ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Skincare retailers sell a plethora of retinol-containing products, ranging from serums and moisturisers to masks and eye creams. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to critically appraise the randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trials of the use of over-the-counter retinol products in the treatment of facial skin aging in order to assess evidence regarding their efficacy. METHODS: A PubMed search was conducted for relevant clinical trial publications, using the terms "retinoid," "tretinoin," "retinol," "retinal," "retinaldehyde," and "skin." RESULTS: Nine randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical trials were found. Four of these trials reported no statistically significant differences between the retinol-containing treatment and vehicle. The remaining five trials provide weak evidence for retinol potentially having a mild ameliorating effect on fine facial skin wrinkle lines only. However, these five trials showed major methodological flaws, which were critically analyzed in this review, calling into question the validity of any positive results. CONCLUSION: It can be suggested that, in the case of retinols, the "positive" trials should not inform clinical decision-making but rather may serve as tools for advertising. Until at least one high-quality clinical trial of retinol-containing products in the treatment of (photo-)aged skin is published, there is very little, if any, trustworthy evidence available to support the use of over-the-counter cosmetic retinol-containing products to improve the appearance of aged skin.
ABSTRACT
Bakuchiol is a new trendy ingredient in cosmetic skincare products, claiming to have similar efficacy to over-the-counter vitamin A derivative products. The manufacturers use clinical trial data to support the claims that bakuchiol has anti-aging properties. This commentary critically appraises these clinical trials. Dermatologists need to be aware of and clinically appraise evidence for these types of cosmetic ingredients in order to provide accurate recommendations to their patients and the consumer. The integrity of our profession and the well-being of our patients depend on it.
Subject(s)
Cosmetics , Skin Aging , Humans , Phenols , Skin CareABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Melasma is an acquired disorder of facial pigmentation which is a treatment challenge. AIMS: The aim of this article is to critically appraise the clinical trial evidence for different treatment modalities for melasma, published in peer-reviewed journals in the past 10 years. PATIENTS/METHODS: The literature review was conducted using PubMed and MEDLINE. The search was performed in July 2019, and search parameters were limited to all English language articles published in the past 10 years only. RESULTS: Eighty-nine clinical trials were found. Four clinical trials investigated topical hydroquinone, supporting its safety and efficacy as first-line treatment. Twelve studies showed tranexamic acid as very promising. Nineteen studies assessed various novel oral, injectable, and topical treatments and highlight some new potential future treatments. Forty-two studies investigated laser and light treatment in melasma: LFQS laser is still one of the best options, especially in darker skin types. However, the picosecond laser has shown excellent results. Finally, 11 studies looked at peels. Overall, peels have not been shown to be superior to the use of topical therapy alone. CONCLUSION: Topical therapy with a HQ and retinoid-based product should be first line for a minimum of 3 months with the addition of oral tranexamic acid at 250 mg BD if no contraindication. Second-line treatment with lasers includes the LFQS Nd:YAG, picosecond laser, and the pulsed dye laser in lighter skin types. Third-line therapy would be the addition of chemical peels to the above treatments, with GA or TCA peels having the most evidence for effectiveness.
