The Best Non Comedogenic Makeup for a Full Beat, Sans Breakout
When you have acne-prone skin, the best non-comedogenic makeup should be top of mind to avoid further breakouts. I'm militant about my product selection in the pursuit for clearer skin—every cleanser, serum, and SPF formulation is vetted and patch-tested before earning a place in my routine. But it wasn't until a recent facial with celebrity aesthetician Sofie Pavitt that I realized my carefully curated complexion might still be under siege—this time, by my own makeup products.
Celebrity makeup artist Andrea Ventura agrees. 'It's critical to avoid pore-clogging makeup especially if you have sensitive skin, oily skin, or acne-prone skin. For those with any of these skin types, using makeup with comedogenic ingredients ultimately traps bacteria and oil in pores, is clogging your pores, leading to more breakouts,' Ventura tells Vogue.
Vogue's Non-Comedogenic Makeup Picks
In This Story
Rather than cross my fingers whenever I try a new powder blush or foundation, I decided to take control. Call it my beauty bag reckoning—a spring clean guided by acne-safe ingredient lists, and comedogenicity ratings. Inspired by Pavitt's advice of avoiding all comedogenics while on a skin-clearing protocol, I took to scanning every label with the scrutiny of a chemist, purging anything that didn't pass the acne-safe test. 'Why risk it? Minimize the risk of pore-clogging from triggers, and your skin will clear faster,' Pavitt previously told Vogue, and the same concept can be applied to cosmetics.
One word of warning: while many brands claim their products are non-comedogenic, don't take the label at face value. I've made a habit (or perhaps, obsession) of pasting ingredient lists into Sofie Pavitt's pore-clogging checker—and let's just say it's exposed more than a few imposters. The result? A tighter, more intentional edit of color cosmetics. The clean-out focused strictly on complexion products—foundation, concealer, powders—while eyes, lips, and brows got a free pass as the lesser of acne-prone areas.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
28 minutes ago
- Medscape
Can New Combo Fill ‘Unmet Need' in R/R Hodgkin Lymphoma?
Acimtamig, a first-in-class CD30/CD16A bispecific innate cell engager (ICE), combined with an off-the-shelf cord-blood derived natural killer cell product (AlloNK), shows safety and efficacy in the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma, who otherwise have poor prognoses. 'Acimtamig in combination with AlloNK shows promising efficacy with a well-managed safety profile with the potential to address an unmet need in patients with R/R Hodgkin lymphoma who have exhausted standard-of-care treatment options,' said first author Joseph Maakaron, MD, of the Division of Hematology, Oncology and Transplantation, Department of Medicine, Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, in presenting the findings at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting in Chicago. Patients with classical Hodgkin lymphoma who relapse after standard-of-care treatments, including chemotherapy, brentuximab vedotin, and checkpoint inhibitors, have few remaining treatment options. Acimtamig has previously shown some efficacy as monotherapy in the treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma, and when further combined with an allogenic cord blood derived natural killer cell product, encouraging objective response rates were observed in a proof-of-concept study. To test the approach in a more rigorous multicenter trial, Maakaron and colleagues conducted the current open-label phase 2 LuminICE-203 trial, enrolling 24 patients with R/R Hodgkin lymphoma. For the study, the patients were treated in one of four cohorts investigating two doses of acimtamig (200 mg or 300 mg weekly flat dosing for 6 weeks) in combination with two dose levels of AlloNK after standard lymphodepletion of up to three cycles and followed by a randomized part using the Simon two-stage design. While the patients had a median age of 42.5 years, the range was wide, ranging from age 23 to 80 years, and 16 (67%) were men. About two thirds of patients (66.7%) had extranodal disease, and they had all been heavily pre-treated with brentuximab vedotin and programmed cell death protein 1 inhibitors, with a median of 4.5 prior lines of treatment, including previous stem cell transplant and CAR T cell therapy among 14 (58%) patients. 'The patients had essentially exhausted all standard-of-care therapy options,' Maakaron emphasized. As of the latest cut-off, the study achieved its primary end point of an objective response rate, with a rate of 88% among the patients, with 14 (58%) achieving complete responses. Across all four dose cohorts, clinically meaningful deep responses were seen, with 10 ongoing responses. A progression-free survival estimate of 61% was observed at 6 months. More robust maximum peaks were observed after the third infusion, which was presumed to be due to a steady state that had been achieved at that time, he added. The safety profile was consistent with previous reports, with the therapy combination being well tolerated. The most common treatment-related side effects were mild to moderate infusion-related reactions, occurring in 50% of patients. There were no cases of graft vs host disease or immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome, and cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was reported in six patients shortly after infusion. All treatment-emergent adverse events including infusion-related reactions and CRS events were controlled with standard-of-care interventions and quickly resolved. There were no fatal treatment-emergent adverse events. 'Acimtamig with AlloNK may provide a safe, effective, and durable new therapeutic option for patients with R/R Hodgkin lymphoma, with a progression-free survival estimate of 61% at 6 months,' Maakaron said. 'These early results support the co-administration approach of acimtamig with an off-the-shelf, commercially scalable, allogenic, cryopreserved natural killer cell product in a multicenter setting,' he said. Study Shows Best Response Rates to Date Commenting on the findings at the meeting, Sarah C. Rutherford, MD, associate professor of clinical medicine at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, said the need for better treatment options for those who have relapsed after standard therapies is pressing. 'This is really an unmet need in the field,' she underscored. 'Novel treatments in R/R classic Hodgkin lymphoma after brentuximab vedotin, checkpoint inhibitors, and autologous transplant are limited, and most don't really work that well.' 'We tend to use single-agent chemotherapies, repeat checkpoint inhibitors, and radiation, but these patients really suffer because of that, and clinical trial options have been lacking.' Rutherford noted that, with the innovative combination, safety and tolerability were important concerns. 'I was really struck by the tolerability of this regimen, with only five patients having grade 3 and one [having] grade 4 treatment-emergent adverse events.' Furthermore, the response rates were impressive, she noted. 'These are the best response rates observed to date in the post-brentuximab vedotin and checkpoint inhibitor setting, and the toxicities appear manageable,' she said. 'I think it's going to be unlikely to be as widely adopted as checkpoint inhibitors because of the nature of the cellular therapy approach, but I do think this is a very promising agent,' Rutherford said. 'I think it's the current best available trial option, and in the future, some version of this could become a third-line therapy in this disease.'
Medscape
34 minutes ago
- Medscape
Lifestyle Changes Boost Medical Therapy for CAD
In patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease (CAD), integrating intensive lifestyle modifications and goal-directed medical therapy — while reserving revascularization for those with severely reduced coronary flow capacity — resulted in improvements in risk factor scores and better clinical outcomes. METHODOLOGY: Researchers in Texas conducted a single-center randomized trial to evaluate the efficacy of combining lifestyle modifications with aggressive medical therapy in patients with subclinical, suspected, or established CAD and factors that put them at a high risk for poor outcomes. Between 2009 and 2017, patients aged 40 years or older were randomly assigned to receive either comprehensive care (n = 513; mean age, 61 years; 67% men) or standard care (n = 515; mean age, 61 years; 69% men). After randomization, all patients underwent baseline stress-rest PET to quantify coronary flow capacity and accordingly defer or guide interventions. Comprehensive care involved intensive lifestyle counseling, regular review of PET results, and targeted steps toward prespecified risk factor goals. Patients also received frequent follow-ups and round-the-clock access to phone or email support. Those without severely reduced coronary flow capacity were managed without invasive interventions. Standard care involved no review of results or contact for support, and PET results were unblinded only for patients with severely reduced coronary flow capacity at a high risk for mortality to consider potential revascularization. The primary outcome was a change in the summed risk score of 16 individual risk factors over a 5-year follow-up period. Major adverse cardiac events, their components, and revascularization after 90 days were assessed as secondary outcomes. TAKEAWAY: At 5 years, patients receiving comprehensive care had a lower summed risk score than those receiving standard care (difference in 5-year change, -1.4; P < .0001), along with significant improvements in individual risk factors such as low-density lipoprotein, BMI, and blood pressure ( P < .01 for all). < .0001), along with significant improvements in individual risk factors such as low-density lipoprotein, BMI, and blood pressure ( < .01 for all). Over 11 years of extended follow-up, the comprehensive care group had 31.4% fewer major adverse cardiac events, 42.7% fewer deaths, 37% fewer deaths or myocardial infarction events, and 35.1% fewer revascularizations than the standard care group ( P < .05 for all). < .05 for all). Only 5.4% of patients underwent revascularization within 90 days, which was primarily guided by the severity of coronary flow capacity. IN PRACTICE: 'The randomized, controlled, blinded 5-year CENTURY trial demonstrates that participants for whom invasive coronary procedures were safely deferred based on [coronary flow capacity] by PET, integrated with comprehensive, intense lifestyle modifications, and aggressive medical treatment targeted to goals significantly improved all risk factor scores with significant reduction in all-cause mortality,' the researchers reported. 'Review of risk factor data, PET images, and frequent supportive participant contact with CENTURY [trial] research staff appeared to enhance adherence of the comprehensive compared with the standard care group,' they added. SOURCE: This study was led by K. Lance Gould, MD, of the University of Texas McGovern Medical School in Houston. It was published online on May 29, 2025, in European Heart Journal . LIMITATIONS: This study was conducted at a single center. About 23% of patients did not participate in the follow-up visits or PET scans. Blinding coronary artery calcium and myocardial perfusion images in patients receiving standard care might have been a source of bias. DISCLOSURES: This study received support from the Weatherhead PET Centre endowment at the University of Texas-Houston. One author reported receiving internal funding from the funding source and being an applicant for FDA-cleared K231731 PET software. One author reported serving as the principal investigator of a trial which receives support from a medical device company. Several authors reported donating any personal honoraria or waiving off their rights to royalties to avoid conflicts of interest.
Medscape
38 minutes ago
- Medscape
Judge Allows Docs' Lawsuit Against MultiPlan to Proceed
A district judge has ruled that physicians can move forward with a federal lawsuit that accuses insurers and an analytics company of underpaying them by billions through a price-fixing scheme for out-of-network services. In a June 3 decision, US District Judge Matthew Kennelly wrote that providers have alleged a direct injury from the reported price-fixing agreement and that their antitrust claims against data company MultiPlan are valid. The ruling addresses two consolidated complaints by several plaintiffs, including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the Illinois State Medical Society (ISMS), against MultiPlan, which has now changed its name to Claritev. The medical associations claim MultiPlan/Claritev and third-party payers violated federal and state antitrust laws with a price-fixing conspiracy that forced physicians to accept increasingly low payments for out-of-network services. The suit names Aetna, Cigna, UnitedHealth Group, and Health Care Service Corporation, a Mutual Legal Reserve Company, as 'co-conspirators' in the complaint, among other 'smaller' insurers. AMA President Bruce A. Scott, MD, praised the court for allowing the case to proceed, calling the ruling 'the clearest statement yet by a court that MultiPlan's lack of transparency, accuracy, and integrity in the insurer-run system for paying out-of-network medical bills is an antitrust violation.' 'MultiPlan and the commercial health insurance companies have profited from the rigged system while forcing physicians to accept lower and lower payment amounts for out-of-network services — payments that in many cases do not cover the cost of delivering care to patients,' Scott said in a media statement. 'Ending this conspiracy is a good start toward creating an open and honest system that will restore fair reimbursements and help ensure patients have access to the care they need.' A Claritev spokeswoman told Medscape Medical News in an email that the company remains 'confident that the facts will reinforce what we've consistently said — that these lawsuits are without merit and fail to acknowledge the critical role our competitive options play in reducing healthcare costs for employers and improving access for patients.' 'These lawsuits will only serve to increase healthcare [costs] for employers and patients. We will vigorously defend ourselves through the legal process while remaining focused on delivering value to our customers and the broader healthcare ecosystem.' ISMS President Richard C. Anderson, MD, said the medical society appreciates the ruling and that it's 'time for MultiPlan to face the music.' 'The company can change its name, but it doesn't change the fact that they reaped huge profits from this price-fixing collusion,' Anderson wrote in an email to Medscape Medical News . 'They routinely paid below-market reimbursement rates to physician for out-of-network healthcare services with no transparency in their process. Patients and physicians deserve better.' Alleged Price-Fixing Conspiracy On its website, Claritev describes itself as a healthcare technology, data, and insights company that focuses on improving affordability, transparency, and quality. The company offers an alternative method for calculating a third-party payer's out-of-network rate through its Data iSight algorithm, according to court records. Data iSight calculates rates by referencing the cost of the service to the provider and the median payment for similar services rendered, according to the legal summary. Using these metrics, the algorithm tends to produce lower payment rates than Usual, Customary, and Reasonable benchmarks. If payers agree to use a Data iSight-calculated rate, the company offers to negotiate the rate with providers on behalf of the insurer. During the negotiation, MultiPlan/Claritev conditions all payments on a provider's agreement not to balance bill the patient, according to the legal summary. The plaintiffs allege the company's rates are provided on a 'take-it-or-leave-it' basis and that they were unable to convince the company to deviate from a Data iSight-calculated rate. Providers can still decline MultiPlan's offer and seek payment directly from the patient and the insurer, according to court documents. An April 2020 study by the Office of the New York State Comptroller found that payments based on MultiPlan's repricing methodology at the time were 1.5-49 times lower than payments for the same services based on the traditional method of calculating out-of-network payment rates for physicians, according to the AMA. The physician plaintiffs contend the company undercuts fair payment for out-of-network healthcare services and eliminates market competition. The 'widespread conspiracy' between the company and insurers has forced many medical practices to shut down, cease offering certain services, or seek other employment arrangements, according to their complaint. Insurers have contracted with MultiPlan to use its Data iSight algorithm and negotiation services since 2015, and by 2018, hundreds of third-party payers had contracts with the company, according to court records. The company grew to having contracts with more than 700 third-party payers and, in 2019, processed more than 80% of out-of-network healthcare service payments, according to court documents. A 2024 New York Times investigation found that both the company and insurers made more money when then-MultiPlan lowered fees paid to physicians for out-of-network services. In May 2024, Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), US senators, requested more information from MultiPlan, expressing concern that the company might be driving up costs for consumers. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) also sent a letter to the Federal Trade Commission in May 2024, seeking an investigation into what she deemed 'potentially anticompetitive conduct.' Company Argues Claims Invalid MultiPlan/Claritev asked the court to throw out the complaint, arguing the plaintiffs have not asserted a viable federal antitrust claim because they have not proven antitrust standing nor shown how the company violated antitrust law. Even if the providers are getting below-market payments, the company said the doctors have failed to allege the lesser payments are due to a harm to competition. Rather, MultiPlan/Claritev's services increase competition by providing another rate calculation option, and its services are further beneficial because they lower costs to third-party payers and patients, the company's attorneys argued. In addition, the company contended that providers have not been directly injured by the alleged party payer agreement to fix prices because 'they can always seek full payment from the patient.' However, Kennelly wrote that the providers have alleged a direct injury because the alleged balance billing prohibition prevents providers from seeking the remaining payment from patients and 'shields patients from the consequences of the alleged third-party payor price-fixing agreement.' If MultiPlan/Claritev's services are harmful or beneficial to competition is a matter for further court analysis, Kennelly also said. 'Whether MultiPlan facilitates a third-party payor price-fixing agreement or is simply another pricing option for payors is a factual dispute that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss,' he wrote in his ruling. The judge, however, dismissed the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims against the company. Kennelly wrote the physicians failed to allege an unjust enrichment claim under a specific state law. A case management conference in the case is scheduled for June 17.
