Safety and Tolerance Evaluation of a Suncare Product in Ethnically Diverse Children With Atopic Dermatitis-Prone Skin

Atopic Dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic inflammatory skin condition, with high prevalence in children. Sun protection is important for children with eczema and AD-prone skin, yet many sunscreens can cause skin irritation due to their formulations. In this study, we evaluated the safety and tolerance of an SPF 50 sunscreen in ethnically diverse children with a history of AD over 4 weeks of product use. A total of 45 children from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds, aged 3 to 12 years old with skin phototypes I-VI, plus a history of eczema and perceived sensitive skin completed the study. All participants applied sunscreen daily on the face and body, at least 15 minutes prior to sun exposure and as needed. After 4 weeks, evaluations were performed by a dermatologist and by participants for tolerability. Product performance questionnaires were also completed by parents/guardians of pediatric participants. After 4 weeks of sunscreen application, tolerability assessments of skin dryness, peeling, erythema, and edema were all absent in children participants. Parent/guardian evaluations of sunscreen tolerability for their child also revealed no perceived skin issues. These results were consistent with no adverse event being observed throughout the study. Parents/guardians reported that sunscreen application on children was smooth and even, with the absence of a white cast appearance on children with skin of color. We conclude from this study that this SPF 50 sunscreen is safe to use in ethnically diverse children with a history of AD and sensitive skin. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(8):669-673.  doi:10.36849/JDD.8282.

Photo Visualization of Skintone Compatibility of an SPF 35 Sunscreen.

BACKGROUND: Visual casts and discoloration are common barriers to sunscreen use in melanin-rich populations. However, photoprotective measures are essential for individuals with all skin types, including darker skin. METHODS: Single-center, 7-day, open-label study of healthy adult females with Fitzpatrick Skin Types (FST) IV to VI and sensitive skin treated with once-daily daily facial moisturizer sun protection factor 35 (DFM SPF35). Subjects completed a cosmetic acceptability questionnaire at days 1 and 7. Photography using VISIA CR was performed at day 7. Adverse events were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: Thirty-two (32) subjects participated; 31.3% had FST IV, 53.1% V, and 15.6% VI skin. DFM SPF35 was viewed as cosmetically elegant. At day 1, 96.7% of subjects agreed product was easy to apply; 90.0% reported soft skin after product use; 86.7% said it had a lightweight, non-greasy feel and hydrated the skin. At day 7, 93.7% reported no visible white residue on their skin and said the product applied easily/absorbed well. The majority (90.6%) would continue using and would recommend the product; and 87.5% reported the product blended seamlessly into their skin, which agreed with clinical photography. Responses were consistent among subjects with normal, oily, or combination skin. No adverse events were reported. CONCLUSIONS: DFM SPF35 blended well into the skin and was perceived favorably among subjects with SOC after 1 and 7 days of use. Subjects felt it had good cosmetic acceptability without unacceptable white residues or a greasy feeling. Dermatologists need to be versed in products that can be used on a variety of skin types.J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(7):515-518.  doi:10.36849/JDD.8223.

Effects of a Sheer 100% Mineral Sunscreen Moisturizer on Facial Photodamage Across Fitzpatrick Skin Types.

BACKGROUND: All skin tones need to be protected from the damaging effects of solar radiation. Although mineral sunscreens offer protection, they can have a thick, greasy feel and leave a white cast, particularly on darker skin tones. Tints offset white cast and provide visible light protection; however, patients may prefer a sheer option. Therefore, a multifunctional, sheer, 100% mineral sunscreen moisturizer (MSM) with broad-spectrum SPF 50 was developed to have positive aesthetics and deliver anti-aging and skin health benefits to all skin tones.  Methods: An IRB-approved, 12-week, open-label clinical study was conducted to investigate the efficacy and tolerability of the MSM. Thirty-nine (39) females aged 35 to 60 years with moderate-severe overall facial photodamage and representing all Fitzpatrick skin types (FST) were recruited. Participants applied the MSM to the face and neck in the morning and reapplied per US Food and Drug Administration requirements. Efficacy and tolerability grading, photography, ultrasound imaging, corneometer measurements, and questionnaires were completed at baseline and weeks 4, 8, and 12.  Results: Statistically significant progressive improvements were demonstrated from baseline to week 12. At week 12, 23.4% and 26.5% mean improvements in overall photodamage were seen for FST I-III and FST IV-VI, respectively. Favorable tolerability was shown for both the face and neck. Photography corroborated clinical grading, and ultrasound imaging indicated a trend in skin density improvement. The MSM was well-perceived.  Conclusion: The MSM is an efficacious and well-tolerated product for patients of all skin tones who desire a sheer, 100% mineral sunscreen moisturizer with anti-aging and skin health benefits. J Drugs Dermatol. 2024;23(7):538-544.  doi:10.36849/JDD.8082.

Sensitisation to ethylhexyl salicylate: Another piece of the frontal fibrosing alopecia puzzle.

BACKGROUND: There is speculation that some environmental factors may be impacting the increasing incidence of frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA). In a recent publication, sensitisation to benzyl salicylate was shown to be prevalent among 36 patients with FFA. Ethylhexyl salicylate (EHS), a light stabiliser, ultraviolet (UV) B absorber and UV filter, frequently found in photoprotectors/cosmetics and, rarely reported as a sensitiser, was not patch tested in said research. METHODS: From January 2021 to February 2022, 33 patients with FFA were patch-tested with the European Photopatch Series, including EHS 10% pet. in two hospitals. In addition, we conducted a literature review and a market survey. RESULTS: Patch test reactions to EHS were identified in 9 of 33 (27.3%). Four of nine also reacted to their personal sunscreens (containing EHS). All involved women with a mean age of 54 (30-65). Five patients had been diagnosed with FFA before the patch tests; and, four were diagnosed with FFA during the patch test investigations. CONCLUSION: Sensitisation to EHS was frequently found in a selected population of patients with FFA. We propose to expand the spectrum of contact allergens described in patients with FFA to include EHS and discuss the possible need for optimization of the patch test preparation.

Sunscreens: Misconceptions and Misinformation.

Over the past 70 years, sunscreens have evolved from beach products designed to prevent sunburn to more cosmetically elegant skincare products intended to protect against multiple long-term adverse consequences of characteristically low-intensity daily UV and visible light exposure. Sunscreen testing and labeling intended to quantify such protection are unfortunately often misunderstood by users and have also led to illegal misleading and potentially dangerous industry practices. Changes in regulatory requirements, better policing, and more informative sunscreen labeling would benefit users and their physician advisors.

Patch Testing With Benzophenone-3 and -4: The North American Contact Dermatitis Group Experience, 2013-2020.

Background: Benzophenone (BZP)-3 and BZP-4 are ultraviolet (UV) absorbers used in sunscreens and personal care products (PCPs) and may cause allergic contact dermatitis. Objective: To characterize positive patch test reactions to BZP-3 (10% in petrolatum [pet]) and BZP-4 (2% pet) in a screening allergen series. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients tested to BZP-3 and BZP-4 was conducted by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group from 2013 to 2020. Results: Of 19,618 patients patch tested to BZP-3 and BZP-4, 103 (0.5%) and 323 (1.6%) had positive reactions, respectively: 413 (2.1%) reacted to at least 1 BZP (BZP-positive patient). As compared with BZP-negative patients, BZP-positive patients were significantly more likely to have a history of hay fever (39.3% vs 33.4%, P = 0.0134), history of atopic dermatitis (39.8% vs 30.7%, P = 0.0001), and facial involvement (37.4% vs 32.2%, P = 0.0272). Most reactions were currently clinically relevant (BZP-3: 90.4%; BZP-4: 65.8%). Common identified sources included PCPs and sunscreens. Coreactivity between BZP-3 and BZP-4 was low: 13.5% (14/104) of BZP-3-positive patients were allergic to BZP-4 and 4.3% (14/322) of BZP-4-positive patients were allergic to BZP-3. Conclusions: Eight-year prevalence of BZP positivity was 2.1%. Reactions were frequently clinically relevant and linked to PCPs and sunscreens.

Benzophenone-3: Comprehensive review of the toxicological and human evidence with meta-analysis of human biomonitoring studies.

BACKGROUND: Benzophenone-3 (BP-3) and its major metabolite benzophenone-1 (BP-1) are widely used as UV filters in sunscreens and cosmetics to prevent sunburn and skin damage, or as stabilizers to prevent photodegradation in many commercial products. As a result, their presence is ubiquitous in the environment, wildlife and humans. Based on endocrine disruption concerns, international regulatory agencies are performing a closer evaluation. OBJECTIVE AND METHODS: This work aimed to comprehensively review the available human relevant evidence for safety issues in MEDLINE/PubMed in order to create a structured database of studies, as well as to conduct an integrative analysis as part of the Human Biomonitoring for Europe (HBM4EU) Initiative. RESULTS: A total of 1,635 titles and abstracts were screened and 254 references were evaluated and tabulated in detail, and classified in different categories: i) exposure sources and predictors; ii) human biomonitoring (HBM) exposure levels to perform a meta-analysis; iii) toxicokinetic data in both experimental animals and humans; iv) in vitro and in vivo rodent toxicity studies; and v) human data on effect biomarkers and health outcomes. Our integrative analysis showed that internal peak BP-3 concentrations achieved after a single whole-body application of a commercially available sunscreen (4% w/w) may overlap with concentrations eliciting endocrine disrupting effects in vitro, and with internal concentrations causing in vivo adverse female reproductive effects in rodents that were supported by still limited human data. The adverse effects in rodents included prolonged estrous cycle, altered uterine estrogen receptor gene expression, endometrium hyperplasia and altered proliferation and histology of the mammary gland, while human data indicated menstrual cycle hormonal alterations and increased risk of uterine fibroids and endometriosis. Among the modes of action reported (estrogenic, anti-androgenic, thyroid, etc.), BP-3 and especially BP-1 showed estrogenic activity at human-relevant concentrations, in agreement with the observed alterations in female reproductive endpoints. The meta-analysis of HBM studies identified a higher concern for North Americans, showing urinary BP-3 concentrations on average 10 and 20 times higher than European and Asian populations, respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our work supports that these benzophenones present endocrine disrupting properties, endorsing recent European regulatory efforts to limit human exposure. The reproducible and comprehensive database generated may constitute a point of departure in future risk assessments to support regulatory initiatives. Meanwhile, individuals should not refrain from sunscreen use. Commercially available formulations using inorganic UV filters that are practically not absorbed into systemic circulation may be recommended to susceptible populations.

Shedding a light on the importance of photopatch testing: A 12-year experience in a dermatology unit.

BACKGROUND: Photopatch testing has been standardized for diagnosing photoallergic contact dermatitis but is still infrequently used. OBJECTIVES: To characterize photopatch test (PPT) results and their clinical relevance. METHODS: We collected retrospective data from patients photopatch tested in our Dermatology Unit (2010-2021), using the European PPT 'baseline' series, other allergens, and patient's own products, when appropriate. RESULTS: Out of 223 patients, 75 patients (33.6%) were reactive with 124 positive PPT reactions, considered relevant in 56/223 patients (25.1%) and in 72/124 reactions (58.1%). Most reactions were caused by topical drugs (n = 33; 45.8%), such as ketoprofen or promethazine, and 7 (9.8%) by systemic drugs, such as hydrochlorothiazide and fenofibrate. 'Classical' ultraviolet filters were responsible for six positive PPT reactions whereas there was only three relevant PPT to the 'newer' UV filters. Patients' sunscreens/cosmetics or plant extracts caused 10 positive PPT each. Additional patch test reactions were observed, mostly to Tinosorb® M. CONCLUSION: Contrary to the trend in ACD, most positive PPT reactions were caused by topical drugs, outweighing ultraviolet filters and cosmetics. We stress the low reactivity to the 'newer' UV filters included in the PPT series. PPT was occasionally positive in systemic drug photosensitivity, but overall PPT reactivity was low.

Review on photoprotection: a clinician's guide to the ingredients, characteristics, adverse effects, and disease-specific benefits of chemical and physical sunscreen compounds.

Photoprotection is a critical health prevention strategy to reduce the deleterious effects of ultraviolet radiation (UVR) and visible light (VL). Methods of photoprotection are reviewed in this paper, with an emphasis on sunscreen. The most appropriate sunscreen formulation for personal use depends on several factors. Active sunscreen ingredients vary in their protective effect over the UVR and VL spectrum. There are dermatologic diseases that cause photosensitivity or that are aggravated by a particular action spectrum. In these situations, sunscreen suggestions can address the specific concern. Sunscreen does not represent a single entity. Appropriate personalized sunscreen selection is critical to improve compliance and clinical outcomes. Health care providers can facilitate informed product selection with awareness of evolving sunscreen formulations and counseling patients on appropriate use. This review aims to summarize different forms of photoprotection, discuss absorption of sunscreen ingredients, possible adverse effects, and disease-specific preferences for chemical, physical or oral agents that may decrease UVR and VL harmful effects.

Sunscreens: A Review of UV Filters and Their Allergic Potential.

Abstract Active ingredients of sunscreens, or UV filters, have increased in use because public awareness of sun safety has risen. In addition to this intentional use, unintentional exposures to UV filters also occur through application of personal care products, where the filters are incorporated into the product. There are 2 main types of UV filters: organic (chemical) filters and the 2 inorganic (mineral) filters, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide. Both allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) and photoallergic contact dermatitis (PACD) have been caused by organic filters; oxybenzone (benzophenone-3) is the most frequently reported contact and photocontact allergen compared with all other UV filters. There are no reports of ACD or PACD to the inorganic (physical) UV filters. Here, we review the categories of sunscreens available, currently marketed UV filters, and their corresponding ACD and PACD.

Incidence of melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancer in patients with celiac disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

There is conflicting observational evidence regarding the association between skin cancer and celiac disease (CD). The purpose of this review was to investigate the incidence rate ratio (IRR) of skin cancer incidence between patients with and without CD. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched on October 27th, 2021 and eight articles were identified for review. Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Seven articles were included in meta-analysis for a pooled estimate of IRR across all skin cancers, malignant melanoma (MM), and non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSC). In total, 74,860 CD patients were followed for 710,214 person-years in the meta-analysis. Overall combined incidence was 99.8 cases per 100,000 person-years. Meta-analysis of all skin cancer incidence showed no significant difference in CD patients compared to controls (IRR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.95, 1.17; p=0.29; I2: 0%). Five studies reported on MM incidence; there was no significant difference in incidence compared to controls (IRR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.72, 1.06; p=0.22; I2: 9%). Five studies reported on NMSC incidence, revealing a significantly increased risk of NMSC in CD patients (IRR: 1.14; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.28; p=0.04; I2: 0%). Our findings suggest a significantly increased incidence of NMSC in CD patients compared to control data and no significant association between CD and MM incidence. The findings are limited by the quantity and quality of the evidence. Nonetheless, clinicians should emphasize the importance of sun protection, such as sunscreen usage and self-examination for patients with CD.

What are parents reading about the sunscreen controversy?

The benefits of sunscreen use have been well-established. However, discussion of its risks remains on the internet. Given this point of controversy, a web search of 50 websites on children's sun safety was performed and indicated that the information online is variable and incomplete when informing parents on the benefits and risks of sunscreen use.

Frontal Fibrosing Alopecia and Sunscreen Use: A Cross-sectional Study of Actinic Damage.

Patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia report higher rates of sunscreen use than control subjects. However, it is not known whether the higher use of sunscreens is a cause or a consequence of the alopecia. A greater use of sunscreens should be associated with a lower incidence of signs of actinic damage. The aim of this study is to assess the presence of actinic damage in patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia. A cross-sectional study was carried out on 101 patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia and 40 control subjects. The presence of actinic damage, in the form of solar lentigines, actinic keratoses, and basal and squamous cell carcinomas, was recorded in both groups, together with sunscreen use. Trichoscopy and skin biopsy were performed on patients. Actinic damage was present more frequently in patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia (69.3%) than in control subjects (50%) (p = 0.031). Patients used sunscreens more frequently than did control subjects (83.2% vs 62.5%, p = 0.008). However, the prevalence of trichoscopic inflammatory signs, peripheral alopecia, and inflammatory infiltrate and sebaceous gland involvement in skin biopsy, were similar in patients who used sunscreens and those who did not use them. In conclusion, patients with frontal fibrosing alopecia had greater actinic damage than did control subjects, and this is hypothesized as a reason for the higher use of sunscreens among patients. Thus, use of sunscreens may not be the trigger for frontal fibrosing alopecia that dermatologists have proposed.

Effectiveness, compliance and application of sunscreen for solar ultraviolet radiation protection in Australia.

Objectives and importance of study: Sunscreens are widely used, not only to prevent acute sunburn, but also for skin cancer prevention and protection against photoaging and other skin conditions related to cumulative solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure. When correctly applied, sunscreens reduce the amount of UVR reaching the skin and therefore they can reduce harmful effects of such exposures. This paper examines the benefits and risks of sunscreens, compliance requirements and how sunscreen should be used for optimal effectiveness. STUDY TYPE: Narrative review. METHODS: We reviewed evidence relating to the benefits and risks of sunscreens, sunscreen manufacturing compliance, consumer usage of sunscreen and how sunscreen should be used to be most effective. RESULTS: There is strong evidence that sunscreen is safe to use and, when applied correctly, reduces the risk of skin cancer. There is a need to address questions about the impact of sunscreen on vitamin D and its risk to the environment, as well as a need to develop sun protection factor (SPF) sunscreen testing methods that are more reproducible and ethically based. The amount of sunscreen and the way it is applied varies considerably between individuals, and this in turn markedly affects the degree and duration of protection received. Sunscreen should be used in combination with other sun protection measures that include clothing, hats, sunglasses and seeking shade. CONCLUSIONS: Regulation is essential to ensure high-quality, safe and effective sunscreen products are available to the Australian population. There is an important role for governments to put in place skin cancer prevention policies and long-term funding arrangements to build on our successful sunscreen programs so that future generations are afforded the highest level of topical protection against solar UVR.