Daily Cosmetic Research Analysis

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The UVB and UVA components of terrestrial solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) cause acute and chronic damage to skin. These adverse effects can be reduced by sunscreen application. The sun protection factor (SPF) is primarily a measure of UVB protection against erythema and does not quantify protection from UVA, which is the major component of solar UVR. The study aim was to assess UVA protection in relation to labelled SPF and to determine if this met the EU recommendation for a SPF/UVA-PF ratio of ≤ 3, as recommended by the EU. Unlike SPF assessment, there is no universal consensus for the determination and labelling of UVA-PF. METHODS: Thirty-eight sunscreens with SPF ≥ 50 were selected from Europe, Latin America, Oceania, and Asia. UVA-PF was determined with the ISO 24442:2011 in vivo method, which assesses the ability of a sunscreen to inhibit persistent pigment darkening induced by UVA radiation in a laboratory environment. RESULTS: There was variation of UVA-PF ranging from 3.6 to 46.6. Sixty-eight percent (26/38) of sunscreens complied with EU recommendations. Thus, about one third failed these standards, with SPF/UVA-PF ratios varying from 3.1 (borderline failure) to 16.7 (major failure). Failure to comply was observed in several products sold in Europe. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates the limitations of many commercial sunscreens to reach EU standards, with significant variations in UVA protection and a lack of relationship between SPF and UVA-PF values. This highlights the importance of improving labelling standards to ensure consumers receive consistent and adequate UVA protection, especially for those with UVA-dependent photodermatoses. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06068010.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring of adverse events for aesthetic BoNT-A (BoNT-A) through pharmacovigilance databases provides critical insight into real-world safety profiles. Previous analyses suggested substantial underreporting, yet comprehensive international multi-database analysis remains absent. METHODS: Adverse event reports for aesthetic BoNT-A indications were extracted from FDA FAERS, EMA EudraVigilance, Health Canada MedEffect, and TGA DAEN databases from 2002 to 2025. Reports were filtered for cosmetic indications using procedure codes, anatomical sites, and indication descriptions. Events were categorized by clinical manifestation and severity using MedDRA classification. RESULTS: Analysis identified 43,809 adverse event reports across four databases. FDA FAERS contributed 38,321 reports (87.5%), EudraVigilance 3,526 (8.0%), Health Canada 1,835 (4.2%), and TGA DAEN 127 (0.3%). Effectiveness issues comprised 57.3% of reports (n = 25,092), followed by local injection-site reactions (19.7%, n = 8,611), facial paresis/ptosis/asymmetry (9.9%, n = 4,348), and headache (6.0%, n = 2,650). Peak reporting occurred in 2018 for FAERS (1,375 reports) and 2020 for Health Canada (242 reports). Among FAERS reports with brand attribution, onabotulinumtoxinA accounted for 86.8%, abobotulinumtoxinA 9.7%, and incobotulinumtoxinA 2.4%. Co-reported adverse event analysis revealed drug ineffective with therapeutic response decreased as the most frequent pairing (n = 2,947), followed by drug ineffective with off-label use (n = 1,102). CONCLUSIONS: The predominance of effectiveness issues over traditional safety concerns distinguishes aesthetic BoNT-A pharmacovigilance from typical pharmaceutical surveillance. Geographic concentration of reporting in the United States despite global market distribution indicates systematic underreporting internationally. These findings suggest current pharmacovigilance systems inadequately capture aesthetic medicine adverse events, with direct implications for patient safety and regulatory oversight.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive filler injections are prevalent in aesthetic medicine. However, in recent years, the occurrence of complications has gradually increased. Current management lacks standardization, necessitating reliable imaging for diagnosis and treatment guidance. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of high-frequency ultrasound in filler-induced indurations and explore its significance in guiding treatment strategy selection. METHODS: A retrospective analysis included 231 patients with indurations after filler injection (January 2023-June 2025). All underwent high-frequency ultrasound(12-18MHz); 70 received pathological biopsy. Biopsy was used to determine the nature of the lesions and establish the correlation between lesion type and sonographic features. Based on ultrasound characteristics, lesions were classified into 7 types, and analyze the accuracy of ultrasound diagnosis and the efficacy of different treatment methods. RESULTS: The ultrasound-pathology concordance rate was 85.7%. The most common complications were accumulation of non-HA fillers (37.2%) and granuloma with non-HA fillers (22.5%). Non-HA filler granuloma responded better to non-invasive treatment (P<0.001), while granuloma without residual filler and HA with granuloma favored invasive treatment (P=0.001). Invasive treatment showed greater improvement in indurations (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: High-frequency ultrasound accurately identifies types of complication, providing crucial evidence for individualized treatment selection.