Medical Dermocosmetology

ARTICLE

Auteur(s) : Jean-Alexis Grimaud¹, Jean Marsac²

¹UMR 7623 CNRS-Université Paris VI, Faculté de Médecine des Cordeliers, 15 rue de l'Ecole de Médecine, 75006, Paris, Francejean-alexis.grimaud@upmc.fr
²University Paris-V, France

To date, with the exception of a few relevant parties, cosmetics manufacturers have mainly focused on marketing and sales objectives and innovative concepts have been poorly promoted because of the weak research and development methods available. Consequently, product claims are still supported by weak studies [1, 2] in terms of rationale, design, statistical analysis and recommendations. Scientific data have not so far been required to any great extent by regulatory bodies, leading to the general acceptance of marketing driven promotion. Furthermore, this situation has left the door open to false scientific data [1, 3], exaggerated and uncontrolled publicity practices. “Pseudo-science” has emerged, largely for the “benefit” of marketing objectives [2].

Fortunately these malpractices have, at the same time, generated a positive and corrective attitude concerning the messages delivered to the customers [4]. The need for relevant data concerning the precise effect of a product on the skin [5] and the need for full transparency about the direct or indirect effects of active ingredients in terms of efficacy and safety, have given birth to a new field: Medical Dermocosmetology.

As a result of false allegations, loss of confidence has contributed to the emergence of new trends, such as “biological” or “natural ethno/ecological” products, said to be safer and to provide an optimal guarantee-efficacy profile because “mother nature” is always reliable [6, 7]… Unfortunately, this wave of “back-to-nature” sentiment is not necessarily helpful for supporting new practices of quality research designed to generate valuable data, accessible to the consumer.

A new challenge of combining several constraints and requirements has emerged, from basic science to regulatory guidelines, marketing procedures and consumer expectations. The landscape is changing and customers are asking for more efficient and safer natural products, adapted to new lifestyles and secret hopes of fitting in with dreamed-of personalities. Moreover the esthetic/visual appearance has to be in accordance with their perception of wellness and a positive feed-back of their social image.

In this context, a priority for the future of cosmetic development is the establishment of a pharma-like R&D organization, offering high quality practices for studies/dossiers/proof of concept/promotion.. A fair research strategy for a dermocosmetic New Company has to deal in more depth with a pathophysiological approach to the main disorders, such as inflammation, allergy, microcirculation, skin repair, connective matrix remodelling patterns, dermo-epidermal cellular dialogue and signal peptides. Operative action plans have to adopt pre-clinical proof of concept methods through predictive models, and last, but not least, clinical studies must assess efficacy with big enough safety margins for topical formulation.

Such R&D strategies would be particularly appropriate for offering truly innovative medications for the dermatologist. These medicinal products can also have specific indications and formulations for purely cosmetic use. That means that the gap between Dermatology and Cosmetology will be soon filled by an emerging discipline, Medical Dermocosmetology [8].

References

2 Moore A. The biochemistry of beauty. The science and pseudo science of beautiful skin. EMBO reports 2002: 714-7.

3 Murphy LA, White IR, Rastogi SC. Is hypoallergenic a credible term ? Clin Exp Dermatol 2004; 29: 325-7.

4 Johnson CY. Genetics-based products stir concerns. Scientists worry about promises. The Boston Globe May 27, 2009.

5 Wijsbek H. The pursuit of beauty: the enforcement of aesthetics or a freely adopted lifestyle?. J Med Ethics 2000; 26: 454-8.

6 Timmermans K. Intellectual property rights and traditional medicine: policy dilemmas at the interface. Soc Sci Med 2003; 57: 745-56.

7 King SR, Carlson TJ, Moran K. Biological diversity, indigenous knowledge, drug discovery and intellectual property rights: creating reciprocity and maintaining relationships. J Ethnopharmacol 1996; 51: 45-57.

8 Rinaldi A. Healing beauty ? More bio technology cosmetic products that claim drug-like properties reach the market. EMBO reports 2008; 9: 1073-7.