Daily Cosmetic Research Analysis
A multicenter Phase III RCT demonstrated that a deoxycholic acid–based injectable (MEI005) safely reduces submental fat in Chinese adults. An AI-enabled computational histology pipeline (NoxiScore) revealed that applying insect repellent with sunscreen can impair UVB protection in an ex vivo human skin model. An in vitro study clarified that hyaluronidase-mediated reversal of hyaluronic acid fillers depends critically on HA concentration and active mixing.
Summary
A multicenter Phase III RCT demonstrated that a deoxycholic acid–based injectable (MEI005) safely reduces submental fat in Chinese adults. An AI-enabled computational histology pipeline (NoxiScore) revealed that applying insect repellent with sunscreen can impair UVB protection in an ex vivo human skin model. An in vitro study clarified that hyaluronidase-mediated reversal of hyaluronic acid fillers depends critically on HA concentration and active mixing.
Research Themes
- Noninvasive aesthetic therapeutics
- AI and digital pathology for cosmetic product safety
- Management of injectable filler complications
Selected Articles
1. A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicentered Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of MEI005 in Reducing Submental Fat in Chinese Adults.
In a multicenter Phase III RCT of 325 Chinese adults with moderate-to-severe submental fat, MEI005 produced significantly greater clinician- and patient-rated improvements than placebo and achieved meaningful MRI-measured volume reductions. Adverse events were mostly mild to moderate, supporting a minimally invasive option for submental contouring.
Impact: This high-quality RCT provides region-specific evidence for a deoxycholic acid–based injectable, potentially paving the way for regulatory approval and practice adoption in China. It incorporates objective MRI endpoints alongside patient-reported outcomes.
Clinical Implications: MEI005 may offer a safe, minimally invasive alternative to liposuction for submental fat reduction, with objective efficacy and favorable tolerability. Clinicians should monitor for skin laxity and tailor treatment sessions to achieve combined clinician- and patient-rated improvements.
Key Findings
- Simultaneous ≥2-grade improvement on CR-SMFRS and PR-SMFRS in 18.9% with MEI005 vs 1.8% with placebo (P < .001).
- MRI showed ≥10% submental fat volume reduction in 50% of MEI005 patients vs 15.2% of placebo (P < .001).
- Caliper-measured thickness reduced by 21.42% with MEI005 vs 6.32% with placebo (P < .001).
- Patient-reported psychological impact and satisfaction improved more with MEI005; adverse events were mostly mild to moderate.
Methodological Strengths
- Multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled Phase III design.
- Objective efficacy assessment with MRI alongside standardized clinician- and patient-reported scales.
Limitations
- Follow-up focused on outcomes at 12 weeks posttreatment; longer-term durability and skin laxity effects remain to be established.
- Generalisability beyond Chinese adults is uncertain.
Future Directions: Evaluate long-term durability, optimal dosing schedules, and effects on skin laxity; conduct head-to-head comparisons with other nonsurgical modalities and assess broader populations.
2. Computational histology reveals that concomitant application of insect repellent with sunscreen impairs UV protection in an ex vivo human skin model.
Using NoxiScore, a deep learning-based computational histology pipeline, the authors identified nuclear texture features linked to UV-induced skin damage and showed that sunscreen protected ex vivo human skin whereas concurrent application with an insect repellent significantly reduced UVB protection. Repellent alone had no protective or toxic effect; inter-donor variability was observed.
Impact: First demonstration with ex vivo human skin that repellent–sunscreen co-application can impair UV protection, coupled with a reusable AI pipeline for dermato-cosmetic safety assessment. This could inform public health advice and product usage guidelines.
Clinical Implications: Advise against simultaneous application of insect repellent and sunscreen on the same skin area; consider staggering application (e.g., apply sunscreen first, allow absorption, then repellent) pending in vivo validation. Digital morphometry tools like NoxiScore could augment preclinical screening of topical combinations.
Key Findings
- A deep learning pipeline (NoxiScore) quantified nucleus-related features indicative of UV/oxidative damage in human skin histology.
- Sunscreen alone protected against UVB damage ex vivo; repellent alone showed neither protective nor toxic effects.
- Concurrent sunscreen–repellent application significantly reduced UVB protection; protection levels varied across donors.
- Identified a texture-based nuclear feature as a quantitative biomarker of tissue damage.
Methodological Strengths
- Integration of AI-based digital morphometry with ex vivo human skin specimens.
- Use of real-world commercial products and standardized histological staining.
Limitations
- Ex vivo model may not fully capture in vivo pharmacokinetics, sweat/sebum dynamics, or behavioral factors.
- Limited to selected products/actives; mechanism of interaction and generalizability to other repellents/filters need testing.
Future Directions: Conduct controlled in vivo studies to validate the interaction, optimize application sequences/intervals, and expand testing across repellent actives (e.g., DEET, picaridin) and sunscreen filters.
3. Effect of Recombinant Human Hyaluronidase on Conventional Hyaluronic Acid Fillers: An In Vitro Analysis.
Across six commercial HA fillers, enzymatic reversal with recombinant human hyaluronidase required active mixing and showed brand- and concentration-dependent dissolution. HA concentration was the key determinant: lower-concentration Juvederm Volbella dissolved most readily, whereas higher-concentration Juvederm Ultra was least responsive.
Impact: Provides practical, mechanism-informed guidance for selecting hyaluronidase dosing to reverse HA fillers, a critical safety issue in aesthetic practice. Highlights the importance of HA concentration and mixing technique.
Clinical Implications: When managing HA filler complications, consider HA concentration and ensure vigorous mixing to enhance hyaluronidase efficacy; higher-concentration fillers may require greater enzyme doses and technique optimization.
Key Findings
- Active mixing was required; direct hyaluronidase addition alone did not dissolve fillers.
- Restylane products (20 mg/mL) showed similar dissolution rates; Juvederm products varied by concentration.
- Juvederm Volbella (15 mg/mL) dissolved most readily; Juvederm Ultra (24 mg/mL) was least dissolvable.
- Microscopy showed Juvederm appearing more refined and Restylane more globular after hyaluronidase exposure.
Methodological Strengths
- Comparative analysis across multiple widely used commercial HA fillers.
- Corroboration with light microscopy to visualize dissolution morphology.
Limitations
- In vitro setup may not fully reflect in vivo tissue environment, diffusion, or vascular dynamics during complication management.
- Limited product selection and dose ranges; no direct clinical correlation of dosing thresholds.
Future Directions: Develop in vivo–informed dosing algorithms incorporating HA concentration and rheology; validate procedural techniques (e.g., mixing/agitation) for rapid reversal in emergencies like vascular occlusion.