Latest news with #Dermatologists
CNN
a day ago
- Health
- CNN
Influencers are pushing false claims about SPF. Doctor explains why they are wrong
Dermatologists are expressing alarm over the "anti-sunscreen movement," fearing it could lead to widespread exposure to cancer-causing UV rays. Board-certified Cosmetic Dermatologist Dr. Shereene Idriss discusses these concerns with CNN's Danny Freeman.
CNN
a day ago
- Health
- CNN
Influencers are pushing false claims about SPF. Doctor explains why they are wrong
Dermatologists are expressing alarm over the "anti-sunscreen movement," fearing it could lead to widespread exposure to cancer-causing UV rays. Board-certified Cosmetic Dermatologist Dr. Shereene Idriss discusses these concerns with CNN's Danny Freeman.
The Guardian
23-07-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
Sali Hughes on beauty: if your teen won't wear sunscreen, try tempting them with these products
Since Covid, anti-science conspiracy theories have been circulated ever more widely on social media. The most worrying to dermatologists is a growing movement against sunscreen, the best and most evidenced precaution (beyond covering up with clothing or staying indoors) that we can take against skin cancers, including melanoma. The Guardian's journalism is independent. We will earn a commission if you buy something through an affiliate link. Learn more. The conspiracy theorists claim that sunscreen causes cancer, rather than preventing it. Although there is no robust evidence to support this (and there is a mountain of clinical data showing the opposite), kids are inevitably most susceptible to the propaganda. Teen beauty brand Indu recently conducted a survey which found that 60% of teenage girls say they've been sunburnt on their face, but only 27% wear sunscreen daily. Teenage boys (including my own) are even less likely to wear SPF. So, while there's little we can do about the proliferation of online quackery, and the onus should be on social media platforms like TikTok, we can encourage our children to incorporate sunscreen into their daily routines. A non-greasy, quickly absorbed, makeup-friendly, high-protection SPF will help. Indu's own Everyday Hero SPF50 (£25) fits the bill. A lightweight synthetic sunscreen with a smooth, hydrated finish, it comes in a practical, backpack-friendly tube that should appeal to any gender. Bubble skincare is designed and marketed at teens and tweens, but I like its Solar Mate Daily Mineral Sunscreen SPF30 (£19) myself. This is a physical sunscreen, using zinc (my own preference over titanium), that goes on almost clear and has a matt, but not chalky, finish. It will appease young people who have been (wrongly) convinced that mineral SPF is somehow superior to synthetics. It now comes in an additional tinted version (£19) that can easily substitute for light, school-friendly makeup. The unaffordability of sunscreens is a hot topic in beauty. There's no doubt that prohibitive VAT-liable SPF prices will negatively impact health for people on lower incomes. I admire the dermatologist-founded brand Altruist enormously for its mission to democratise UV protection. Its Oily Skin Cream SPF50 (£9.50) is terrific for teen skin. It combines mineral and synthetic ingredients, and has a dry-to-the-touch finish that sits nicely under makeup. At just shy of a tenner, it's a comparatively inexpensive way to slot an essential healthcare product into a child's routine. Sign up to Inside Saturday The only way to get a look behind the scenes of the Saturday magazine. Sign up to get the inside story from our top writers as well as all the must-read articles and columns, delivered to your inbox every weekend. after newsletter promotion Model: Scout Waddington. Photography assistant: Declan Slattery. Hair and makeup: Sarah Cherry
Daily Mail
15-07-2025
- Health
- Daily Mail
Dermatologists' horror as babies aged just six months are treated for skin conditions caused by wearing 'too much perfume and makeup'
Dermatologists say parents are putting young children at risk of serious skin conditions by exposing them to toxic beauty products that have been linked to cancer. Among the worst contenders are nail varnish, perfumes, and bronzer—all of which have been used on children as young as six-months old, a study has found. These products often contain powerful chemicals—such as parabens, phthalates and synthetic parfums—which can cause allergic reactions and interfere with the body's natural balance of hormones. The study, which analysed more than 60 children admitted to Ninewell Hospital in Dundee last year, concluded that children are being exposed to cosmetic products younger than ever before. Whilst all appointments were for other medical reasons, a third of children were found to have a reaction to a cosmetic product used on their skin. Dr Sharizan Abdul Ghaffar, senior author of the study and dermatologist at NHS Tayside, and told The Times: 'We are seeing more cases of allergic contact dermatitis, which is a red itchy and sometimes blistering skin reaction in children attending allergy patch-test clinics.' 'The study would certainly support the theory that this is due to increasing usage of cosmetic products among children.' Whilst contact dermatitis, a type of eczema triggered by contact with a particular substance is commonly caused by things like soap and often clears up on its own, allergic contact dermatitis is more serious. Exposure to an allergen in this case can trigger the immune system to overreact causing a nasty rash that may have to be treated with steroids. In one shocking case, a one-year-old girl's beauty routine was laid bare including fake tan, acrylic gel nails—cured using a UV lamp—hair bleach, hair removal products, lipstick and perfume. Eye-makeup, foundation and lip gloss is also being used on baby boys as young as six-months-old whilst girls are starting to get their hair dyed at just six-years-old. Now, dermatologists are campaigning for stricter guidelines around cosmetic products, saying it is 'absolute madness' that children are being exposed to these toxins from such a young age. Dr Deirdre Buckley from the British Association of Dermatologists said: 'There are personal hygiene products that have to be used on very young children — like toothpaste and shampoo — but there is no reason for them to come into deliberate contact with things like make-up, hair dye, perfume and nail polish.' Responding to the findings which were presented this month at the group's annual meeting in Glasgow, she added: 'Gel nails contain chemicals called acrylates and methacrylates, which are causing large numbers of allergic skin reactions in teenagers and young adults. 'It's absolute madness to apply them in children.' Because babies have thinner skin than adults, it absorbs substances more easily, making them more prone to allergic reactions than adults. Breast cancer is the UK's most common cancer with almost 56,000 cases diagnosed per year Whilst anti-ageing face creams, manicures and perfume used to be a sign of maturity with young girls longing for the day they would be allowed to wear make-up, girls are now being exposed to these product at a far younger age, Dr Buckley warned. 'Now, unfortunately dermatologists may have to consider including chemicals from these adult products in their patch tests when investigating contact dermatitis in young children.' It comes as alarming new research has linked more synthetic chemicals to adverse health conditions, including breast cancer. Researchers at Breast Cancer UK says that whilst low levels of these products may be safe in isolation, they can trigger the release of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) when used together. These chemicals interfere with the body's natural balance of hormones, causing young girls to start their period worryingly early, increasing the risk of breast cancer. In some cases, girls are starting their period as young as six. The charity estimates that the average woman is exposed to over 150 potentially harmful chemicals a day as part of their beauty regime. And with girls being exposed to more and more unnecessary toxins from a far younger age, experts are worried young girls are being put at risk in the pursuit of beauty.
Medscape
05-06-2025
- Health
- Medscape
IL-23 Inhibitors Show Highest Drug Survival in Psoriasis
Interleukin (IL)-23p19 inhibitors guselkumab and risankizumab demonstrated the highest drug survival for effectiveness and safety comparable with ustekinumab over 2 years, exceeding that of all other biologics. IL-17 receptor inhibitor brodalumab showed comparable effectiveness and safety with adalimumab and secukinumab. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a cohort study using data from the British Association of Dermatologists Biologics and Immunomodulators Register from November 2007 to June 2023 and compared the drug survival of all current commonly used biologics in patients with chronic plaque psoriasis (median age at therapy initiation, 48 years). The analysis included 19,034 treatment courses across the following biologics: Tumour necrosis factor-alpha inhibitor adalimumab (n = 6815), IL-12/23p40 inhibitor ustekinumab (n = 5639), IL-17A inhibitors secukinumab (n = 3051) and ixekizumab (n = 1072), IL-17 receptor inhibitor brodalumab (n = 367), and IL-23p19 inhibitors guselkumab (n = 1258) and risankizumab (n = 832). Multivariable flexible parametric models assessed drug survival, with discontinuation due to ineffectiveness and adverse effects reported separately. Researchers also calculated the restricted mean survival time (RMST) at 2 years for each biologic and the difference in RMST between all comparator biologics. The overall median follow-up duration was 2.3 years. TAKEAWAY: Guselkumab and risankizumab demonstrated the highest adjusted survival time for effectiveness (RMST, 1.93 years for both; 95% CI, 1.91-1.95 and 1.90-1.96 years, respectively). Risankizumab showed the highest survival for safety (1.94 years; 95% CI, 1.92-1.96 years), followed by guselkumab (1.92 years; 95% CI, 1.90-1.94 years) and ustekinumab (1.92 years; 95% CI, 1.91-1.93 years). Brodalumab exhibited a lower adjusted survival time for effectiveness (1.75 years; 95% CI, 1.69-1.81 years) than most biologics except secukinumab and adalimumab and lower drug survival for safety than all biologics except the IL-17A inhibitors and adalimumab. Among the IL-17A inhibitors, secukinumab exhibited significantly lower adjusted drug survival than ixekizumab for effectiveness but had a significantly higher safety profile. Prior exposure to biologics was associated with a decline in survival, with significantly larger reductions observed for IL-17 inhibitors. IN PRACTICE: "Drug survival is high with IL23p19 inhibitors. People with psoriasis persist with IL23p19 inhibitors up to an estimated 21 weeks more for effectiveness and 13 weeks more for safety compared with other biologics over a 2-year period on average," the authors wrote. "This evidence on the absolute difference in time persisted on biologic may help clinicians and patients make an informed decision on choosing the right biologic, including differentiating between different classes of biologics based on the patient's history of having PsA [psoriatic arthritis] or not, their treatment history, and whether they prioritize treatment longevity," they added. SOURCE: This study was led by Leila Motedayen Aval, The University of Manchester, The Dermatology Centre, Salford Royal Hospital, Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, England. It was published online on May 29, 2025, in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology . LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by missing data for newer biologics, particularly IL-17A inhibitors and IL-23p19 inhibitors, and shorter follow-up periods for newer treatments. Residual selection bias may have been present. Additionally, researchers could not evaluate dosing regimens due to missing data for over 50% of dosing frequency information for secukinumab, and results may not be generalisable beyond the UK and Republic of Ireland healthcare systems. DISCLOSURES: The British Association of Dermatologists Biologic Register Ltd receives income from AbbVie, Almirall, Eli Lilly, J&J, Leo Pharma, Novartis, Samsung Bioepis, UCB, BI, and BMS for providing pharmacovigilance services. This research was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Manchester, Guy's and St Thomas' and Newcastle's Biomedical Research Centres. Several authors reported receiving grants or personal fees and having other ties with various sources.
