa settings persist, Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “To my knowledge, state and federal policies providing clear and up-to-date safety and legal guidelines for aesthetic procedures performed at medical spas by registered nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and physicians are limited, and in our current medical care structure, national oversight is challenging,” she said.

A pretreatment checklist assessment, she suggested, could be helpful “to ensure patient safety and help to standardize clinical practice in nonmedical settings.”

Other challenges include a lack of clear guidelines for aesthetic providers regarding initial assessment examinations, postprocedure follow-up, and evaluation for any future medical treatment, as well as “continued ambiguity on the exact meaning of physician oversight for those sites that delegate aesthetic services and appropriate and clear guidelines on what procedures require a licensed provider to perform versus oversee the treatment,” she said.
 

Additional Guidance, Actions Needed

As for additional guidance or actions, “we may be migrating towards a system that designates and assigns clearer licenses and authorizations to perform these services and care for patients,” said Dr. Sodha. A licensing process would entail academic understanding of anatomy, pharmacology, and tissue interactions, as well as practical hands-on training that emphasizes the importance of the preprocedure consultation and postprocedure follow-up and care, she said. “Experience in caring for the unintended outcomes is vital to delivering the best care we can,” she added.

D. Sodha had no financial conflicts to disclose.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At least 19 people from nine states have reported serious reactions after receiving botulinum toxin injections from unlicensed or untrained individuals or in non-healthcare settings, such as homes and spas, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted online April 15.

Reactions have included blurry vision, double vision, drooping eyelids, difficult swallowing or breathing, and other symptoms of botulism.

Of the 19 individuals — all of whom identified as female and had a mean age of 39 years — 9 (60%) were hospitalized and 4 (21%) were treated with botulism antitoxin because of concerns that the botulinum toxin could have spread beyond the injection site. Also, five were tested for botulism and their results were negative.

The CDC, several state and local health departments, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are investigating these reports, according to the announcement.

CDC_icon_web.jpg

States reporting these cases include Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. According to the CDC summary, some of the individuals “received injections with counterfeit products or products with unverified sources. Investigation into the sources of these products is ongoing.” All but one report involved receiving botulinum toxin injections for cosmetic purposes.

Recent cases of botulism-like illnesses possibly related to counterfeit botulinum toxin reported in Illinois and Tennessee, prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas, the ASDSA announced on April 12.

[embed:render:related:node:267216]

The CDC summary advises clinicians to consider the possibility of adverse effects from botulinum toxin injection, including for cosmetic reasons, when patients present with signs and symptoms consistent with botulism near the injection site. Symptoms of botulism include blurry or double vision, drooping eyelids, difficulty swallowing, difficulty breathing, and muscle weakness.

For people who are considering botulinum toxin for cosmetic or medical reasons, recommendations from the CDC include asking the provider and setting, such as a clinic or spa, if they are licensed and trained to provide these injections, and to ask if the product is approved by the FDA and from a reliable source, and, “if in doubt, don’t get the injection.”

This ‘Should Never Happen’

“The report of people getting botulism from botulinum toxin injections is frightening, and should never happen,” Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization.

Green_Lawrence_J_MD_web.jpg

These reports show “how important it is to receive botulinum toxin injections only in a medical office, and from or under the direction of a qualified, trained, and licensed individual, like a board certified dermatologist,” added Dr. Green, who practices in Rockville, Maryland. “Other types of practitioners may not adhere to the same standards of professionalism, especially not always putting patient safety first.”

Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.

At least 19 people from nine states have reported serious reactions after receiving botulinum toxin injections from unlicensed or untrained individuals or in non-healthcare settings, such as homes and spas, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted online April 15.

Reactions have included blurry vision, double vision, drooping eyelids, difficult swallowing or breathing, and other symptoms of botulism.

Of the 19 individuals — all of whom identified as female and had a mean age of 39 years — 9 (60%) were hospitalized and 4 (21%) were treated with botulism antitoxin because of concerns that the botulinum toxin could have spread beyond the injection site. Also, five were tested for botulism and their results were negative.

The CDC, several state and local health departments, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are investigating these reports, according to the announcement.

CDC_icon_web.jpg

States reporting these cases include Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. According to the CDC summary, some of the individuals “received injections with counterfeit products or products with unverified sources. Investigation into the sources of these products is ongoing.” All but one report involved receiving botulinum toxin injections for cosmetic purposes.

Recent cases of botulism-like illnesses possibly related to counterfeit botulinum toxin reported in Illinois and Tennessee, prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas, the ASDSA announced on April 12.

[embed:render:related:node:267216]

The CDC summary advises clinicians to consider the possibility of adverse effects from botulinum toxin injection, including for cosmetic reasons, when patients present with signs and symptoms consistent with botulism near the injection site. Symptoms of botulism include blurry or double vision, drooping eyelids, difficulty swallowing, difficulty breathing, and muscle weakness.

For people who are considering botulinum toxin for cosmetic or medical reasons, recommendations from the CDC include asking the provider and setting, such as a clinic or spa, if they are licensed and trained to provide these injections, and to ask if the product is approved by the FDA and from a reliable source, and, “if in doubt, don’t get the injection.”

This ‘Should Never Happen’

“The report of people getting botulism from botulinum toxin injections is frightening, and should never happen,” Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization.

Green_Lawrence_J_MD_web.jpg

These reports show “how important it is to receive botulinum toxin injections only in a medical office, and from or under the direction of a qualified, trained, and licensed individual, like a board certified dermatologist,” added Dr. Green, who practices in Rockville, Maryland. “Other types of practitioners may not adhere to the same standards of professionalism, especially not always putting patient safety first.”

Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.

At least 19 people from nine states have reported serious reactions after receiving botulinum toxin injections from unlicensed or untrained individuals or in non-healthcare settings, such as homes and spas, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted online April 15.

Reactions have included blurry vision, double vision, drooping eyelids, difficult swallowing or breathing, and other symptoms of botulism.

Of the 19 individuals — all of whom identified as female and had a mean age of 39 years — 9 (60%) were hospitalized and 4 (21%) were treated with botulism antitoxin because of concerns that the botulinum toxin could have spread beyond the injection site. Also, five were tested for botulism and their results were negative.

The CDC, several state and local health departments, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are investigating these reports, according to the announcement.

CDC_icon_web.jpg

States reporting these cases include Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. According to the CDC summary, some of the individuals “received injections with counterfeit products or products with unverified sources. Investigation into the sources of these products is ongoing.” All but one report involved receiving botulinum toxin injections for cosmetic purposes.

Recent cases of botulism-like illnesses possibly related to counterfeit botulinum toxin reported in Illinois and Tennessee, prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas, the ASDSA announced on April 12.

[embed:render:related:node:267216]

The CDC summary advises clinicians to consider the possibility of adverse effects from botulinum toxin injection, including for cosmetic reasons, when patients present with signs and symptoms consistent with botulism near the injection site. Symptoms of botulism include blurry or double vision, drooping eyelids, difficulty swallowing, difficulty breathing, and muscle weakness.

For people who are considering botulinum toxin for cosmetic or medical reasons, recommendations from the CDC include asking the provider and setting, such as a clinic or spa, if they are licensed and trained to provide these injections, and to ask if the product is approved by the FDA and from a reliable source, and, “if in doubt, don’t get the injection.”

This ‘Should Never Happen’

“The report of people getting botulism from botulinum toxin injections is frightening, and should never happen,” Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization.

Green_Lawrence_J_MD_web.jpg

These reports show “how important it is to receive botulinum toxin injections only in a medical office, and from or under the direction of a qualified, trained, and licensed individual, like a board certified dermatologist,” added Dr. Green, who practices in Rockville, Maryland. “Other types of practitioners may not adhere to the same standards of professionalism, especially not always putting patient safety first.”

Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.

SAN DIEGO — While the concept of zoom dysmorphia is well accepted in today’s clinical practice, diagnostic criteria are lacking, especially in virtual settings, according to George Kroumpouzos, MD, PhD, who, with colleagues, recently proposed a screening tool to help identify patients with zoom dysmorphia.

The term, coined in 2020 by dermatologist Shadi Kourosh, MD, MPH, and colleagues at Harvard Medical School, Boston, refers to an altered or skewed negative perception of one’s body image that results from spending extended amounts of time on video calls. Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Kroumpouzos, clinical associate professor of dermatology at Brown University, Providence Rhode Island, explained that most people believe that zoom dysmorphia falls within the spectrum of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD). He described zoom dysmorphia as “a facial dysmorphia triggered or aggravated by frequent virtual meetings. Frequent use of videoconferencing platforms is linked to a distorted perception of facial images, which leads to dysmorphic concerns.”

Kroumpouzos_George_RI_web.jpg

Individuals with zoom dysmorphia tend to scrutinize their facial features and fixate on what they think needs to improve, he continued. They experience anxiety about attending video conferences with the camera on and feel pressured to appear perfect before virtual meetings. “They find facial flaws during virtual meetings, and they believe others notice their perceived flaws,” he said. “This all has drastic effects on body dissatisfaction and self-esteem, which leads to a desire to seek cosmetic procedures. It interferes with an individual’s life and can trigger or aggravate body dysmorphic disorder.”

While several tools have been validated in cosmetic settings to screen for BDD, such as the 9-item Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire–Dermatology questionnaire, the 7-item Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire–Aesthetic Surgery questionnaire, the Cosmetic Procedure Screening Questionnaire, and the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Symptom Scale, no formal screening tools exist to identify zoom dysmorphia. To complicate matters, “identifying dysmorphic concerns in virtual settings can be challenging,” Dr. Kroumpouzos added. “This makes the recognition of zoom dysmorphia during telehealth visits even more difficult.”

Individuals who may have zoom dysmorphia may fear being misunderstood, judged, or ridiculed because of a perceived flaw in appearance, he said, making establishing rapport and eye contact difficult. “There’s a reticence and silence due to the individual’s avoidant characteristics,” he said. “Patients may become easily distracted or disengaged during telehealth visits in case of technical issues. Psychiatric comorbidities can mask symptoms related to dysmorphic concerns.”

To bridge this gap, Dr. Kroumpouzos and colleagues have proposed a screening tool, a questionnaire related to features of zoom dysmorphia, to facilitate recognition of zoom dysmorphia in virtual settings.

[embed:render:related:node:266374]

The first component consists of open-ended questions such as “Are you comfortable with being interviewed in a virtual appointment?” and “How do you feel about your appearance during virtual meetings?” Such questions “aim to start the dialogue, to facilitate the discussion with a patient who may be shy or avoidant,” Dr. Kroumpouzos explained.

The second component of the tool consists of questions more specific to screening for zoom dysmorphia, starting with “Are you concerned about facial flaws?” If the patient answers no, they don’t qualify for any others, he said. “But, if they answer yes to that question and yes to at least one more [question], they may have zoom dysmorphia.”

Other questions include, “Do you think that your face is not friendly to the camera?” “Do you hesitate to open the camera?” “Have you tried to hide or camouflage your flaw with your hands, hair, makeup, or clothing?” “Have you sought advice from others to improve your appearance or image?” “Do you often use the filter features of the video conferencing platform?” “Did you consider buying a new camera or equipment that helps improve your image?”

If the clinician deems the patient a candidate for the diagnosis of zoom dysmorphia, the tool recommends asking a BDD-focused question: “In the past month, have you been very concerned that there is something wrong with your physical appearance or the way one or more parts of your body look?” If the patient answers yes, “that individual should be invited to fill out a questionnaire specifically for BDD or come to the office for further evaluation,” Dr. Kroumpouzos said.

In his view, the brevity of the proposed screening tool makes it easy to incorporate into clinical practice, and the “yes or no” questions are practical. “It is crucial to elicit the presence of zoom dysmorphia in its early stage,” he said. “Zoom dysmorphia may trigger an increase in BDD, [so] it is essential to identify the presence of BDD in zoom dysmorphia sufferers and treat it appropriately.”

Dr. Kroumpouzos reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — While the concept of zoom dysmorphia is well accepted in today’s clinical practice, diagnostic criteria are lacking, especially in virtual settings, according to George Kroumpouzos, MD, PhD, who, with colleagues, recently proposed a screening tool to help identify patients with zoom dysmorphia.

The term, coined in 2020 by dermatologist Shadi Kourosh, MD, MPH, and colleagues at Harvard Medical School, Boston, refers to an altered or skewed negative perception of one’s body image that results from spending extended amounts of time on video calls. Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Kroumpouzos, clinical associate professor of dermatology at Brown University, Providence Rhode Island, explained that most people believe that zoom dysmorphia falls within the spectrum of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD). He described zoom dysmorphia as “a facial dysmorphia triggered or aggravated by frequent virtual meetings. Frequent use of videoconferencing platforms is linked to a distorted perception of facial images, which leads to dysmorphic concerns.”

Kroumpouzos_George_RI_web.jpg

Individuals with zoom dysmorphia tend to scrutinize their facial features and fixate on what they think needs to improve, he continued. They experience anxiety about attending video conferences with the camera on and feel pressured to appear perfect before virtual meetings. “They find facial flaws during virtual meetings, and they believe others notice their perceived flaws,” he said. “This all has drastic effects on body dissatisfaction and self-esteem, which leads to a desire to seek cosmetic procedures. It interferes with an individual’s life and can trigger or aggravate body dysmorphic disorder.”

While several tools have been validated in cosmetic settings to screen for BDD, such as the 9-item Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire–Dermatology questionnaire, the 7-item Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire–Aesthetic Surgery questionnaire, the Cosmetic Procedure Screening Questionnaire, and the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Symptom Scale, no formal screening tools exist to identify zoom dysmorphia. To complicate matters, “identifying dysmorphic concerns in virtual settings can be challenging,” Dr. Kroumpouzos added. “This makes the recognition of zoom dysmorphia during telehealth visits even more difficult.”

Individuals who may have zoom dysmorphia may fear being misunderstood, judged, or ridiculed because of a perceived flaw in appearance, he said, making establishing rapport and eye contact difficult. “There’s a reticence and silence due to the individual’s avoidant characteristics,” he said. “Patients may become easily distracted or disengaged during telehealth visits in case of technical issues. Psychiatric comorbidities can mask symptoms related to dysmorphic concerns.”

To bridge this gap, Dr. Kroumpouzos and colleagues have proposed a screening tool, a questionnaire related to features of zoom dysmorphia, to facilitate recognition of zoom dysmorphia in virtual settings.

[embed:render:related:node:266374]

The first component consists of open-ended questions such as “Are you comfortable with being interviewed in a virtual appointment?” and “How do you feel about your appearance during virtual meetings?” Such questions “aim to start the dialogue, to facilitate the discussion with a patient who may be shy or avoidant,” Dr. Kroumpouzos explained.

The second component of the tool consists of questions more specific to screening for zoom dysmorphia, starting with “Are you concerned about facial flaws?” If the patient answers no, they don’t qualify for any others, he said. “But, if they answer yes to that question and yes to at least one more [question], they may have zoom dysmorphia.”

Other questions include, “Do you think that your face is not friendly to the camera?” “Do you hesitate to open the camera?” “Have you tried to hide or camouflage your flaw with your hands, hair, makeup, or clothing?” “Have you sought advice from others to improve your appearance or image?” “Do you often use the filter features of the video conferencing platform?” “Did you consider buying a new camera or equipment that helps improve your image?”

If the clinician deems the patient a candidate for the diagnosis of zoom dysmorphia, the tool recommends asking a BDD-focused question: “In the past month, have you been very concerned that there is something wrong with your physical appearance or the way one or more parts of your body look?” If the patient answers yes, “that individual should be invited to fill out a questionnaire specifically for BDD or come to the office for further evaluation,” Dr. Kroumpouzos said.

In his view, the brevity of the proposed screening tool makes it easy to incorporate into clinical practice, and the “yes or no” questions are practical. “It is crucial to elicit the presence of zoom dysmorphia in its early stage,” he said. “Zoom dysmorphia may trigger an increase in BDD, [so] it is essential to identify the presence of BDD in zoom dysmorphia sufferers and treat it appropriately.”

Dr. Kroumpouzos reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — While the concept of zoom dysmorphia is well accepted in today’s clinical practice, diagnostic criteria are lacking, especially in virtual settings, according to George Kroumpouzos, MD, PhD, who, with colleagues, recently proposed a screening tool to help identify patients with zoom dysmorphia.

The term, coined in 2020 by dermatologist Shadi Kourosh, MD, MPH, and colleagues at Harvard Medical School, Boston, refers to an altered or skewed negative perception of one’s body image that results from spending extended amounts of time on video calls. Speaking at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Kroumpouzos, clinical associate professor of dermatology at Brown University, Providence Rhode Island, explained that most people believe that zoom dysmorphia falls within the spectrum of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD). He described zoom dysmorphia as “a facial dysmorphia triggered or aggravated by frequent virtual meetings. Frequent use of videoconferencing platforms is linked to a distorted perception of facial images, which leads to dysmorphic concerns.”

Kroumpouzos_George_RI_web.jpg

Individuals with zoom dysmorphia tend to scrutinize their facial features and fixate on what they think needs to improve, he continued. They experience anxiety about attending video conferences with the camera on and feel pressured to appear perfect before virtual meetings. “They find facial flaws during virtual meetings, and they believe others notice their perceived flaws,” he said. “This all has drastic effects on body dissatisfaction and self-esteem, which leads to a desire to seek cosmetic procedures. It interferes with an individual’s life and can trigger or aggravate body dysmorphic disorder.”

While several tools have been validated in cosmetic settings to screen for BDD, such as the 9-item Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire–Dermatology questionnaire, the 7-item Body Dysmorphic Disorder Questionnaire–Aesthetic Surgery questionnaire, the Cosmetic Procedure Screening Questionnaire, and the Body Dysmorphic Disorder Symptom Scale, no formal screening tools exist to identify zoom dysmorphia. To complicate matters, “identifying dysmorphic concerns in virtual settings can be challenging,” Dr. Kroumpouzos added. “This makes the recognition of zoom dysmorphia during telehealth visits even more difficult.”

Individuals who may have zoom dysmorphia may fear being misunderstood, judged, or ridiculed because of a perceived flaw in appearance, he said, making establishing rapport and eye contact difficult. “There’s a reticence and silence due to the individual’s avoidant characteristics,” he said. “Patients may become easily distracted or disengaged during telehealth visits in case of technical issues. Psychiatric comorbidities can mask symptoms related to dysmorphic concerns.”

To bridge this gap, Dr. Kroumpouzos and colleagues have proposed a screening tool, a questionnaire related to features of zoom dysmorphia, to facilitate recognition of zoom dysmorphia in virtual settings.

[embed:render:related:node:266374]

The first component consists of open-ended questions such as “Are you comfortable with being interviewed in a virtual appointment?” and “How do you feel about your appearance during virtual meetings?” Such questions “aim to start the dialogue, to facilitate the discussion with a patient who may be shy or avoidant,” Dr. Kroumpouzos explained.

The second component of the tool consists of questions more specific to screening for zoom dysmorphia, starting with “Are you concerned about facial flaws?” If the patient answers no, they don’t qualify for any others, he said. “But, if they answer yes to that question and yes to at least one more [question], they may have zoom dysmorphia.”

Other questions include, “Do you think that your face is not friendly to the camera?” “Do you hesitate to open the camera?” “Have you tried to hide or camouflage your flaw with your hands, hair, makeup, or clothing?” “Have you sought advice from others to improve your appearance or image?” “Do you often use the filter features of the video conferencing platform?” “Did you consider buying a new camera or equipment that helps improve your image?”

If the clinician deems the patient a candidate for the diagnosis of zoom dysmorphia, the tool recommends asking a BDD-focused question: “In the past month, have you been very concerned that there is something wrong with your physical appearance or the way one or more parts of your body look?” If the patient answers yes, “that individual should be invited to fill out a questionnaire specifically for BDD or come to the office for further evaluation,” Dr. Kroumpouzos said.

In his view, the brevity of the proposed screening tool makes it easy to incorporate into clinical practice, and the “yes or no” questions are practical. “It is crucial to elicit the presence of zoom dysmorphia in its early stage,” he said. “Zoom dysmorphia may trigger an increase in BDD, [so] it is essential to identify the presence of BDD in zoom dysmorphia sufferers and treat it appropriately.”

Dr. Kroumpouzos reported having no relevant financial disclosures.