User login
FPs need to remind patients they care for whole families
I think there are multiple factors explaining why the percentage of family physicians treating children declined again. Not the least of these is that pediatricians have a very limited scope of practice and need to market and attract patients, which they do quite a bit. There are even pediatric urgent care centers popping up all over the place now, some likely funded by venture capital just as other urgent care centers have been funded.
The loss of pediatric inpatient volume because of the effectiveness of vaccines that prevent many bacterial and viral illnesses means that fewer pediatric graduates are spending time in the hospital.
Family doctors used to retain their pediatric patients by delivering babies, seeing them in the newborn nursery, and beginning their relationship with the kids there. FPs are delivering fewer babies and the subsequent reduction in new kids in their practices has been a factor in this as well.
Finally, in multispecialty practices, pediatricians are employed there. Families immediately assume that their kids should be going to the pediatricians, not the family doctors. We need to keep talking up the fact that we take care of whole families to retain our pediatric practices.
Neil S. Calman, MD, is president and chief executive officer of the Institute for Family Health and is professor and chair of the Alfred and Gail Engelberg department of family medicine and community health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Mount Sinai Health System, both in New York. Dr. Calman also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.
I think there are multiple factors explaining why the percentage of family physicians treating children declined again. Not the least of these is that pediatricians have a very limited scope of practice and need to market and attract patients, which they do quite a bit. There are even pediatric urgent care centers popping up all over the place now, some likely funded by venture capital just as other urgent care centers have been funded.
The loss of pediatric inpatient volume because of the effectiveness of vaccines that prevent many bacterial and viral illnesses means that fewer pediatric graduates are spending time in the hospital.
Family doctors used to retain their pediatric patients by delivering babies, seeing them in the newborn nursery, and beginning their relationship with the kids there. FPs are delivering fewer babies and the subsequent reduction in new kids in their practices has been a factor in this as well.
Finally, in multispecialty practices, pediatricians are employed there. Families immediately assume that their kids should be going to the pediatricians, not the family doctors. We need to keep talking up the fact that we take care of whole families to retain our pediatric practices.
Neil S. Calman, MD, is president and chief executive officer of the Institute for Family Health and is professor and chair of the Alfred and Gail Engelberg department of family medicine and community health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Mount Sinai Health System, both in New York. Dr. Calman also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.
I think there are multiple factors explaining why the percentage of family physicians treating children declined again. Not the least of these is that pediatricians have a very limited scope of practice and need to market and attract patients, which they do quite a bit. There are even pediatric urgent care centers popping up all over the place now, some likely funded by venture capital just as other urgent care centers have been funded.
The loss of pediatric inpatient volume because of the effectiveness of vaccines that prevent many bacterial and viral illnesses means that fewer pediatric graduates are spending time in the hospital.
Family doctors used to retain their pediatric patients by delivering babies, seeing them in the newborn nursery, and beginning their relationship with the kids there. FPs are delivering fewer babies and the subsequent reduction in new kids in their practices has been a factor in this as well.
Finally, in multispecialty practices, pediatricians are employed there. Families immediately assume that their kids should be going to the pediatricians, not the family doctors. We need to keep talking up the fact that we take care of whole families to retain our pediatric practices.
Neil S. Calman, MD, is president and chief executive officer of the Institute for Family Health and is professor and chair of the Alfred and Gail Engelberg department of family medicine and community health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and the Mount Sinai Health System, both in New York. Dr. Calman also serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.
Family medicine has grown; its composition has evolved
and the men and women who practice it are no exception.
The family medicine workforce of 2021 is not the workforce of 1971. Not even close. Although we would like to give a huge shout-out to anyone who can claim to be a member of both.
Today’s FP workforce is, first of all, much larger than it was in 1971, although we can’t actually prove it because the American Medical Association’s data for that year are “only available in books that are locked away at the empty AMA headquarters,” according to a member of the AMA media relations staff who is, like so many people these days, working at home because of the pandemic.
The face of family medicine in 1975 vs. today
Today’s workforce is much larger than it was in 1975, when there were just over 12,000 family physicians in the United States. As of January 2021, the total was approaching 137,000, including all “physicians and residents in patient care, research, administration, teaching, retired, inactive, etc.,” the AMA explained.
Family physicians as a group are much more diverse than they were in 1975. That year, 8.3% of FPs were international medical graduates (IMGs). By 2010, IMGs made up almost 23% of the workforce, and in the 2020 resident match, 37% of the 4,662 available family medicine slots were filled by IMGs.
Women have made even greater inroads into the family physician ranks over the last 5 decades. In 1975, less than 5% of all FPs were females, but by 2021 the proportion of females in the specialty was just over 40%.
In the first 5 years of the family practice era, 1969-1973, only 12 women and 31 IMGs graduated from FP residency programs, those numbers representing 3.2% and 8.3%, respectively, of the total of 372, according to a 1996 study in JAMA. By 1990-1993, women made up 33% and IMGs 14% of the 9,400 graduates.
Another group that increased its presence in family medicine is doctors of osteopathy, who went from zero residency graduates in 1969-1973 to over 1,100 (11.8%) in 1990-1993, the JAMA report noted. By 2020, almost 1,400 osteopathic physicians entered family medicine residencies, filling 30% of all slots available, according to the National Resident Matching Program.
The medical schools producing all these new residents have raised their games since 1971: the number of full-time faculty in family medicine departments rose from 323 to 5,929 in 2020, based on data from the Association of American Medical Colleges (Faculty Roster, Dec. 31 snapshots, as of Dec. 31, 2020).
A shortage or a surplus of FPs?
It has been suggested, however, that all is not well in primary care land. A study conducted by the American Academy of Family Physicians in 2016 – a year after 2,463 graduates of MD- and DO-granting medical schools entered family medicine residencies – concluded “that the current medical school system is failing, collectively, to produce the primary care workforce that is needed to achieve optimal health.”
Warnings about physician shortages are nothing new, but how about the other side of the coin? The Jan. 15, 1981, issue of Family Practice News covered a somewhat controversial report from the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee, which projected a surplus of 3,000 FPs, and as many as 70,000 physicians overall, by the year 1990.
Just a few months later, in the June 15, 1981, issue of FPN, an AAFP officer predicted that “the flood of new physicians in the next decade may affect family practice more than any other specialty.”
Mostly, though, the issue is shortages. In 2002, a status report on family practice from the Robert Graham Center acknowledged that “many centers of academic medicine continue to resist the development of family practice and primary care. ... Family medicine remains a true counterculture in these environments, and students may continue to face significant discouragement in response to interest they may express in becoming a family physician.”
and the men and women who practice it are no exception.
The family medicine workforce of 2021 is not the workforce of 1971. Not even close. Although we would like to give a huge shout-out to anyone who can claim to be a member of both.
Today’s FP workforce is, first of all, much larger than it was in 1971, although we can’t actually prove it because the American Medical Association’s data for that year are “only available in books that are locked away at the empty AMA headquarters,” according to a member of the AMA media relations staff who is, like so many people these days, working at home because of the pandemic.
The face of family medicine in 1975 vs. today
Today’s workforce is much larger than it was in 1975, when there were just over 12,000 family physicians in the United States. As of January 2021, the total was approaching 137,000, including all “physicians and residents in patient care, research, administration, teaching, retired, inactive, etc.,” the AMA explained.
Family physicians as a group are much more diverse than they were in 1975. That year, 8.3% of FPs were international medical graduates (IMGs). By 2010, IMGs made up almost 23% of the workforce, and in the 2020 resident match, 37% of the 4,662 available family medicine slots were filled by IMGs.
Women have made even greater inroads into the family physician ranks over the last 5 decades. In 1975, less than 5% of all FPs were females, but by 2021 the proportion of females in the specialty was just over 40%.
In the first 5 years of the family practice era, 1969-1973, only 12 women and 31 IMGs graduated from FP residency programs, those numbers representing 3.2% and 8.3%, respectively, of the total of 372, according to a 1996 study in JAMA. By 1990-1993, women made up 33% and IMGs 14% of the 9,400 graduates.
Another group that increased its presence in family medicine is doctors of osteopathy, who went from zero residency graduates in 1969-1973 to over 1,100 (11.8%) in 1990-1993, the JAMA report noted. By 2020, almost 1,400 osteopathic physicians entered family medicine residencies, filling 30% of all slots available, according to the National Resident Matching Program.
The medical schools producing all these new residents have raised their games since 1971: the number of full-time faculty in family medicine departments rose from 323 to 5,929 in 2020, based on data from the Association of American Medical Colleges (Faculty Roster, Dec. 31 snapshots, as of Dec. 31, 2020).
A shortage or a surplus of FPs?
It has been suggested, however, that all is not well in primary care land. A study conducted by the American Academy of Family Physicians in 2016 – a year after 2,463 graduates of MD- and DO-granting medical schools entered family medicine residencies – concluded “that the current medical school system is failing, collectively, to produce the primary care workforce that is needed to achieve optimal health.”
Warnings about physician shortages are nothing new, but how about the other side of the coin? The Jan. 15, 1981, issue of Family Practice News covered a somewhat controversial report from the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee, which projected a surplus of 3,000 FPs, and as many as 70,000 physicians overall, by the year 1990.
Just a few months later, in the June 15, 1981, issue of FPN, an AAFP officer predicted that “the flood of new physicians in the next decade may affect family practice more than any other specialty.”
Mostly, though, the issue is shortages. In 2002, a status report on family practice from the Robert Graham Center acknowledged that “many centers of academic medicine continue to resist the development of family practice and primary care. ... Family medicine remains a true counterculture in these environments, and students may continue to face significant discouragement in response to interest they may express in becoming a family physician.”
and the men and women who practice it are no exception.
The family medicine workforce of 2021 is not the workforce of 1971. Not even close. Although we would like to give a huge shout-out to anyone who can claim to be a member of both.
Today’s FP workforce is, first of all, much larger than it was in 1971, although we can’t actually prove it because the American Medical Association’s data for that year are “only available in books that are locked away at the empty AMA headquarters,” according to a member of the AMA media relations staff who is, like so many people these days, working at home because of the pandemic.
The face of family medicine in 1975 vs. today
Today’s workforce is much larger than it was in 1975, when there were just over 12,000 family physicians in the United States. As of January 2021, the total was approaching 137,000, including all “physicians and residents in patient care, research, administration, teaching, retired, inactive, etc.,” the AMA explained.
Family physicians as a group are much more diverse than they were in 1975. That year, 8.3% of FPs were international medical graduates (IMGs). By 2010, IMGs made up almost 23% of the workforce, and in the 2020 resident match, 37% of the 4,662 available family medicine slots were filled by IMGs.
Women have made even greater inroads into the family physician ranks over the last 5 decades. In 1975, less than 5% of all FPs were females, but by 2021 the proportion of females in the specialty was just over 40%.
In the first 5 years of the family practice era, 1969-1973, only 12 women and 31 IMGs graduated from FP residency programs, those numbers representing 3.2% and 8.3%, respectively, of the total of 372, according to a 1996 study in JAMA. By 1990-1993, women made up 33% and IMGs 14% of the 9,400 graduates.
Another group that increased its presence in family medicine is doctors of osteopathy, who went from zero residency graduates in 1969-1973 to over 1,100 (11.8%) in 1990-1993, the JAMA report noted. By 2020, almost 1,400 osteopathic physicians entered family medicine residencies, filling 30% of all slots available, according to the National Resident Matching Program.
The medical schools producing all these new residents have raised their games since 1971: the number of full-time faculty in family medicine departments rose from 323 to 5,929 in 2020, based on data from the Association of American Medical Colleges (Faculty Roster, Dec. 31 snapshots, as of Dec. 31, 2020).
A shortage or a surplus of FPs?
It has been suggested, however, that all is not well in primary care land. A study conducted by the American Academy of Family Physicians in 2016 – a year after 2,463 graduates of MD- and DO-granting medical schools entered family medicine residencies – concluded “that the current medical school system is failing, collectively, to produce the primary care workforce that is needed to achieve optimal health.”
Warnings about physician shortages are nothing new, but how about the other side of the coin? The Jan. 15, 1981, issue of Family Practice News covered a somewhat controversial report from the Graduate Medical Education National Advisory Committee, which projected a surplus of 3,000 FPs, and as many as 70,000 physicians overall, by the year 1990.
Just a few months later, in the June 15, 1981, issue of FPN, an AAFP officer predicted that “the flood of new physicians in the next decade may affect family practice more than any other specialty.”
Mostly, though, the issue is shortages. In 2002, a status report on family practice from the Robert Graham Center acknowledged that “many centers of academic medicine continue to resist the development of family practice and primary care. ... Family medicine remains a true counterculture in these environments, and students may continue to face significant discouragement in response to interest they may express in becoming a family physician.”
Family medicine: Who cares for the children?
according to new research.
This the latest sign of a long-term decline, and it “poses a broader concern for a specialty that defines itself by its comprehensive scope of practice,” said the study investigators of the Robert Graham Center in Washington, D.C., in a written statement. “This is consistent with previous Robert Graham Center research that reported a similar steady decline from 1992 to 2002.”
Self-reported data from family physicians indicate that 84.3% cared for children aged 18 years and under in 2017, compared with 83.0% in 2018, based on a cross-sectional analysis of data gathered from 11,674 family physicians who completed the practice demographic questionnaire attached to the American Board of Family Medicine’s certification exam in 2017 and 2018.
“This current trend is unsettling, because family physicians provide the majority of pediatric care in rural and pediatrically underserved areas of the United States,” study author Anuradha Jetty, MPH, and coauthors said in the statement.
The analysis also offers a snapshot of the current state of pediatric care offered by family physicians. In 2017 and 2018, FPs were more likely to see patients aged 5-18 years than those under age 5 (83.0% vs. 67.0%), with variation by age, location, and race/ethnicity, said Ms. Jetty and colleagues, in their new paper.
FPs aged 60 years and older were much less likely to see pediatric patients, compared with those under age 40: odds ratios were 0.52 for children under 5 and 0.56 for children 5-18. Regional variation was even more pronounced: Compared with their colleagues in the Southern states, Midwestern FPs were 1.52 times as likely to treat children aged 5-18 and 2.52 times as likely to treat children under age 5, the investigators reported.
Non-Hispanic Asian and Hispanic family physicians had significantly lower odds of seeing pediatric patients, relative to non-Hispanic White family physicians, as did FPs who were international medical graduates (OR, 0.74), compared with those who trained in the United States, they said.
“Female gender was associated with seeing pediatric patients in a prior study using 2006-2009 [American Board of Family Medicine] data; however, we found no such association in 2017-2018,” Ms. Jetty and associates noted.
“Many diverse drivers likely influence the findings we observed, including organizational, personal, social, and economic factors,” they wrote, suggesting that the policies of some HMOs “may limit scope of practice for employed physicians,” while those who practice in areas of low pediatrician density might “capitalize on a market opportunity ... more than physicians in pediatrician-saturated areas with greater competition for young patients.”
The overall shortage of primary pediatric care may be a matter of debate, the investigators said, but “there is undoubtedly significant variability in the regional supply of pediatric primary care physicians and thus areas where family physicians are needed to meet current pediatric workforce demand.”
The authors reported no conflicts.
according to new research.
This the latest sign of a long-term decline, and it “poses a broader concern for a specialty that defines itself by its comprehensive scope of practice,” said the study investigators of the Robert Graham Center in Washington, D.C., in a written statement. “This is consistent with previous Robert Graham Center research that reported a similar steady decline from 1992 to 2002.”
Self-reported data from family physicians indicate that 84.3% cared for children aged 18 years and under in 2017, compared with 83.0% in 2018, based on a cross-sectional analysis of data gathered from 11,674 family physicians who completed the practice demographic questionnaire attached to the American Board of Family Medicine’s certification exam in 2017 and 2018.
“This current trend is unsettling, because family physicians provide the majority of pediatric care in rural and pediatrically underserved areas of the United States,” study author Anuradha Jetty, MPH, and coauthors said in the statement.
The analysis also offers a snapshot of the current state of pediatric care offered by family physicians. In 2017 and 2018, FPs were more likely to see patients aged 5-18 years than those under age 5 (83.0% vs. 67.0%), with variation by age, location, and race/ethnicity, said Ms. Jetty and colleagues, in their new paper.
FPs aged 60 years and older were much less likely to see pediatric patients, compared with those under age 40: odds ratios were 0.52 for children under 5 and 0.56 for children 5-18. Regional variation was even more pronounced: Compared with their colleagues in the Southern states, Midwestern FPs were 1.52 times as likely to treat children aged 5-18 and 2.52 times as likely to treat children under age 5, the investigators reported.
Non-Hispanic Asian and Hispanic family physicians had significantly lower odds of seeing pediatric patients, relative to non-Hispanic White family physicians, as did FPs who were international medical graduates (OR, 0.74), compared with those who trained in the United States, they said.
“Female gender was associated with seeing pediatric patients in a prior study using 2006-2009 [American Board of Family Medicine] data; however, we found no such association in 2017-2018,” Ms. Jetty and associates noted.
“Many diverse drivers likely influence the findings we observed, including organizational, personal, social, and economic factors,” they wrote, suggesting that the policies of some HMOs “may limit scope of practice for employed physicians,” while those who practice in areas of low pediatrician density might “capitalize on a market opportunity ... more than physicians in pediatrician-saturated areas with greater competition for young patients.”
The overall shortage of primary pediatric care may be a matter of debate, the investigators said, but “there is undoubtedly significant variability in the regional supply of pediatric primary care physicians and thus areas where family physicians are needed to meet current pediatric workforce demand.”
The authors reported no conflicts.
according to new research.
This the latest sign of a long-term decline, and it “poses a broader concern for a specialty that defines itself by its comprehensive scope of practice,” said the study investigators of the Robert Graham Center in Washington, D.C., in a written statement. “This is consistent with previous Robert Graham Center research that reported a similar steady decline from 1992 to 2002.”
Self-reported data from family physicians indicate that 84.3% cared for children aged 18 years and under in 2017, compared with 83.0% in 2018, based on a cross-sectional analysis of data gathered from 11,674 family physicians who completed the practice demographic questionnaire attached to the American Board of Family Medicine’s certification exam in 2017 and 2018.
“This current trend is unsettling, because family physicians provide the majority of pediatric care in rural and pediatrically underserved areas of the United States,” study author Anuradha Jetty, MPH, and coauthors said in the statement.
The analysis also offers a snapshot of the current state of pediatric care offered by family physicians. In 2017 and 2018, FPs were more likely to see patients aged 5-18 years than those under age 5 (83.0% vs. 67.0%), with variation by age, location, and race/ethnicity, said Ms. Jetty and colleagues, in their new paper.
FPs aged 60 years and older were much less likely to see pediatric patients, compared with those under age 40: odds ratios were 0.52 for children under 5 and 0.56 for children 5-18. Regional variation was even more pronounced: Compared with their colleagues in the Southern states, Midwestern FPs were 1.52 times as likely to treat children aged 5-18 and 2.52 times as likely to treat children under age 5, the investigators reported.
Non-Hispanic Asian and Hispanic family physicians had significantly lower odds of seeing pediatric patients, relative to non-Hispanic White family physicians, as did FPs who were international medical graduates (OR, 0.74), compared with those who trained in the United States, they said.
“Female gender was associated with seeing pediatric patients in a prior study using 2006-2009 [American Board of Family Medicine] data; however, we found no such association in 2017-2018,” Ms. Jetty and associates noted.
“Many diverse drivers likely influence the findings we observed, including organizational, personal, social, and economic factors,” they wrote, suggesting that the policies of some HMOs “may limit scope of practice for employed physicians,” while those who practice in areas of low pediatrician density might “capitalize on a market opportunity ... more than physicians in pediatrician-saturated areas with greater competition for young patients.”
The overall shortage of primary pediatric care may be a matter of debate, the investigators said, but “there is undoubtedly significant variability in the regional supply of pediatric primary care physicians and thus areas where family physicians are needed to meet current pediatric workforce demand.”
The authors reported no conflicts.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BOARD OF FAMILY MEDICINE
Family Practice News celebrates 50 years
This year, in each issue and on MDedge.com/FamilyMedicine throughout 2021.
We plan to address the biggest breakthroughs and most influential people in family medicine over the past 50 years. The publication will also share family physicians’ expectations and hopes for the specialty in the coming years.
Are there any topics you think would be valuable to cover in light of this major milestone? The editorial staff welcomes your suggestions. Please share them by emailing us at [email protected].
Happy New Year, and thank you for supporting us for so many years!
This year, in each issue and on MDedge.com/FamilyMedicine throughout 2021.
We plan to address the biggest breakthroughs and most influential people in family medicine over the past 50 years. The publication will also share family physicians’ expectations and hopes for the specialty in the coming years.
Are there any topics you think would be valuable to cover in light of this major milestone? The editorial staff welcomes your suggestions. Please share them by emailing us at [email protected].
Happy New Year, and thank you for supporting us for so many years!
This year, in each issue and on MDedge.com/FamilyMedicine throughout 2021.
We plan to address the biggest breakthroughs and most influential people in family medicine over the past 50 years. The publication will also share family physicians’ expectations and hopes for the specialty in the coming years.
Are there any topics you think would be valuable to cover in light of this major milestone? The editorial staff welcomes your suggestions. Please share them by emailing us at [email protected].
Happy New Year, and thank you for supporting us for so many years!
Pediatric dermatology: Reflecting on 50 years
As part of the 50th anniversary of Dermatology News, it is intriguing to think about where a time machine journey 5 decades back would find the field of pediatric dermatology, and to assess the changes in the specialty during the time that Dermatology News (operating then as “Skin & Allergy News”) has been reporting on innovations and changes in the practice of dermatology.
So, starting . It was not until 3 years later, in October 1973 in Mexico City, that the first international symposium on Pediatric Dermatology was held, and the International Society for Pediatric Dermatology was founded. I reached out to Andrew Margileth, MD, 100 years old this past July, and still active voluntary faculty in pediatric dermatology at the University of Miami, to help me “reach back” to those days. Dr. Margileth commented on how the first symposium was “brilliantly orchestrated by Ramon Ruiz-Maldonado,” from the National Institute of Paediatrics in Mexico, and that it was his “Aha moment for future practice!” That meeting spurred discussions on the development of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology the next year, with Alvin Jacobs, MD; Samuel Weinberg, MD; Nancy Esterly, MD; Sidney Hurwitz, MD; William Weston, MD; and Coleman Jacobson, MD, as some of the initial “founding mothers and fathers,” and the society was officially established in 1975.
The field of pediatric dermatology was fairly “infantile” 50 years ago, with few practitioners. But the early leaders in the field recognized that up to 30% of pediatric primary care visits included skin problems, and that there was limited training for dermatologists, as well as pediatricians, about skin diseases in children. There were clearly clinical and educational needs to establish a subspecialty of pediatric dermatology, and over the next 1-2 decades, the field expanded. The journal Pediatric Dermatology was established (in 1982), the Section on Dermatology was established by the American Academy of Pediatrics (in 1986), and fellowship programs were launched at select academic centers. And it was 30 years into our timeline before the formal subspecialty of pediatric dermatology was established through the American Board of Dermatology (2000).
The field of pediatric dermatology has evolved and matured rapidly. Standard reference textbooks have been developed in the United States and around the world (and of course, online). Pediatric dermatology is an essential part of the core curriculum for dermatologist trainees. Organizations promoting pediatric research have developed to influence basic, translational, and clinical research in conditions in neonates through adolescents, such as the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA). And meetings throughout the world now feature pediatric dermatology sessions and help to spread the advances in the diagnosis and management of pediatric skin disorders.
The practice of pediatric dermatology: How has it changed?
It is beyond the scope of this article to try to comprehensively review all of the changes in pediatric dermatology practice. But review of the evolution of a few disease states (choices influenced by my discussions with my 100-year old history guide, Dr. Margileth) displays examples of where we have been, and where we are going in our next 5, 10, or 50 years.
Hemangiomas and vascular malformations
Some of the first natural history studies on hemangiomas were done in the early 1960s, establishing that standard cutaneous hemangiomas had a typical clinical course of fairly rapid growth, plateau, and involution over time. Of interest, the hallmark article’s first author was Dr. Margileth, published in 1965 in JAMA!.This was still at a time when the identification of hemangiomas of infancy (or “HOI” as we say in the trade) was confused with vascular malformations, and no one had recognized the distinct variant tumors such as rapidly involuting and noninvoluting congenital hemangiomas (RICHs or NICHs), tufted angiomas, or hemangioendotheliomas. PHACE syndrome was not yet described (that was done in 1996 by Ilona Frieden, MD, and colleagues). And for a time, hemangiomas were treated with x-rays, before the negative impact of such radiation was acknowledged. It seems that, as a consequence of the use of x-ray therapy and as a backlash from the radiation therapy side effects and potential toxicities, even deforming and functionally significant lesions were “followed clinically” for natural involution, with a sensibility that doing nothing might be better than doing the wrong thing.
Over the next 15 years, the recognition of functionally significant hemangiomas, deformation associated with their proliferation, and the recognition of PHACE syndrome made hemangiomas of infancy an area of concern, with systemic steroids and occasionally chemotherapeutic agents (such as vincristine) being used for problematic lesions.
It has now been 12 years since the work of Christine Léauté-Labrèze, MD, et al., from the University of Bordeaux (France), led to the breakthrough of propranolol for hemangioma treatment, profoundly changing hemangioma management to an incredibly effective medical therapy extensively studied, tested in formal clinical trials, and approved by regulatory authorities. And how intriguing that this was pursued after the chance (but skilled) observation that a child who developed hypertension as a side effect of systemic steroids for nasal hemangioma treatment was prescribed propranolol for the hypertension and had his nasal hemangioma rapidly shrink, with a response superior and much quicker than that to corticosteroids.
The evolution of management of hemangiomas has another story within it, that of collaborative research. The Hemangioma Investigator Group was formed to take a collaborative approach to characterize and study hemangiomas and related tumors. Beginning with energetic, insightful pediatric dermatologists and little funding, they changed our knowledge base of how hemangiomas present, the risk factors for their development, and the characteristics and multiple organ findings associated with PHACE and other syndromic hemangiomas. Our knowledge of these lesions is now evidence based and broad, and the impact on care tremendous! The HIG has also influenced the practice of pediatricians and other specialists, including otorhinolaryngologists, hematologist/oncologists, and surgeons, is partnering with advocacy groups to support patients and families, and is helping guide patients and families to contribute to ongoing research.
Vascular malformations (VM) reflect an incredible change in our understanding of the developmental pathways and pathophysiology of blood vessel tumors, and, in fact, birthmarks other than vascular lesions! First, important work separated out hemangiomas of infancy and hemangiomalike tumors from vascular malformations, with the thought being that hemangiomas had a rapid growth phase, often arising from lesions that were minimally evident or not evident at birth, unlike malformations, which were “programing errors,” all present at birth and expected to be fairly static with proportionate growth over a lifetime. Approaches to vascular malformations were limited to sclerotherapy, laser, and/or surgery. While this general schema of classification is still useful, our sense of the “why and how” of vascular malformations is remarkably different. Vascular malformations – still usefully subdivided into capillary, lymphatic, venous arteriovenous, or mixed malformations – are mostly associated with inherited or somatic mutations. Mutations are most commonly found in two signal pathways: RAS/MAPK/ERK and PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathways, with specific sets of mutations seen in both localized and multifocal lesions, with or without overgrowth or other systemic anomalies. The discovery of specific mutations has led to the possibility of small-molecule inhibitors, many already existing as anticancer drugs, being utilized as targeted therapies for VM.
And similar advances in understanding of other birthmarks, with or without syndromic features, are being made steadily. The mutations in congenital melanocytic nevi, epidermal nevi, acquired tumors (pilomatricomas), and other lesions, along with steady epidemiologic, translational, and clinical work, evolves our knowledge and potential therapies.
Inflammatory skin disorders: Acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis
The care of pediatric inflammatory skin disorders has evolved, but more slowly for some diseases than others. Acne vulgaris is now recognized as much more common under age 12 than previously, presumably reflecting earlier pubertal changes in our preteens. Over the past 30 years, therapy has evolved with the use of topical retinoids (still underused by pediatricians, considered a “practice gap”), hormonal therapy with combined oral contraceptives, and oral isotretinoin, a powerful but highly effective systemic agent for severe and refractory acne. Specific pediatric guidelines came much later, with expert recommendations formulated by the American Acne and Rosacea Society and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2013. Over the past few years, there has been a push by experts for more judicious use of antibiotics for acne (oral and topical) to minimize the emergence of bacterial resistance. There are unanswered questions as we evolve our care: How will the new topical antiandrogens be used? Will spironolactone become part of hormonal therapy under age 18? Will the insights on certain strains of Cutibacterium acnes being associated with worse acne translate to microbiome or vaccine-based strategies?
Pediatric psoriasis has suffered, being “behind in the revolution” of biologic agents because of delayed approval of any biologic agent for treatment of pediatric psoriasis in the United States until just a few years ago, and lags behind Europe and elsewhere in the world by almost a decade. Only this year have we expanded beyond one biologic agent approved for under age 12 and two for ages 12 and older, with other approvals expected including interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 agents. Adult psoriasis has been recognized to be associated with a broad set of comorbidities, including obesity and early heart disease, and there is now research on how children are at risk as well, with new recommendations on how to screen children with psoriasis, supplied first by PeDRA and then in the new American Academy of Dermatology-National Psoriasis Foundation pediatric psoriasis guidelines .
Pediatric atopic dermatitis (AD) is in its early years of revolution. In the 50-year period of our thought experiment, AD has increased in prevalence from 5% or less of the pediatric population to 10%-15%. Treatment of most individuals has remained the same over the decades: Good skin care, frequent moisturizers, topical corticosteroids for flares, and management of infection if noted. The topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) broadened the therapeutic approach when introduced in 2000 and 2001, but the boxed warning resulted in some practitioners minimizing their use of these useful agents. But newer studies are markedly reassuring about their safe use in children.
Steroid phobia, as well as concerns about potential side effects of the TCIs, has resulted in undertreatment of childhood AD. It is quite common to see multiple children during pediatric dermatology office hours with poorly controlled eczema, high body-surface areas of eczema, compromised sleep, secondary infections, and anxiety and depression, especially in our moderate to severe adolescents. The field is “hot” with new topical and systemic agents, including our few years’ experience with topical crisaborole, a phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitor; and dupilumab, an IL-4-alpha blocker – the first biologic agent approved for AD and the first systemic agent (other than oral corticosteroids), just extended from 12 years to 6 years of age! As dupilumab gets studied for younger children, other biologics (including IL-13 and IL-31 blockers) are undertaking pediatric and/or adolescent trials, oral and topical JAK inhibitors are including adolescents in core clinical trials, and other novel topical agents are under study, including an aryl-hydrocarbon receptor–modulating agent and other PDE-4 inhibitors.
Procedural pediatric dermatology: From liquid nitrogen to laser, surgery, and multimodal skin care
The first generation of pediatric dermatologists were considered medical dermatologist specialists. The care of the conditions discussed above, as well as genodermatoses, diagnostic dilemmas, and management of dermatologic manifestations of systemic disease and other conditions, was the “bread and butter” of pediatric dermatology care. When I was in training, my mentor Paul Honig, MD, at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia had a procedure half-day each week, where he would care for a few patients who needed liquid nitrogen therapy for warts, or who needed biopsies. It was uncommon to have a large procedural/surgical part of pediatric dermatology practice. But this is now a routine part of many specialists in the field. How did this change occur?
The fundamental shift began to occur with the introduction of the pulsed dye laser for treatment of port-wine birthmarks in children with minimal scarring, and a seminal article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1989. Vascular lesions including port-wine stains were common, and pediatric dermatologists managed these patients for both diagnosis and medical management. Also, dermatology residencies at this time offered training in cutaneous surgery, excisions (including Mohs surgery) and repairs, and trainees in pediatric dermatology were “trained up” to high levels of expertise. As lasers were incorporated into dermatology residency work and practices, pediatric dermatologists developed the exposure and skill to do this work. An added advantage was having the knowledge of how to handle children and adolescents in an age-appropriate manner, with consideration of methods to minimize the pain and anxiety of procedures. Within a few years, pediatric dermatologists were at the forefront of the use of topical anesthetics (EMLA and liposomal lidocaine) and had general anesthesia privileges for laser and excisional surgery.
So while pediatric dermatologists still do “small procedures” every hour in most practices (cryotherapy for warts, cantharidin for molluscum, shave and punch biopsies), a subset now have extensive procedural practices, which in recent years has extended to pigment lesion lasers (to treat nevus of Ota, for example), hair laser, and combinations of lasers, including fractionated CO2 technology, to treat hypertrophic, constrictive and/or deforming scars.
The future
What will pediatric dermatology be like in 10, 20, or 50 years?
I have not yet discussed some of the most challenging diseases in our field, including epidermolysis bullosa, ichthyosis, and neurocutaneous disorders and other genetic skin disorders that have an incredible impact on the lives of affected children and their families, with incredible morbidity and with many conditions that shorten lifespans. But these are the conditions where “the future is happening now,” and we are looking forward to our new gene therapy techniques helping to transform our care.
And other aspects of practice? Will we be doing a large percentage of practice over the phone (or whatever devices we have then – remember, the first iPhone was only released 13 years ago)?
Will our patients be using their own imaging systems to evaluate their nevi and skin growths, and perhaps to diagnose and manage their rashes?
Will we have prevented our inflammatory skin disorders, or “turned them off” in early life with aggressive therapy in infantile life?
I project only that all of us in dermatology will still be a resource to our pediatric patients, from neonate through young adult, through our work of preventing, caring, healing and minimizing disease impact, and hopefully enjoying the pleasures of seeing our patients healthfully develop and evolve! As will our field.
Dr. Eichenfield is professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice-chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield reports financial relationships with 20 pharmaceutical companies that manufacture dermatologic products, including products for the diseases discussed here.
As part of the 50th anniversary of Dermatology News, it is intriguing to think about where a time machine journey 5 decades back would find the field of pediatric dermatology, and to assess the changes in the specialty during the time that Dermatology News (operating then as “Skin & Allergy News”) has been reporting on innovations and changes in the practice of dermatology.
So, starting . It was not until 3 years later, in October 1973 in Mexico City, that the first international symposium on Pediatric Dermatology was held, and the International Society for Pediatric Dermatology was founded. I reached out to Andrew Margileth, MD, 100 years old this past July, and still active voluntary faculty in pediatric dermatology at the University of Miami, to help me “reach back” to those days. Dr. Margileth commented on how the first symposium was “brilliantly orchestrated by Ramon Ruiz-Maldonado,” from the National Institute of Paediatrics in Mexico, and that it was his “Aha moment for future practice!” That meeting spurred discussions on the development of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology the next year, with Alvin Jacobs, MD; Samuel Weinberg, MD; Nancy Esterly, MD; Sidney Hurwitz, MD; William Weston, MD; and Coleman Jacobson, MD, as some of the initial “founding mothers and fathers,” and the society was officially established in 1975.
The field of pediatric dermatology was fairly “infantile” 50 years ago, with few practitioners. But the early leaders in the field recognized that up to 30% of pediatric primary care visits included skin problems, and that there was limited training for dermatologists, as well as pediatricians, about skin diseases in children. There were clearly clinical and educational needs to establish a subspecialty of pediatric dermatology, and over the next 1-2 decades, the field expanded. The journal Pediatric Dermatology was established (in 1982), the Section on Dermatology was established by the American Academy of Pediatrics (in 1986), and fellowship programs were launched at select academic centers. And it was 30 years into our timeline before the formal subspecialty of pediatric dermatology was established through the American Board of Dermatology (2000).
The field of pediatric dermatology has evolved and matured rapidly. Standard reference textbooks have been developed in the United States and around the world (and of course, online). Pediatric dermatology is an essential part of the core curriculum for dermatologist trainees. Organizations promoting pediatric research have developed to influence basic, translational, and clinical research in conditions in neonates through adolescents, such as the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA). And meetings throughout the world now feature pediatric dermatology sessions and help to spread the advances in the diagnosis and management of pediatric skin disorders.
The practice of pediatric dermatology: How has it changed?
It is beyond the scope of this article to try to comprehensively review all of the changes in pediatric dermatology practice. But review of the evolution of a few disease states (choices influenced by my discussions with my 100-year old history guide, Dr. Margileth) displays examples of where we have been, and where we are going in our next 5, 10, or 50 years.
Hemangiomas and vascular malformations
Some of the first natural history studies on hemangiomas were done in the early 1960s, establishing that standard cutaneous hemangiomas had a typical clinical course of fairly rapid growth, plateau, and involution over time. Of interest, the hallmark article’s first author was Dr. Margileth, published in 1965 in JAMA!.This was still at a time when the identification of hemangiomas of infancy (or “HOI” as we say in the trade) was confused with vascular malformations, and no one had recognized the distinct variant tumors such as rapidly involuting and noninvoluting congenital hemangiomas (RICHs or NICHs), tufted angiomas, or hemangioendotheliomas. PHACE syndrome was not yet described (that was done in 1996 by Ilona Frieden, MD, and colleagues). And for a time, hemangiomas were treated with x-rays, before the negative impact of such radiation was acknowledged. It seems that, as a consequence of the use of x-ray therapy and as a backlash from the radiation therapy side effects and potential toxicities, even deforming and functionally significant lesions were “followed clinically” for natural involution, with a sensibility that doing nothing might be better than doing the wrong thing.
Over the next 15 years, the recognition of functionally significant hemangiomas, deformation associated with their proliferation, and the recognition of PHACE syndrome made hemangiomas of infancy an area of concern, with systemic steroids and occasionally chemotherapeutic agents (such as vincristine) being used for problematic lesions.
It has now been 12 years since the work of Christine Léauté-Labrèze, MD, et al., from the University of Bordeaux (France), led to the breakthrough of propranolol for hemangioma treatment, profoundly changing hemangioma management to an incredibly effective medical therapy extensively studied, tested in formal clinical trials, and approved by regulatory authorities. And how intriguing that this was pursued after the chance (but skilled) observation that a child who developed hypertension as a side effect of systemic steroids for nasal hemangioma treatment was prescribed propranolol for the hypertension and had his nasal hemangioma rapidly shrink, with a response superior and much quicker than that to corticosteroids.
The evolution of management of hemangiomas has another story within it, that of collaborative research. The Hemangioma Investigator Group was formed to take a collaborative approach to characterize and study hemangiomas and related tumors. Beginning with energetic, insightful pediatric dermatologists and little funding, they changed our knowledge base of how hemangiomas present, the risk factors for their development, and the characteristics and multiple organ findings associated with PHACE and other syndromic hemangiomas. Our knowledge of these lesions is now evidence based and broad, and the impact on care tremendous! The HIG has also influenced the practice of pediatricians and other specialists, including otorhinolaryngologists, hematologist/oncologists, and surgeons, is partnering with advocacy groups to support patients and families, and is helping guide patients and families to contribute to ongoing research.
Vascular malformations (VM) reflect an incredible change in our understanding of the developmental pathways and pathophysiology of blood vessel tumors, and, in fact, birthmarks other than vascular lesions! First, important work separated out hemangiomas of infancy and hemangiomalike tumors from vascular malformations, with the thought being that hemangiomas had a rapid growth phase, often arising from lesions that were minimally evident or not evident at birth, unlike malformations, which were “programing errors,” all present at birth and expected to be fairly static with proportionate growth over a lifetime. Approaches to vascular malformations were limited to sclerotherapy, laser, and/or surgery. While this general schema of classification is still useful, our sense of the “why and how” of vascular malformations is remarkably different. Vascular malformations – still usefully subdivided into capillary, lymphatic, venous arteriovenous, or mixed malformations – are mostly associated with inherited or somatic mutations. Mutations are most commonly found in two signal pathways: RAS/MAPK/ERK and PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathways, with specific sets of mutations seen in both localized and multifocal lesions, with or without overgrowth or other systemic anomalies. The discovery of specific mutations has led to the possibility of small-molecule inhibitors, many already existing as anticancer drugs, being utilized as targeted therapies for VM.
And similar advances in understanding of other birthmarks, with or without syndromic features, are being made steadily. The mutations in congenital melanocytic nevi, epidermal nevi, acquired tumors (pilomatricomas), and other lesions, along with steady epidemiologic, translational, and clinical work, evolves our knowledge and potential therapies.
Inflammatory skin disorders: Acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis
The care of pediatric inflammatory skin disorders has evolved, but more slowly for some diseases than others. Acne vulgaris is now recognized as much more common under age 12 than previously, presumably reflecting earlier pubertal changes in our preteens. Over the past 30 years, therapy has evolved with the use of topical retinoids (still underused by pediatricians, considered a “practice gap”), hormonal therapy with combined oral contraceptives, and oral isotretinoin, a powerful but highly effective systemic agent for severe and refractory acne. Specific pediatric guidelines came much later, with expert recommendations formulated by the American Acne and Rosacea Society and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2013. Over the past few years, there has been a push by experts for more judicious use of antibiotics for acne (oral and topical) to minimize the emergence of bacterial resistance. There are unanswered questions as we evolve our care: How will the new topical antiandrogens be used? Will spironolactone become part of hormonal therapy under age 18? Will the insights on certain strains of Cutibacterium acnes being associated with worse acne translate to microbiome or vaccine-based strategies?
Pediatric psoriasis has suffered, being “behind in the revolution” of biologic agents because of delayed approval of any biologic agent for treatment of pediatric psoriasis in the United States until just a few years ago, and lags behind Europe and elsewhere in the world by almost a decade. Only this year have we expanded beyond one biologic agent approved for under age 12 and two for ages 12 and older, with other approvals expected including interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 agents. Adult psoriasis has been recognized to be associated with a broad set of comorbidities, including obesity and early heart disease, and there is now research on how children are at risk as well, with new recommendations on how to screen children with psoriasis, supplied first by PeDRA and then in the new American Academy of Dermatology-National Psoriasis Foundation pediatric psoriasis guidelines .
Pediatric atopic dermatitis (AD) is in its early years of revolution. In the 50-year period of our thought experiment, AD has increased in prevalence from 5% or less of the pediatric population to 10%-15%. Treatment of most individuals has remained the same over the decades: Good skin care, frequent moisturizers, topical corticosteroids for flares, and management of infection if noted. The topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) broadened the therapeutic approach when introduced in 2000 and 2001, but the boxed warning resulted in some practitioners minimizing their use of these useful agents. But newer studies are markedly reassuring about their safe use in children.
Steroid phobia, as well as concerns about potential side effects of the TCIs, has resulted in undertreatment of childhood AD. It is quite common to see multiple children during pediatric dermatology office hours with poorly controlled eczema, high body-surface areas of eczema, compromised sleep, secondary infections, and anxiety and depression, especially in our moderate to severe adolescents. The field is “hot” with new topical and systemic agents, including our few years’ experience with topical crisaborole, a phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitor; and dupilumab, an IL-4-alpha blocker – the first biologic agent approved for AD and the first systemic agent (other than oral corticosteroids), just extended from 12 years to 6 years of age! As dupilumab gets studied for younger children, other biologics (including IL-13 and IL-31 blockers) are undertaking pediatric and/or adolescent trials, oral and topical JAK inhibitors are including adolescents in core clinical trials, and other novel topical agents are under study, including an aryl-hydrocarbon receptor–modulating agent and other PDE-4 inhibitors.
Procedural pediatric dermatology: From liquid nitrogen to laser, surgery, and multimodal skin care
The first generation of pediatric dermatologists were considered medical dermatologist specialists. The care of the conditions discussed above, as well as genodermatoses, diagnostic dilemmas, and management of dermatologic manifestations of systemic disease and other conditions, was the “bread and butter” of pediatric dermatology care. When I was in training, my mentor Paul Honig, MD, at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia had a procedure half-day each week, where he would care for a few patients who needed liquid nitrogen therapy for warts, or who needed biopsies. It was uncommon to have a large procedural/surgical part of pediatric dermatology practice. But this is now a routine part of many specialists in the field. How did this change occur?
The fundamental shift began to occur with the introduction of the pulsed dye laser for treatment of port-wine birthmarks in children with minimal scarring, and a seminal article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1989. Vascular lesions including port-wine stains were common, and pediatric dermatologists managed these patients for both diagnosis and medical management. Also, dermatology residencies at this time offered training in cutaneous surgery, excisions (including Mohs surgery) and repairs, and trainees in pediatric dermatology were “trained up” to high levels of expertise. As lasers were incorporated into dermatology residency work and practices, pediatric dermatologists developed the exposure and skill to do this work. An added advantage was having the knowledge of how to handle children and adolescents in an age-appropriate manner, with consideration of methods to minimize the pain and anxiety of procedures. Within a few years, pediatric dermatologists were at the forefront of the use of topical anesthetics (EMLA and liposomal lidocaine) and had general anesthesia privileges for laser and excisional surgery.
So while pediatric dermatologists still do “small procedures” every hour in most practices (cryotherapy for warts, cantharidin for molluscum, shave and punch biopsies), a subset now have extensive procedural practices, which in recent years has extended to pigment lesion lasers (to treat nevus of Ota, for example), hair laser, and combinations of lasers, including fractionated CO2 technology, to treat hypertrophic, constrictive and/or deforming scars.
The future
What will pediatric dermatology be like in 10, 20, or 50 years?
I have not yet discussed some of the most challenging diseases in our field, including epidermolysis bullosa, ichthyosis, and neurocutaneous disorders and other genetic skin disorders that have an incredible impact on the lives of affected children and their families, with incredible morbidity and with many conditions that shorten lifespans. But these are the conditions where “the future is happening now,” and we are looking forward to our new gene therapy techniques helping to transform our care.
And other aspects of practice? Will we be doing a large percentage of practice over the phone (or whatever devices we have then – remember, the first iPhone was only released 13 years ago)?
Will our patients be using their own imaging systems to evaluate their nevi and skin growths, and perhaps to diagnose and manage their rashes?
Will we have prevented our inflammatory skin disorders, or “turned them off” in early life with aggressive therapy in infantile life?
I project only that all of us in dermatology will still be a resource to our pediatric patients, from neonate through young adult, through our work of preventing, caring, healing and minimizing disease impact, and hopefully enjoying the pleasures of seeing our patients healthfully develop and evolve! As will our field.
Dr. Eichenfield is professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice-chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield reports financial relationships with 20 pharmaceutical companies that manufacture dermatologic products, including products for the diseases discussed here.
As part of the 50th anniversary of Dermatology News, it is intriguing to think about where a time machine journey 5 decades back would find the field of pediatric dermatology, and to assess the changes in the specialty during the time that Dermatology News (operating then as “Skin & Allergy News”) has been reporting on innovations and changes in the practice of dermatology.
So, starting . It was not until 3 years later, in October 1973 in Mexico City, that the first international symposium on Pediatric Dermatology was held, and the International Society for Pediatric Dermatology was founded. I reached out to Andrew Margileth, MD, 100 years old this past July, and still active voluntary faculty in pediatric dermatology at the University of Miami, to help me “reach back” to those days. Dr. Margileth commented on how the first symposium was “brilliantly orchestrated by Ramon Ruiz-Maldonado,” from the National Institute of Paediatrics in Mexico, and that it was his “Aha moment for future practice!” That meeting spurred discussions on the development of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology the next year, with Alvin Jacobs, MD; Samuel Weinberg, MD; Nancy Esterly, MD; Sidney Hurwitz, MD; William Weston, MD; and Coleman Jacobson, MD, as some of the initial “founding mothers and fathers,” and the society was officially established in 1975.
The field of pediatric dermatology was fairly “infantile” 50 years ago, with few practitioners. But the early leaders in the field recognized that up to 30% of pediatric primary care visits included skin problems, and that there was limited training for dermatologists, as well as pediatricians, about skin diseases in children. There were clearly clinical and educational needs to establish a subspecialty of pediatric dermatology, and over the next 1-2 decades, the field expanded. The journal Pediatric Dermatology was established (in 1982), the Section on Dermatology was established by the American Academy of Pediatrics (in 1986), and fellowship programs were launched at select academic centers. And it was 30 years into our timeline before the formal subspecialty of pediatric dermatology was established through the American Board of Dermatology (2000).
The field of pediatric dermatology has evolved and matured rapidly. Standard reference textbooks have been developed in the United States and around the world (and of course, online). Pediatric dermatology is an essential part of the core curriculum for dermatologist trainees. Organizations promoting pediatric research have developed to influence basic, translational, and clinical research in conditions in neonates through adolescents, such as the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA). And meetings throughout the world now feature pediatric dermatology sessions and help to spread the advances in the diagnosis and management of pediatric skin disorders.
The practice of pediatric dermatology: How has it changed?
It is beyond the scope of this article to try to comprehensively review all of the changes in pediatric dermatology practice. But review of the evolution of a few disease states (choices influenced by my discussions with my 100-year old history guide, Dr. Margileth) displays examples of where we have been, and where we are going in our next 5, 10, or 50 years.
Hemangiomas and vascular malformations
Some of the first natural history studies on hemangiomas were done in the early 1960s, establishing that standard cutaneous hemangiomas had a typical clinical course of fairly rapid growth, plateau, and involution over time. Of interest, the hallmark article’s first author was Dr. Margileth, published in 1965 in JAMA!.This was still at a time when the identification of hemangiomas of infancy (or “HOI” as we say in the trade) was confused with vascular malformations, and no one had recognized the distinct variant tumors such as rapidly involuting and noninvoluting congenital hemangiomas (RICHs or NICHs), tufted angiomas, or hemangioendotheliomas. PHACE syndrome was not yet described (that was done in 1996 by Ilona Frieden, MD, and colleagues). And for a time, hemangiomas were treated with x-rays, before the negative impact of such radiation was acknowledged. It seems that, as a consequence of the use of x-ray therapy and as a backlash from the radiation therapy side effects and potential toxicities, even deforming and functionally significant lesions were “followed clinically” for natural involution, with a sensibility that doing nothing might be better than doing the wrong thing.
Over the next 15 years, the recognition of functionally significant hemangiomas, deformation associated with their proliferation, and the recognition of PHACE syndrome made hemangiomas of infancy an area of concern, with systemic steroids and occasionally chemotherapeutic agents (such as vincristine) being used for problematic lesions.
It has now been 12 years since the work of Christine Léauté-Labrèze, MD, et al., from the University of Bordeaux (France), led to the breakthrough of propranolol for hemangioma treatment, profoundly changing hemangioma management to an incredibly effective medical therapy extensively studied, tested in formal clinical trials, and approved by regulatory authorities. And how intriguing that this was pursued after the chance (but skilled) observation that a child who developed hypertension as a side effect of systemic steroids for nasal hemangioma treatment was prescribed propranolol for the hypertension and had his nasal hemangioma rapidly shrink, with a response superior and much quicker than that to corticosteroids.
The evolution of management of hemangiomas has another story within it, that of collaborative research. The Hemangioma Investigator Group was formed to take a collaborative approach to characterize and study hemangiomas and related tumors. Beginning with energetic, insightful pediatric dermatologists and little funding, they changed our knowledge base of how hemangiomas present, the risk factors for their development, and the characteristics and multiple organ findings associated with PHACE and other syndromic hemangiomas. Our knowledge of these lesions is now evidence based and broad, and the impact on care tremendous! The HIG has also influenced the practice of pediatricians and other specialists, including otorhinolaryngologists, hematologist/oncologists, and surgeons, is partnering with advocacy groups to support patients and families, and is helping guide patients and families to contribute to ongoing research.
Vascular malformations (VM) reflect an incredible change in our understanding of the developmental pathways and pathophysiology of blood vessel tumors, and, in fact, birthmarks other than vascular lesions! First, important work separated out hemangiomas of infancy and hemangiomalike tumors from vascular malformations, with the thought being that hemangiomas had a rapid growth phase, often arising from lesions that were minimally evident or not evident at birth, unlike malformations, which were “programing errors,” all present at birth and expected to be fairly static with proportionate growth over a lifetime. Approaches to vascular malformations were limited to sclerotherapy, laser, and/or surgery. While this general schema of classification is still useful, our sense of the “why and how” of vascular malformations is remarkably different. Vascular malformations – still usefully subdivided into capillary, lymphatic, venous arteriovenous, or mixed malformations – are mostly associated with inherited or somatic mutations. Mutations are most commonly found in two signal pathways: RAS/MAPK/ERK and PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathways, with specific sets of mutations seen in both localized and multifocal lesions, with or without overgrowth or other systemic anomalies. The discovery of specific mutations has led to the possibility of small-molecule inhibitors, many already existing as anticancer drugs, being utilized as targeted therapies for VM.
And similar advances in understanding of other birthmarks, with or without syndromic features, are being made steadily. The mutations in congenital melanocytic nevi, epidermal nevi, acquired tumors (pilomatricomas), and other lesions, along with steady epidemiologic, translational, and clinical work, evolves our knowledge and potential therapies.
Inflammatory skin disorders: Acne, psoriasis, and atopic dermatitis
The care of pediatric inflammatory skin disorders has evolved, but more slowly for some diseases than others. Acne vulgaris is now recognized as much more common under age 12 than previously, presumably reflecting earlier pubertal changes in our preteens. Over the past 30 years, therapy has evolved with the use of topical retinoids (still underused by pediatricians, considered a “practice gap”), hormonal therapy with combined oral contraceptives, and oral isotretinoin, a powerful but highly effective systemic agent for severe and refractory acne. Specific pediatric guidelines came much later, with expert recommendations formulated by the American Acne and Rosacea Society and endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2013. Over the past few years, there has been a push by experts for more judicious use of antibiotics for acne (oral and topical) to minimize the emergence of bacterial resistance. There are unanswered questions as we evolve our care: How will the new topical antiandrogens be used? Will spironolactone become part of hormonal therapy under age 18? Will the insights on certain strains of Cutibacterium acnes being associated with worse acne translate to microbiome or vaccine-based strategies?
Pediatric psoriasis has suffered, being “behind in the revolution” of biologic agents because of delayed approval of any biologic agent for treatment of pediatric psoriasis in the United States until just a few years ago, and lags behind Europe and elsewhere in the world by almost a decade. Only this year have we expanded beyond one biologic agent approved for under age 12 and two for ages 12 and older, with other approvals expected including interleukin (IL)-17 and IL-23 agents. Adult psoriasis has been recognized to be associated with a broad set of comorbidities, including obesity and early heart disease, and there is now research on how children are at risk as well, with new recommendations on how to screen children with psoriasis, supplied first by PeDRA and then in the new American Academy of Dermatology-National Psoriasis Foundation pediatric psoriasis guidelines .
Pediatric atopic dermatitis (AD) is in its early years of revolution. In the 50-year period of our thought experiment, AD has increased in prevalence from 5% or less of the pediatric population to 10%-15%. Treatment of most individuals has remained the same over the decades: Good skin care, frequent moisturizers, topical corticosteroids for flares, and management of infection if noted. The topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) broadened the therapeutic approach when introduced in 2000 and 2001, but the boxed warning resulted in some practitioners minimizing their use of these useful agents. But newer studies are markedly reassuring about their safe use in children.
Steroid phobia, as well as concerns about potential side effects of the TCIs, has resulted in undertreatment of childhood AD. It is quite common to see multiple children during pediatric dermatology office hours with poorly controlled eczema, high body-surface areas of eczema, compromised sleep, secondary infections, and anxiety and depression, especially in our moderate to severe adolescents. The field is “hot” with new topical and systemic agents, including our few years’ experience with topical crisaborole, a phosphodiesterase (PDE)-4 inhibitor; and dupilumab, an IL-4-alpha blocker – the first biologic agent approved for AD and the first systemic agent (other than oral corticosteroids), just extended from 12 years to 6 years of age! As dupilumab gets studied for younger children, other biologics (including IL-13 and IL-31 blockers) are undertaking pediatric and/or adolescent trials, oral and topical JAK inhibitors are including adolescents in core clinical trials, and other novel topical agents are under study, including an aryl-hydrocarbon receptor–modulating agent and other PDE-4 inhibitors.
Procedural pediatric dermatology: From liquid nitrogen to laser, surgery, and multimodal skin care
The first generation of pediatric dermatologists were considered medical dermatologist specialists. The care of the conditions discussed above, as well as genodermatoses, diagnostic dilemmas, and management of dermatologic manifestations of systemic disease and other conditions, was the “bread and butter” of pediatric dermatology care. When I was in training, my mentor Paul Honig, MD, at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia had a procedure half-day each week, where he would care for a few patients who needed liquid nitrogen therapy for warts, or who needed biopsies. It was uncommon to have a large procedural/surgical part of pediatric dermatology practice. But this is now a routine part of many specialists in the field. How did this change occur?
The fundamental shift began to occur with the introduction of the pulsed dye laser for treatment of port-wine birthmarks in children with minimal scarring, and a seminal article published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1989. Vascular lesions including port-wine stains were common, and pediatric dermatologists managed these patients for both diagnosis and medical management. Also, dermatology residencies at this time offered training in cutaneous surgery, excisions (including Mohs surgery) and repairs, and trainees in pediatric dermatology were “trained up” to high levels of expertise. As lasers were incorporated into dermatology residency work and practices, pediatric dermatologists developed the exposure and skill to do this work. An added advantage was having the knowledge of how to handle children and adolescents in an age-appropriate manner, with consideration of methods to minimize the pain and anxiety of procedures. Within a few years, pediatric dermatologists were at the forefront of the use of topical anesthetics (EMLA and liposomal lidocaine) and had general anesthesia privileges for laser and excisional surgery.
So while pediatric dermatologists still do “small procedures” every hour in most practices (cryotherapy for warts, cantharidin for molluscum, shave and punch biopsies), a subset now have extensive procedural practices, which in recent years has extended to pigment lesion lasers (to treat nevus of Ota, for example), hair laser, and combinations of lasers, including fractionated CO2 technology, to treat hypertrophic, constrictive and/or deforming scars.
The future
What will pediatric dermatology be like in 10, 20, or 50 years?
I have not yet discussed some of the most challenging diseases in our field, including epidermolysis bullosa, ichthyosis, and neurocutaneous disorders and other genetic skin disorders that have an incredible impact on the lives of affected children and their families, with incredible morbidity and with many conditions that shorten lifespans. But these are the conditions where “the future is happening now,” and we are looking forward to our new gene therapy techniques helping to transform our care.
And other aspects of practice? Will we be doing a large percentage of practice over the phone (or whatever devices we have then – remember, the first iPhone was only released 13 years ago)?
Will our patients be using their own imaging systems to evaluate their nevi and skin growths, and perhaps to diagnose and manage their rashes?
Will we have prevented our inflammatory skin disorders, or “turned them off” in early life with aggressive therapy in infantile life?
I project only that all of us in dermatology will still be a resource to our pediatric patients, from neonate through young adult, through our work of preventing, caring, healing and minimizing disease impact, and hopefully enjoying the pleasures of seeing our patients healthfully develop and evolve! As will our field.
Dr. Eichenfield is professor of dermatology and pediatrics and vice-chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego, and chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego. Dr. Eichenfield reports financial relationships with 20 pharmaceutical companies that manufacture dermatologic products, including products for the diseases discussed here.
Innovator banks on ‘truly smart’ robotic lasers in dermatology
Dr. Anderson, director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, conceived and developed many of the nonscarring laser treatments now widely used in dermatology. These include selective photothermolysis for birthmarks, microvascular and pigmented lesions, and tattoo and permanent hair removal. He also contributed to laser lithotripsy, laser angioplasty, photodynamic therapy, and optical diagnostics. The highest-resolution imaging device approved for human use, an infrared confocal microscope, came from his laboratory. Dr. Anderson has also contributed to basic knowledge of human photobiology, drug photosensitization mechanisms, tissue optics and laser-tissue interactions. In this Q&A with Doug Brunk, he reflects on his achievements and on the future of lasers in dermatology.
In published interviews you have described yourself as more of a problem solver than an inventor. How did your upbringing foster your affinity for problem solving?
I grew up in Central Illinois during the 1950s and early 1960s, an area known for corn, soybeans, and hogs. At an early age I learned to be interested in other things because it’s possible to die of boredom there. By the time I was 12 years old, I was an amateur radio operator, and I was building rockets to see how high they would go.
Problem solving comes naturally to me. I enjoy very much finding a problem that is worth solving, which means getting passionate about it and brainstorming. Half the time you don’t come up with a potential route to solve the problem. I attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at the age of 17, which was a real eye-opener. I had never been east of the Wabash River prior to that. I studied physics for a while, then decided to flip into biology. That combination has served me well. My special sauce is to have some intuitive and academic rigorous feeling for physical processes. But we physicians have a front row seat to nature’s human drama. There is no lack of problems to solve. I can sit around and obsess about things theoretically, but at the end of the day I want to work on things that ultimately benefit people.
What inspired you most early in your career as a physician scientist?
After I made a commitment to medicine, Dr. John A. Parrish, and Dr. Thomas B. Fitzpatrick were key mentors to me. I was 30 years old when I started medical school, but they took me under their wing even before that. I took a part-time, temporary job with them, which turned into a permanent job. That turned into a love for the work they did. Instead of going into a graduate program in a laboratory and studying bacteria and genetics, the whole idea of working with people and on people was awesome. Dr. Parrish really mentored me. I won a lifetime achievement award from the American Academy of Dermatology a few years ago. I found myself on stage and it rolled out of my mouth that John Parrish believed in me before I believed in myself. It’s really true. He somehow recognized that I had some talents. I was very young and a combination of naive and humble, I guess.
What was the initial genesis for your idea of selective photothermolysis?
I was interested in going to medical school and working with Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Parrish on things related to light. They were mostly interested in PUVA and UVB; it was the heyday of modern phototherapy. I attended a lecture at the Beth Israel Hospital in Boston given by a plastic surgeon, Dr. Joel Mark Noe. He was talking about using lasers to treat port-wine stains in children. The gist of the talk was that argon lasers were being used, and that the results were sometimes decent, but not great. Often children would have burn scars after the treatment. Dr. Noe was talking about how you had to choose the color of the wavelength of the laser to be absorbed by hemoglobin, but he wasn’t talking about what happens to the heat once it’s created. My background in physics led me to recognize that he wasn’t capturing the full picture. Selective disruption of a target in the skin by light is half of the story. The confinement of heat in the target is the other half of the story. Literally on a bus on the way home from that lecture to my apartment in Cambridge, I hatched the idea for selective photothermolysis and wrote down some equations. I also wrote down the ideal wavelength region, how much energy was needed, and what the pulse duration would have to be like to damage target vessels that small. I showed John Parrish what I had written. He took me seriously and said, “Let’s see if we can find a light source that can accomplish this.” We traveled around the country looking at various lasers, but we wound up building the first pulsed dye laser for treating port-wine stains. To me, the surprise was that we didn’t kill the skin. If you treat an area of skin with a laser and hurt all the blood vessels, you think, “Wait a minute. Are we going to kill the skin because it has no blood supply?” The questions of the day were so basic, and we just got lucky. It took 6-8 years before we ramped up the clinical studies showing efficacy and safety of this technology.
I presume that you experimented on your own skin while developing some of the nonscarring laser treatments now widely used in dermatology. What “war story” stands out to you most from that part of your work?
I’m right handed, so I’d grab a laser with my right hand and treat my left arm, so that arm sports a bit of history. In 1994, while working with Dr. Melanie Grossman on the development of laser hair removal, I used a ruby laser to self-treat a patch of hair on my left arm. I still have the world’s oldest laser-induced bald spot on that arm. It’s been 26 years now. I still look at it and count the hairs, because one of the big questions is, is laser hair removal permanent? In all these years I have grown two hairs.
What technology that you conceived of or developed has most surprised you, in term of its ultimate clinical impact?
I would say confocal microscopy. In the mid-1990s I worked with a physicist named Robert H. Webb, who invented an imaging system for the retina. We got together, noodled about it, and decided we would modify his ophthalmoscope system to see if we could get images from inside the skin. It worked pretty well. It was truly surprising from many points of view. First, it wasn’t clear at all that we’d get any images this way. Now, reflectance confocal microscopy is a standard tool in both clinical and research dermatology. But there were odd discoveries early on. For example, the darker your skin, the brighter it appeared in the microscope. You might think that melanin absorbs light and that you would get poor images in dark skin. It was the exact opposite; melanin acts as a natural contrast agent.
We worked with a small company to make the first confocal microscope. Initially, it had no clinical applications but what was fascinating to me was the incredible value of being able to see inside human skin harmlessly, and just see what’s going on. It became a potent research tool, and recently CPT codes were established for its use in evaluating skin cancer margins. I wouldn’t be surprised if 30 years from now, taking a skin biopsy is seemingly barbaric. A forerunner of all these new imaging tools for the skin was the confocal microscope developed in my lab in 1994.
During a 2011 TED talk, you said that nevus of Ota is your favorite thing to treat, because the outcome is usually perfect skin. Are there other technologies or devices you played a role in developing that make you proud at this stage in your career?
The reason I love treating nevus of Ota is that you have a lifelong facial disfigurement, and the only treatment for it is a laser we came up with, and it always works. How perfect could it be? The flip side of the same coin is, there are lesions of the skin that just don’t respond. One of the things we don’t know enough about is the connection between the biologic aspects of repair of various lesions and the treatments that we come up with. The most recent example of selective photothermolysis is a new laser we’re building right now for acne that is based on sebaceous gland injury. You’ll see this coming out in the next year or two. My heart goes out to people with nodular cystic acne. For young men it’s highly associated with suicide. So, I’m excited about optimizing and learning what happens when we target sebaceous glands.
One of the other big stories in laser dermatology is the fractional laser. I developed this with Dr. Dieter Manstein when he was a postdoc in my lab. One of the most pleasing things from this technology is how well you can rehabilitate scars, particularly burn scars in children. Over the last few years, I have trained plastic surgeons at the Shriners Hospital for Children in Boston on how to use fractional lasers to improve the lives of these kids. Another technology I developed with Dr. Manstein is cryolipolysis, which is removing fat from the body by cooling it. There are no lasers involved with this technology. I like to say that I’ve spent most of my career studying light and heat, and now we’ve come up with something that’s cold in the dark. We are now working on derivatives of cryolipolysis, to determine if what we’ve learned about targeting fat that might be applicable elsewhere.
Who inspires you most in your work today?
In addition to Dr. John Parrish and Dr. Thomas Fitzpatrick, the late Dr. Albert M. Kligman also influenced me. He never accepted dogma and he loved to ask questions, like, “What if?” as opposed to just accumulating a fund of knowledge. Understanding things is not just based on how much you know. It’s based on critical thinking and the ability to question. I also admire Albert Einstein, his ability to sit down with nothing more than pencil and paper and change our view of the universe. I love physics because it’s the science of everything. I also love poetry. My favorite poet is Stanley Kunitz. He had amazing insight and was named United States Poet Laureate in 1974 and in 2000. I have plenty of antiheroes as well, mostly politicians.
I understand that you play the banjo. How long have you been playing, and what do you enjoy about it?
You cannot sit down and play the banjo and have your mind on much else. It’s a wonderful moving meditation. Before my medical career, I was a schoolteacher in Vermont. There was a guy on the staff there who played banjo. He came from a small town in Georgia. I just picked it up and started plunking. It’s a happy instrument. It’s awfully hard to make the banjo sound melancholy.
What novel use of lasers and light in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years?
The marriage of therapeutic devices with diagnostic and imaging devices has not happened yet. They are not even in the honeymoon moment. But I think that having truly smart robotic systems in our hands for treating patients will become a reality. These days, dermatologists have to buy a certain type of laser to treat a certain type of lesion. For example, the Q-switched alexandrite laser you buy for treating Nevus of Ota won’t do anything for a port-wine stain; it’s the wrong pulse duration. This means that clinicians who practice a lot of laser dermatology end up with a dozen lasers in their practice. In the future, I think it will be possible to have a software laser, so when you want to acquire another target, you load an App as opposed to buying a new laser. This means that you would have software programmable targeting, and you would not have the requirement of having selective absorption. So, I’m excited by the idea of guided fractional lasers. None of them exist now. We have to start from scratch.
Dr. Anderson, director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, conceived and developed many of the nonscarring laser treatments now widely used in dermatology. These include selective photothermolysis for birthmarks, microvascular and pigmented lesions, and tattoo and permanent hair removal. He also contributed to laser lithotripsy, laser angioplasty, photodynamic therapy, and optical diagnostics. The highest-resolution imaging device approved for human use, an infrared confocal microscope, came from his laboratory. Dr. Anderson has also contributed to basic knowledge of human photobiology, drug photosensitization mechanisms, tissue optics and laser-tissue interactions. In this Q&A with Doug Brunk, he reflects on his achievements and on the future of lasers in dermatology.
In published interviews you have described yourself as more of a problem solver than an inventor. How did your upbringing foster your affinity for problem solving?
I grew up in Central Illinois during the 1950s and early 1960s, an area known for corn, soybeans, and hogs. At an early age I learned to be interested in other things because it’s possible to die of boredom there. By the time I was 12 years old, I was an amateur radio operator, and I was building rockets to see how high they would go.
Problem solving comes naturally to me. I enjoy very much finding a problem that is worth solving, which means getting passionate about it and brainstorming. Half the time you don’t come up with a potential route to solve the problem. I attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at the age of 17, which was a real eye-opener. I had never been east of the Wabash River prior to that. I studied physics for a while, then decided to flip into biology. That combination has served me well. My special sauce is to have some intuitive and academic rigorous feeling for physical processes. But we physicians have a front row seat to nature’s human drama. There is no lack of problems to solve. I can sit around and obsess about things theoretically, but at the end of the day I want to work on things that ultimately benefit people.
What inspired you most early in your career as a physician scientist?
After I made a commitment to medicine, Dr. John A. Parrish, and Dr. Thomas B. Fitzpatrick were key mentors to me. I was 30 years old when I started medical school, but they took me under their wing even before that. I took a part-time, temporary job with them, which turned into a permanent job. That turned into a love for the work they did. Instead of going into a graduate program in a laboratory and studying bacteria and genetics, the whole idea of working with people and on people was awesome. Dr. Parrish really mentored me. I won a lifetime achievement award from the American Academy of Dermatology a few years ago. I found myself on stage and it rolled out of my mouth that John Parrish believed in me before I believed in myself. It’s really true. He somehow recognized that I had some talents. I was very young and a combination of naive and humble, I guess.
What was the initial genesis for your idea of selective photothermolysis?
I was interested in going to medical school and working with Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Parrish on things related to light. They were mostly interested in PUVA and UVB; it was the heyday of modern phototherapy. I attended a lecture at the Beth Israel Hospital in Boston given by a plastic surgeon, Dr. Joel Mark Noe. He was talking about using lasers to treat port-wine stains in children. The gist of the talk was that argon lasers were being used, and that the results were sometimes decent, but not great. Often children would have burn scars after the treatment. Dr. Noe was talking about how you had to choose the color of the wavelength of the laser to be absorbed by hemoglobin, but he wasn’t talking about what happens to the heat once it’s created. My background in physics led me to recognize that he wasn’t capturing the full picture. Selective disruption of a target in the skin by light is half of the story. The confinement of heat in the target is the other half of the story. Literally on a bus on the way home from that lecture to my apartment in Cambridge, I hatched the idea for selective photothermolysis and wrote down some equations. I also wrote down the ideal wavelength region, how much energy was needed, and what the pulse duration would have to be like to damage target vessels that small. I showed John Parrish what I had written. He took me seriously and said, “Let’s see if we can find a light source that can accomplish this.” We traveled around the country looking at various lasers, but we wound up building the first pulsed dye laser for treating port-wine stains. To me, the surprise was that we didn’t kill the skin. If you treat an area of skin with a laser and hurt all the blood vessels, you think, “Wait a minute. Are we going to kill the skin because it has no blood supply?” The questions of the day were so basic, and we just got lucky. It took 6-8 years before we ramped up the clinical studies showing efficacy and safety of this technology.
I presume that you experimented on your own skin while developing some of the nonscarring laser treatments now widely used in dermatology. What “war story” stands out to you most from that part of your work?
I’m right handed, so I’d grab a laser with my right hand and treat my left arm, so that arm sports a bit of history. In 1994, while working with Dr. Melanie Grossman on the development of laser hair removal, I used a ruby laser to self-treat a patch of hair on my left arm. I still have the world’s oldest laser-induced bald spot on that arm. It’s been 26 years now. I still look at it and count the hairs, because one of the big questions is, is laser hair removal permanent? In all these years I have grown two hairs.
What technology that you conceived of or developed has most surprised you, in term of its ultimate clinical impact?
I would say confocal microscopy. In the mid-1990s I worked with a physicist named Robert H. Webb, who invented an imaging system for the retina. We got together, noodled about it, and decided we would modify his ophthalmoscope system to see if we could get images from inside the skin. It worked pretty well. It was truly surprising from many points of view. First, it wasn’t clear at all that we’d get any images this way. Now, reflectance confocal microscopy is a standard tool in both clinical and research dermatology. But there were odd discoveries early on. For example, the darker your skin, the brighter it appeared in the microscope. You might think that melanin absorbs light and that you would get poor images in dark skin. It was the exact opposite; melanin acts as a natural contrast agent.
We worked with a small company to make the first confocal microscope. Initially, it had no clinical applications but what was fascinating to me was the incredible value of being able to see inside human skin harmlessly, and just see what’s going on. It became a potent research tool, and recently CPT codes were established for its use in evaluating skin cancer margins. I wouldn’t be surprised if 30 years from now, taking a skin biopsy is seemingly barbaric. A forerunner of all these new imaging tools for the skin was the confocal microscope developed in my lab in 1994.
During a 2011 TED talk, you said that nevus of Ota is your favorite thing to treat, because the outcome is usually perfect skin. Are there other technologies or devices you played a role in developing that make you proud at this stage in your career?
The reason I love treating nevus of Ota is that you have a lifelong facial disfigurement, and the only treatment for it is a laser we came up with, and it always works. How perfect could it be? The flip side of the same coin is, there are lesions of the skin that just don’t respond. One of the things we don’t know enough about is the connection between the biologic aspects of repair of various lesions and the treatments that we come up with. The most recent example of selective photothermolysis is a new laser we’re building right now for acne that is based on sebaceous gland injury. You’ll see this coming out in the next year or two. My heart goes out to people with nodular cystic acne. For young men it’s highly associated with suicide. So, I’m excited about optimizing and learning what happens when we target sebaceous glands.
One of the other big stories in laser dermatology is the fractional laser. I developed this with Dr. Dieter Manstein when he was a postdoc in my lab. One of the most pleasing things from this technology is how well you can rehabilitate scars, particularly burn scars in children. Over the last few years, I have trained plastic surgeons at the Shriners Hospital for Children in Boston on how to use fractional lasers to improve the lives of these kids. Another technology I developed with Dr. Manstein is cryolipolysis, which is removing fat from the body by cooling it. There are no lasers involved with this technology. I like to say that I’ve spent most of my career studying light and heat, and now we’ve come up with something that’s cold in the dark. We are now working on derivatives of cryolipolysis, to determine if what we’ve learned about targeting fat that might be applicable elsewhere.
Who inspires you most in your work today?
In addition to Dr. John Parrish and Dr. Thomas Fitzpatrick, the late Dr. Albert M. Kligman also influenced me. He never accepted dogma and he loved to ask questions, like, “What if?” as opposed to just accumulating a fund of knowledge. Understanding things is not just based on how much you know. It’s based on critical thinking and the ability to question. I also admire Albert Einstein, his ability to sit down with nothing more than pencil and paper and change our view of the universe. I love physics because it’s the science of everything. I also love poetry. My favorite poet is Stanley Kunitz. He had amazing insight and was named United States Poet Laureate in 1974 and in 2000. I have plenty of antiheroes as well, mostly politicians.
I understand that you play the banjo. How long have you been playing, and what do you enjoy about it?
You cannot sit down and play the banjo and have your mind on much else. It’s a wonderful moving meditation. Before my medical career, I was a schoolteacher in Vermont. There was a guy on the staff there who played banjo. He came from a small town in Georgia. I just picked it up and started plunking. It’s a happy instrument. It’s awfully hard to make the banjo sound melancholy.
What novel use of lasers and light in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years?
The marriage of therapeutic devices with diagnostic and imaging devices has not happened yet. They are not even in the honeymoon moment. But I think that having truly smart robotic systems in our hands for treating patients will become a reality. These days, dermatologists have to buy a certain type of laser to treat a certain type of lesion. For example, the Q-switched alexandrite laser you buy for treating Nevus of Ota won’t do anything for a port-wine stain; it’s the wrong pulse duration. This means that clinicians who practice a lot of laser dermatology end up with a dozen lasers in their practice. In the future, I think it will be possible to have a software laser, so when you want to acquire another target, you load an App as opposed to buying a new laser. This means that you would have software programmable targeting, and you would not have the requirement of having selective absorption. So, I’m excited by the idea of guided fractional lasers. None of them exist now. We have to start from scratch.
Dr. Anderson, director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, conceived and developed many of the nonscarring laser treatments now widely used in dermatology. These include selective photothermolysis for birthmarks, microvascular and pigmented lesions, and tattoo and permanent hair removal. He also contributed to laser lithotripsy, laser angioplasty, photodynamic therapy, and optical diagnostics. The highest-resolution imaging device approved for human use, an infrared confocal microscope, came from his laboratory. Dr. Anderson has also contributed to basic knowledge of human photobiology, drug photosensitization mechanisms, tissue optics and laser-tissue interactions. In this Q&A with Doug Brunk, he reflects on his achievements and on the future of lasers in dermatology.
In published interviews you have described yourself as more of a problem solver than an inventor. How did your upbringing foster your affinity for problem solving?
I grew up in Central Illinois during the 1950s and early 1960s, an area known for corn, soybeans, and hogs. At an early age I learned to be interested in other things because it’s possible to die of boredom there. By the time I was 12 years old, I was an amateur radio operator, and I was building rockets to see how high they would go.
Problem solving comes naturally to me. I enjoy very much finding a problem that is worth solving, which means getting passionate about it and brainstorming. Half the time you don’t come up with a potential route to solve the problem. I attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology at the age of 17, which was a real eye-opener. I had never been east of the Wabash River prior to that. I studied physics for a while, then decided to flip into biology. That combination has served me well. My special sauce is to have some intuitive and academic rigorous feeling for physical processes. But we physicians have a front row seat to nature’s human drama. There is no lack of problems to solve. I can sit around and obsess about things theoretically, but at the end of the day I want to work on things that ultimately benefit people.
What inspired you most early in your career as a physician scientist?
After I made a commitment to medicine, Dr. John A. Parrish, and Dr. Thomas B. Fitzpatrick were key mentors to me. I was 30 years old when I started medical school, but they took me under their wing even before that. I took a part-time, temporary job with them, which turned into a permanent job. That turned into a love for the work they did. Instead of going into a graduate program in a laboratory and studying bacteria and genetics, the whole idea of working with people and on people was awesome. Dr. Parrish really mentored me. I won a lifetime achievement award from the American Academy of Dermatology a few years ago. I found myself on stage and it rolled out of my mouth that John Parrish believed in me before I believed in myself. It’s really true. He somehow recognized that I had some talents. I was very young and a combination of naive and humble, I guess.
What was the initial genesis for your idea of selective photothermolysis?
I was interested in going to medical school and working with Dr. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Parrish on things related to light. They were mostly interested in PUVA and UVB; it was the heyday of modern phototherapy. I attended a lecture at the Beth Israel Hospital in Boston given by a plastic surgeon, Dr. Joel Mark Noe. He was talking about using lasers to treat port-wine stains in children. The gist of the talk was that argon lasers were being used, and that the results were sometimes decent, but not great. Often children would have burn scars after the treatment. Dr. Noe was talking about how you had to choose the color of the wavelength of the laser to be absorbed by hemoglobin, but he wasn’t talking about what happens to the heat once it’s created. My background in physics led me to recognize that he wasn’t capturing the full picture. Selective disruption of a target in the skin by light is half of the story. The confinement of heat in the target is the other half of the story. Literally on a bus on the way home from that lecture to my apartment in Cambridge, I hatched the idea for selective photothermolysis and wrote down some equations. I also wrote down the ideal wavelength region, how much energy was needed, and what the pulse duration would have to be like to damage target vessels that small. I showed John Parrish what I had written. He took me seriously and said, “Let’s see if we can find a light source that can accomplish this.” We traveled around the country looking at various lasers, but we wound up building the first pulsed dye laser for treating port-wine stains. To me, the surprise was that we didn’t kill the skin. If you treat an area of skin with a laser and hurt all the blood vessels, you think, “Wait a minute. Are we going to kill the skin because it has no blood supply?” The questions of the day were so basic, and we just got lucky. It took 6-8 years before we ramped up the clinical studies showing efficacy and safety of this technology.
I presume that you experimented on your own skin while developing some of the nonscarring laser treatments now widely used in dermatology. What “war story” stands out to you most from that part of your work?
I’m right handed, so I’d grab a laser with my right hand and treat my left arm, so that arm sports a bit of history. In 1994, while working with Dr. Melanie Grossman on the development of laser hair removal, I used a ruby laser to self-treat a patch of hair on my left arm. I still have the world’s oldest laser-induced bald spot on that arm. It’s been 26 years now. I still look at it and count the hairs, because one of the big questions is, is laser hair removal permanent? In all these years I have grown two hairs.
What technology that you conceived of or developed has most surprised you, in term of its ultimate clinical impact?
I would say confocal microscopy. In the mid-1990s I worked with a physicist named Robert H. Webb, who invented an imaging system for the retina. We got together, noodled about it, and decided we would modify his ophthalmoscope system to see if we could get images from inside the skin. It worked pretty well. It was truly surprising from many points of view. First, it wasn’t clear at all that we’d get any images this way. Now, reflectance confocal microscopy is a standard tool in both clinical and research dermatology. But there were odd discoveries early on. For example, the darker your skin, the brighter it appeared in the microscope. You might think that melanin absorbs light and that you would get poor images in dark skin. It was the exact opposite; melanin acts as a natural contrast agent.
We worked with a small company to make the first confocal microscope. Initially, it had no clinical applications but what was fascinating to me was the incredible value of being able to see inside human skin harmlessly, and just see what’s going on. It became a potent research tool, and recently CPT codes were established for its use in evaluating skin cancer margins. I wouldn’t be surprised if 30 years from now, taking a skin biopsy is seemingly barbaric. A forerunner of all these new imaging tools for the skin was the confocal microscope developed in my lab in 1994.
During a 2011 TED talk, you said that nevus of Ota is your favorite thing to treat, because the outcome is usually perfect skin. Are there other technologies or devices you played a role in developing that make you proud at this stage in your career?
The reason I love treating nevus of Ota is that you have a lifelong facial disfigurement, and the only treatment for it is a laser we came up with, and it always works. How perfect could it be? The flip side of the same coin is, there are lesions of the skin that just don’t respond. One of the things we don’t know enough about is the connection between the biologic aspects of repair of various lesions and the treatments that we come up with. The most recent example of selective photothermolysis is a new laser we’re building right now for acne that is based on sebaceous gland injury. You’ll see this coming out in the next year or two. My heart goes out to people with nodular cystic acne. For young men it’s highly associated with suicide. So, I’m excited about optimizing and learning what happens when we target sebaceous glands.
One of the other big stories in laser dermatology is the fractional laser. I developed this with Dr. Dieter Manstein when he was a postdoc in my lab. One of the most pleasing things from this technology is how well you can rehabilitate scars, particularly burn scars in children. Over the last few years, I have trained plastic surgeons at the Shriners Hospital for Children in Boston on how to use fractional lasers to improve the lives of these kids. Another technology I developed with Dr. Manstein is cryolipolysis, which is removing fat from the body by cooling it. There are no lasers involved with this technology. I like to say that I’ve spent most of my career studying light and heat, and now we’ve come up with something that’s cold in the dark. We are now working on derivatives of cryolipolysis, to determine if what we’ve learned about targeting fat that might be applicable elsewhere.
Who inspires you most in your work today?
In addition to Dr. John Parrish and Dr. Thomas Fitzpatrick, the late Dr. Albert M. Kligman also influenced me. He never accepted dogma and he loved to ask questions, like, “What if?” as opposed to just accumulating a fund of knowledge. Understanding things is not just based on how much you know. It’s based on critical thinking and the ability to question. I also admire Albert Einstein, his ability to sit down with nothing more than pencil and paper and change our view of the universe. I love physics because it’s the science of everything. I also love poetry. My favorite poet is Stanley Kunitz. He had amazing insight and was named United States Poet Laureate in 1974 and in 2000. I have plenty of antiheroes as well, mostly politicians.
I understand that you play the banjo. How long have you been playing, and what do you enjoy about it?
You cannot sit down and play the banjo and have your mind on much else. It’s a wonderful moving meditation. Before my medical career, I was a schoolteacher in Vermont. There was a guy on the staff there who played banjo. He came from a small town in Georgia. I just picked it up and started plunking. It’s a happy instrument. It’s awfully hard to make the banjo sound melancholy.
What novel use of lasers and light in dermatology are you most excited about in the next 5 years?
The marriage of therapeutic devices with diagnostic and imaging devices has not happened yet. They are not even in the honeymoon moment. But I think that having truly smart robotic systems in our hands for treating patients will become a reality. These days, dermatologists have to buy a certain type of laser to treat a certain type of lesion. For example, the Q-switched alexandrite laser you buy for treating Nevus of Ota won’t do anything for a port-wine stain; it’s the wrong pulse duration. This means that clinicians who practice a lot of laser dermatology end up with a dozen lasers in their practice. In the future, I think it will be possible to have a software laser, so when you want to acquire another target, you load an App as opposed to buying a new laser. This means that you would have software programmable targeting, and you would not have the requirement of having selective absorption. So, I’m excited by the idea of guided fractional lasers. None of them exist now. We have to start from scratch.
Visionary reflects on the importance of teamwork in advancing technology
When John A. Parrish, MD, worked with R. Rox Anderson, MD, and a team of clinicians and scientists in the early 1980s to develop the first pulsed dye laser for dermatologic use, it became clear that the Food and Drug Administration required convincing that their prototype would be safe.
“Laser medicine was new, and lasers had some specific frightening risks like blindness and bleeding from laser suturing,” recalled Dr. Parrish, founder of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “The main issue was eye risk. Because the operator and the patient were at risk for eye injury, the FDA was reluctant to press on with laser treatments of skin.”
To make the FDA more comfortable with their efforts, Dr. Parrish and his colleagues drew from the published work of ophthalmologists, who were ahead of dermatologists in the clinical use of lasers. “A lot of the animal experiments and the human understanding of laser-tissue interactions came from ophthalmologists,” he said. “We worked with a fellow named David H. Sliney, PhD. He was very interested in laser safety of the eye, so we worked closely with him to measure the boundary conditions that could be used without injuring the eye.”
To Dr. Parrish, forging that partnership illustrated a key principle in developing novel diagnostics and therapeutics that use lasers and light: You need a multidisciplinary team. “You need a pathologist, clinicians, physicists, technologists, and engineers, because all of the barriers to figure out how to deliver a new treatment safely often don’t rest in one person’s mind, so early on we had to be very collaborative and find experts who would help us solve problems,” he said. “That’s how the Wellman Labs got started. All of the new treatments were explored by multidisciplinary teams so that we didn’t have to hope that the expertise to get past all the barriers was in one person’s mind. That was often not the case.”
Dr. Parrish credits his mentor, the late Thomas B. Fitzpatrick, MD, PhD, who in 1975 devised the Fitzpatrick scale of skin phototypes, with inspiring his career path. Dr. Fitzpatrick, who is widely considered the father of modern academic dermatology, was professor and chief of dermatology at Harvard Medical School when Dr. Parrish began his dermatology training there. “He was a great clinician who loved patient care and he was a very curious investigator,” said Dr. Parrish, who cofounded the Consortia for Improving Medicine with Innovation and Technology (CIMIT). “He not only trained me, but I became his collaborator during my early faculty time. What I learned most from him was the joy of work, curiosity, and serious commitment to patient care. It was almost contagious.”
Of all the devices he’s played a role in developing in the past 50 years, Dr. Parrish said that he remains most surprised by the impact of pulsed lasers in dermatology. “It took us a while to understand the capabilities of pulsed lasers in that they could confine injury to small spots and treat multiple areas at once,” he said. “A lot of that did not come because we were so wise to think about that, but we did a lot of work in the early days with a free-electron laser, a pulsed laser which had a tunable wavelength and a tunable pulse duration. That gave us the capability of looking at very specific injuries and the host responses that heal without scarring.”
Dr. Parrish’s interest in dermatology was piqued in 1968, when he was assigned to Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in Oakland, Calif., after a year of serving in the U.S. Marine Corps as a battlefield doctor in Vietnam. (He wrote about his wartime experience in two books, most recently “Autopsy of War: A Personal History” [New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2012].) Prior to serving in Vietnam he had completed early internal medicine training, but once at Oak Knoll he discovered that he had a propensity for diagnosing and treating disorders of the skin. “When I came back to resume my residency, I asked if I could train in dermatology,” he said. “It was by happenstance. I felt like I could understand skin disease and that I could make a difference. In internal medicine you often change blood pressure medicines around. I felt like I was a better diagnostician than in internal medicine and that I could most often make a difference. I liked seeing all ages of patients, and most of them got better, so it was more fun.”
When John A. Parrish, MD, worked with R. Rox Anderson, MD, and a team of clinicians and scientists in the early 1980s to develop the first pulsed dye laser for dermatologic use, it became clear that the Food and Drug Administration required convincing that their prototype would be safe.
“Laser medicine was new, and lasers had some specific frightening risks like blindness and bleeding from laser suturing,” recalled Dr. Parrish, founder of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “The main issue was eye risk. Because the operator and the patient were at risk for eye injury, the FDA was reluctant to press on with laser treatments of skin.”
To make the FDA more comfortable with their efforts, Dr. Parrish and his colleagues drew from the published work of ophthalmologists, who were ahead of dermatologists in the clinical use of lasers. “A lot of the animal experiments and the human understanding of laser-tissue interactions came from ophthalmologists,” he said. “We worked with a fellow named David H. Sliney, PhD. He was very interested in laser safety of the eye, so we worked closely with him to measure the boundary conditions that could be used without injuring the eye.”
To Dr. Parrish, forging that partnership illustrated a key principle in developing novel diagnostics and therapeutics that use lasers and light: You need a multidisciplinary team. “You need a pathologist, clinicians, physicists, technologists, and engineers, because all of the barriers to figure out how to deliver a new treatment safely often don’t rest in one person’s mind, so early on we had to be very collaborative and find experts who would help us solve problems,” he said. “That’s how the Wellman Labs got started. All of the new treatments were explored by multidisciplinary teams so that we didn’t have to hope that the expertise to get past all the barriers was in one person’s mind. That was often not the case.”
Dr. Parrish credits his mentor, the late Thomas B. Fitzpatrick, MD, PhD, who in 1975 devised the Fitzpatrick scale of skin phototypes, with inspiring his career path. Dr. Fitzpatrick, who is widely considered the father of modern academic dermatology, was professor and chief of dermatology at Harvard Medical School when Dr. Parrish began his dermatology training there. “He was a great clinician who loved patient care and he was a very curious investigator,” said Dr. Parrish, who cofounded the Consortia for Improving Medicine with Innovation and Technology (CIMIT). “He not only trained me, but I became his collaborator during my early faculty time. What I learned most from him was the joy of work, curiosity, and serious commitment to patient care. It was almost contagious.”
Of all the devices he’s played a role in developing in the past 50 years, Dr. Parrish said that he remains most surprised by the impact of pulsed lasers in dermatology. “It took us a while to understand the capabilities of pulsed lasers in that they could confine injury to small spots and treat multiple areas at once,” he said. “A lot of that did not come because we were so wise to think about that, but we did a lot of work in the early days with a free-electron laser, a pulsed laser which had a tunable wavelength and a tunable pulse duration. That gave us the capability of looking at very specific injuries and the host responses that heal without scarring.”
Dr. Parrish’s interest in dermatology was piqued in 1968, when he was assigned to Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in Oakland, Calif., after a year of serving in the U.S. Marine Corps as a battlefield doctor in Vietnam. (He wrote about his wartime experience in two books, most recently “Autopsy of War: A Personal History” [New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2012].) Prior to serving in Vietnam he had completed early internal medicine training, but once at Oak Knoll he discovered that he had a propensity for diagnosing and treating disorders of the skin. “When I came back to resume my residency, I asked if I could train in dermatology,” he said. “It was by happenstance. I felt like I could understand skin disease and that I could make a difference. In internal medicine you often change blood pressure medicines around. I felt like I was a better diagnostician than in internal medicine and that I could most often make a difference. I liked seeing all ages of patients, and most of them got better, so it was more fun.”
When John A. Parrish, MD, worked with R. Rox Anderson, MD, and a team of clinicians and scientists in the early 1980s to develop the first pulsed dye laser for dermatologic use, it became clear that the Food and Drug Administration required convincing that their prototype would be safe.
“Laser medicine was new, and lasers had some specific frightening risks like blindness and bleeding from laser suturing,” recalled Dr. Parrish, founder of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston. “The main issue was eye risk. Because the operator and the patient were at risk for eye injury, the FDA was reluctant to press on with laser treatments of skin.”
To make the FDA more comfortable with their efforts, Dr. Parrish and his colleagues drew from the published work of ophthalmologists, who were ahead of dermatologists in the clinical use of lasers. “A lot of the animal experiments and the human understanding of laser-tissue interactions came from ophthalmologists,” he said. “We worked with a fellow named David H. Sliney, PhD. He was very interested in laser safety of the eye, so we worked closely with him to measure the boundary conditions that could be used without injuring the eye.”
To Dr. Parrish, forging that partnership illustrated a key principle in developing novel diagnostics and therapeutics that use lasers and light: You need a multidisciplinary team. “You need a pathologist, clinicians, physicists, technologists, and engineers, because all of the barriers to figure out how to deliver a new treatment safely often don’t rest in one person’s mind, so early on we had to be very collaborative and find experts who would help us solve problems,” he said. “That’s how the Wellman Labs got started. All of the new treatments were explored by multidisciplinary teams so that we didn’t have to hope that the expertise to get past all the barriers was in one person’s mind. That was often not the case.”
Dr. Parrish credits his mentor, the late Thomas B. Fitzpatrick, MD, PhD, who in 1975 devised the Fitzpatrick scale of skin phototypes, with inspiring his career path. Dr. Fitzpatrick, who is widely considered the father of modern academic dermatology, was professor and chief of dermatology at Harvard Medical School when Dr. Parrish began his dermatology training there. “He was a great clinician who loved patient care and he was a very curious investigator,” said Dr. Parrish, who cofounded the Consortia for Improving Medicine with Innovation and Technology (CIMIT). “He not only trained me, but I became his collaborator during my early faculty time. What I learned most from him was the joy of work, curiosity, and serious commitment to patient care. It was almost contagious.”
Of all the devices he’s played a role in developing in the past 50 years, Dr. Parrish said that he remains most surprised by the impact of pulsed lasers in dermatology. “It took us a while to understand the capabilities of pulsed lasers in that they could confine injury to small spots and treat multiple areas at once,” he said. “A lot of that did not come because we were so wise to think about that, but we did a lot of work in the early days with a free-electron laser, a pulsed laser which had a tunable wavelength and a tunable pulse duration. That gave us the capability of looking at very specific injuries and the host responses that heal without scarring.”
Dr. Parrish’s interest in dermatology was piqued in 1968, when he was assigned to Oak Knoll Naval Hospital in Oakland, Calif., after a year of serving in the U.S. Marine Corps as a battlefield doctor in Vietnam. (He wrote about his wartime experience in two books, most recently “Autopsy of War: A Personal History” [New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2012].) Prior to serving in Vietnam he had completed early internal medicine training, but once at Oak Knoll he discovered that he had a propensity for diagnosing and treating disorders of the skin. “When I came back to resume my residency, I asked if I could train in dermatology,” he said. “It was by happenstance. I felt like I could understand skin disease and that I could make a difference. In internal medicine you often change blood pressure medicines around. I felt like I was a better diagnostician than in internal medicine and that I could most often make a difference. I liked seeing all ages of patients, and most of them got better, so it was more fun.”
Experts reflect on the past 50 years of lasers in dermatology
During her dermatology residency at Yale University in the late 1980s, Tina S. Alster, MD, met a 44-year-old woman who changed the trajectory of her professional career.
During her clinic visit, the woman explained that she always wore heavy facial makeup to hide her port-wine stain birthmark – a vascular malformation that she kept secret from her husband and teenage son. “She was very good about covering it,” recalled Dr. Alster, who is the founding director of the Washington Institute of Dermatologic Laser Surgery and clinical professor of dermatology at Georgetown University, Washington. “She removed a small amount of makeup for me so I could take a look at it. I had just finished reading an article about using a laser for birthmarks; it had just been published. I told her, ‘There’s something new; we don’t have it at Yale, but I read about treatment that could hone in on birthmarks.’ I promised her I would find out more details.”
A few days later, Dr. Alster pored through stacks of medical journals at Yale’s library and relocated the article she’d seen by first author Oon Tian Tan, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Boston University Medical Center. It described use of the flashpump-pulsed tunable dye laser to treat port-wine stains in 35 children (N Engl J Med. 1989;320:416-21). After giving the article a more thorough read, Dr. Alster became so intrigued by the technology it described that she moved to Boston the following year for a dermatology fellowship with Dr. Tan and joined the ranks of early clinicians who used lasers for treating port-wine stains and other dermatologic conditions.
“That was at a time when there were only a handful of pulsed dye lasers in the world, and the first time I used it was when I went to Boston,” she said. “It was life-changing. You think, ‘Isn’t this great for children with port-wine stains.’ Your heart breaks for them, but I also felt compassion for adults who had suffered a lifetime of stares, including the woman who propelled me to look into this. She ended up coming to Boston during my fellowship and had her birthmark removed, so I changed her life, but she changed mine as well.”
The real credit for that series of events, Dr. Alster continued, belongs to John A. Parrish, MD, and R. Rox Anderson, MD, who in 1983 published the concept of selective photothermolysis, a seminal work that shifted the paradigm for how lasers and other light sources are designed for skin diseases and conditions (Science. 1983 Apr 29;220(4596):524-7). The first pulsed dye laser was built on this concept, an approach that minimized or eliminated the unwanted tissue damage and significant scarring that impeded therapeutic use of laser energy for port-wine stains and other lesions prior to that time. “Lasers that were built subsequent to that seminal paper focused our attention on building lasers that were specific for treatment of certain skin conditions,” Dr. Alster said. “Selective photothermolysis catapulted not only our understanding of how lasers interact with the skin, but allowed us to identify things in the skin that we could potentially target with this new laser technology, and to build laser systems that were specific to those purposes.”
In the late 1970s, Dr. Parrish, who played a key role in making psoralens plus ultraviolet A safe and effective for patients with severe psoriasis, turned his attention to studying lasers in his lab at Harvard Medical School. He hired R. Rox Anderson, a recent graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as a technician. “Rox then got interested in medicine and went to medical school at Harvard, got interested in dermatology, and then worked in my lab a little bit more,” said Dr. Parrish, who founded the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
“Rox was interested in port-wine stains because of his rotation through pediatrics and was theorizing about how lasers could improve port-wine stains and hemangiomas. I think he first thought of that through the physics of what would be needed. He was thinking, ‘What are these hemangiomas under the microscope? What does the target look like, and what do you need to do to promote healing without scarring? You would have to be able to heat for this duration and this time and at this wavelength.’ He matched the physics of lasers with the pathophysiology of port-wine stains, and together we figured out how to deliver the right energy at the right wavelength at the right time. In fact, at the time, there was no ideal laser. We had to convince a laser manufacturer to build a tunable dye laser, which is what we ended up using around the specifications that we wanted for this treatment.”
Prior to the theory of selective photothermolysis, lasers were a blunt instrument. “They would target the skin but you wouldn’t just selectively target something; you’d get a result you didn’t want,” said Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Once pulsed dye lasers that incorporated principles of selective photothermolysis hit the marketplace, clinicians could treat and improve port-wine stains without scarring the skin. They could even improve scarring from port-wine stains that had been previously treated with the argon laser, the subject of early published work by Dr. Alster (Lasers Surg Med. 1993;13[3]:368-73). “When we treated port-wine stains with the pulsed dye laser on top of the argon laser scars, we observed that the scars were looking better,” Dr. Alster said. “From that observation, we were able to demonstrate improvement of a wide range of scars: traumatic and burn scars, surgical scars, acne scars, and scars caused by other lasers. But it all started with the pulsed dye laser for treating port-wine stains that had scars in them.”
, which enabled the user to deliver even shorter pulse widths in the nanosecond domain. “That changed tattoo treatment,” said Dr. Avram, who is also a past president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Prior to that, for tattoos and brown spots you would use ablative lasers like CO2 or dermabrasion. They would cause scarring and not really get rid of the tattoo ink or the brown spots. With the Q-switched nanosecond lasers and the picosecond lasers, which came about 15 years later, you had the ability to remove spots with a week of down time, and [they worked] for things like Nevus of Ota, where someone has a disfiguring blue-brown discoloration of their cheek. There’s no surgical treatment for that whatsoever. It’s not like you can take it out.”
Another key advancement was the introduction of “scanning” technology in the early 1990s for CO2 and erbium YAG lasers, which enabled precise computerized control of laser beams. Dr. Avram characterized the CO2 laser as “the gold standard for facial rejuvenation, for sun-damaged skin. The downside of CO2 lasers is that they really need to be in skilled hands. There can be serious side effects such as scarring if it’s not done appropriately or there is not appropriate follow-up. The CO2 lasers have been used in fractional modes for scars. I think it’s the best treatment for scars.”
Dr. Anderson and Melanie Grossman, MD, who practices in New York City, developed the ruby laser for hair removal in the 1990s, and today that procedure ranks as the most common laser treatment in medicine, according to Dr. Avram. He described it as “safe and effective in skilled hands,” requiring about six treatments. Indications are for hypertrichosis, hirsutism (sometimes in the setting of polycystic ovary syndrome), pseudofolliculitis barbae, pilonidal cysts, and gender reassignment surgery.
Another game-changing technology developed by Dr. Anderson came in the early 2000s with the Food and Drug Administration clearance of the Fraxel laser, which is based on the concept of fractional photothermolysis. With this technology, “instead of treating skin to a certain depth, you treat a fraction of it, anywhere from 5% to 40% of the skin,” Dr. Avram explained. “You go in deeper, but you leave surrounding viable tissue that is not affected by the laser. That serves as viable tissue to promote healing. The laser goes in deeper but it’s fractional, so there are skip zones in between the lasers that are going into the skin. You can do this with the CO2 and erbium YAG lasers.” Since hitting the marketplace, the FDA has cleared the use of Fraxel for a number of indications, from periorbital wrinkles and acne scars to surgical scars and melasma.
Dr. Parrish predicted that the next frontier for the advancement of lasers in dermatology will involve the treatment of photodamaged skin. “I’m not sure which technology is going to win,” he said.
Dr. Avram anticipates that dermatologic lasers of the future are going to be more effective, safer, and result in less downtime for patients. “I think we are going to be able to treat skin of color more safely and more effectively, and I think we’re going to become much more successful,” he said. “At some point, the standard of care of treatment for skin cancer will involve lasers and light sources. With all the advances that have happened in the last 50 years, sometimes you wonder, are we at a time to pause, or is most of the story behind us? I think that the advances in innovation that are occurring are going to accelerate greatly as we pass the 50th anniversary. In due credit, laser therapy has completely revolutionized the field of dermatology and has completely revolutionized the way we practice medicine. That will only accelerate in the future.”
Dr. Alster emphasized a “safety first” approach to her hopes for the future. “My wish is that we educate people to know that, while lasers have become ubiquitous and we’ve made them safe, they’re still only safe in the right hands,” she said. “There’s not a day that goes by when I don’t have somebody referred to me who’s been mishandled. There’s no reason for that. With proper training, the risk of bad side effects or complications is markedly reduced.”
During her dermatology residency at Yale University in the late 1980s, Tina S. Alster, MD, met a 44-year-old woman who changed the trajectory of her professional career.
During her clinic visit, the woman explained that she always wore heavy facial makeup to hide her port-wine stain birthmark – a vascular malformation that she kept secret from her husband and teenage son. “She was very good about covering it,” recalled Dr. Alster, who is the founding director of the Washington Institute of Dermatologic Laser Surgery and clinical professor of dermatology at Georgetown University, Washington. “She removed a small amount of makeup for me so I could take a look at it. I had just finished reading an article about using a laser for birthmarks; it had just been published. I told her, ‘There’s something new; we don’t have it at Yale, but I read about treatment that could hone in on birthmarks.’ I promised her I would find out more details.”
A few days later, Dr. Alster pored through stacks of medical journals at Yale’s library and relocated the article she’d seen by first author Oon Tian Tan, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Boston University Medical Center. It described use of the flashpump-pulsed tunable dye laser to treat port-wine stains in 35 children (N Engl J Med. 1989;320:416-21). After giving the article a more thorough read, Dr. Alster became so intrigued by the technology it described that she moved to Boston the following year for a dermatology fellowship with Dr. Tan and joined the ranks of early clinicians who used lasers for treating port-wine stains and other dermatologic conditions.
“That was at a time when there were only a handful of pulsed dye lasers in the world, and the first time I used it was when I went to Boston,” she said. “It was life-changing. You think, ‘Isn’t this great for children with port-wine stains.’ Your heart breaks for them, but I also felt compassion for adults who had suffered a lifetime of stares, including the woman who propelled me to look into this. She ended up coming to Boston during my fellowship and had her birthmark removed, so I changed her life, but she changed mine as well.”
The real credit for that series of events, Dr. Alster continued, belongs to John A. Parrish, MD, and R. Rox Anderson, MD, who in 1983 published the concept of selective photothermolysis, a seminal work that shifted the paradigm for how lasers and other light sources are designed for skin diseases and conditions (Science. 1983 Apr 29;220(4596):524-7). The first pulsed dye laser was built on this concept, an approach that minimized or eliminated the unwanted tissue damage and significant scarring that impeded therapeutic use of laser energy for port-wine stains and other lesions prior to that time. “Lasers that were built subsequent to that seminal paper focused our attention on building lasers that were specific for treatment of certain skin conditions,” Dr. Alster said. “Selective photothermolysis catapulted not only our understanding of how lasers interact with the skin, but allowed us to identify things in the skin that we could potentially target with this new laser technology, and to build laser systems that were specific to those purposes.”
In the late 1970s, Dr. Parrish, who played a key role in making psoralens plus ultraviolet A safe and effective for patients with severe psoriasis, turned his attention to studying lasers in his lab at Harvard Medical School. He hired R. Rox Anderson, a recent graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as a technician. “Rox then got interested in medicine and went to medical school at Harvard, got interested in dermatology, and then worked in my lab a little bit more,” said Dr. Parrish, who founded the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
“Rox was interested in port-wine stains because of his rotation through pediatrics and was theorizing about how lasers could improve port-wine stains and hemangiomas. I think he first thought of that through the physics of what would be needed. He was thinking, ‘What are these hemangiomas under the microscope? What does the target look like, and what do you need to do to promote healing without scarring? You would have to be able to heat for this duration and this time and at this wavelength.’ He matched the physics of lasers with the pathophysiology of port-wine stains, and together we figured out how to deliver the right energy at the right wavelength at the right time. In fact, at the time, there was no ideal laser. We had to convince a laser manufacturer to build a tunable dye laser, which is what we ended up using around the specifications that we wanted for this treatment.”
Prior to the theory of selective photothermolysis, lasers were a blunt instrument. “They would target the skin but you wouldn’t just selectively target something; you’d get a result you didn’t want,” said Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Once pulsed dye lasers that incorporated principles of selective photothermolysis hit the marketplace, clinicians could treat and improve port-wine stains without scarring the skin. They could even improve scarring from port-wine stains that had been previously treated with the argon laser, the subject of early published work by Dr. Alster (Lasers Surg Med. 1993;13[3]:368-73). “When we treated port-wine stains with the pulsed dye laser on top of the argon laser scars, we observed that the scars were looking better,” Dr. Alster said. “From that observation, we were able to demonstrate improvement of a wide range of scars: traumatic and burn scars, surgical scars, acne scars, and scars caused by other lasers. But it all started with the pulsed dye laser for treating port-wine stains that had scars in them.”
, which enabled the user to deliver even shorter pulse widths in the nanosecond domain. “That changed tattoo treatment,” said Dr. Avram, who is also a past president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Prior to that, for tattoos and brown spots you would use ablative lasers like CO2 or dermabrasion. They would cause scarring and not really get rid of the tattoo ink or the brown spots. With the Q-switched nanosecond lasers and the picosecond lasers, which came about 15 years later, you had the ability to remove spots with a week of down time, and [they worked] for things like Nevus of Ota, where someone has a disfiguring blue-brown discoloration of their cheek. There’s no surgical treatment for that whatsoever. It’s not like you can take it out.”
Another key advancement was the introduction of “scanning” technology in the early 1990s for CO2 and erbium YAG lasers, which enabled precise computerized control of laser beams. Dr. Avram characterized the CO2 laser as “the gold standard for facial rejuvenation, for sun-damaged skin. The downside of CO2 lasers is that they really need to be in skilled hands. There can be serious side effects such as scarring if it’s not done appropriately or there is not appropriate follow-up. The CO2 lasers have been used in fractional modes for scars. I think it’s the best treatment for scars.”
Dr. Anderson and Melanie Grossman, MD, who practices in New York City, developed the ruby laser for hair removal in the 1990s, and today that procedure ranks as the most common laser treatment in medicine, according to Dr. Avram. He described it as “safe and effective in skilled hands,” requiring about six treatments. Indications are for hypertrichosis, hirsutism (sometimes in the setting of polycystic ovary syndrome), pseudofolliculitis barbae, pilonidal cysts, and gender reassignment surgery.
Another game-changing technology developed by Dr. Anderson came in the early 2000s with the Food and Drug Administration clearance of the Fraxel laser, which is based on the concept of fractional photothermolysis. With this technology, “instead of treating skin to a certain depth, you treat a fraction of it, anywhere from 5% to 40% of the skin,” Dr. Avram explained. “You go in deeper, but you leave surrounding viable tissue that is not affected by the laser. That serves as viable tissue to promote healing. The laser goes in deeper but it’s fractional, so there are skip zones in between the lasers that are going into the skin. You can do this with the CO2 and erbium YAG lasers.” Since hitting the marketplace, the FDA has cleared the use of Fraxel for a number of indications, from periorbital wrinkles and acne scars to surgical scars and melasma.
Dr. Parrish predicted that the next frontier for the advancement of lasers in dermatology will involve the treatment of photodamaged skin. “I’m not sure which technology is going to win,” he said.
Dr. Avram anticipates that dermatologic lasers of the future are going to be more effective, safer, and result in less downtime for patients. “I think we are going to be able to treat skin of color more safely and more effectively, and I think we’re going to become much more successful,” he said. “At some point, the standard of care of treatment for skin cancer will involve lasers and light sources. With all the advances that have happened in the last 50 years, sometimes you wonder, are we at a time to pause, or is most of the story behind us? I think that the advances in innovation that are occurring are going to accelerate greatly as we pass the 50th anniversary. In due credit, laser therapy has completely revolutionized the field of dermatology and has completely revolutionized the way we practice medicine. That will only accelerate in the future.”
Dr. Alster emphasized a “safety first” approach to her hopes for the future. “My wish is that we educate people to know that, while lasers have become ubiquitous and we’ve made them safe, they’re still only safe in the right hands,” she said. “There’s not a day that goes by when I don’t have somebody referred to me who’s been mishandled. There’s no reason for that. With proper training, the risk of bad side effects or complications is markedly reduced.”
During her dermatology residency at Yale University in the late 1980s, Tina S. Alster, MD, met a 44-year-old woman who changed the trajectory of her professional career.
During her clinic visit, the woman explained that she always wore heavy facial makeup to hide her port-wine stain birthmark – a vascular malformation that she kept secret from her husband and teenage son. “She was very good about covering it,” recalled Dr. Alster, who is the founding director of the Washington Institute of Dermatologic Laser Surgery and clinical professor of dermatology at Georgetown University, Washington. “She removed a small amount of makeup for me so I could take a look at it. I had just finished reading an article about using a laser for birthmarks; it had just been published. I told her, ‘There’s something new; we don’t have it at Yale, but I read about treatment that could hone in on birthmarks.’ I promised her I would find out more details.”
A few days later, Dr. Alster pored through stacks of medical journals at Yale’s library and relocated the article she’d seen by first author Oon Tian Tan, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Boston University Medical Center. It described use of the flashpump-pulsed tunable dye laser to treat port-wine stains in 35 children (N Engl J Med. 1989;320:416-21). After giving the article a more thorough read, Dr. Alster became so intrigued by the technology it described that she moved to Boston the following year for a dermatology fellowship with Dr. Tan and joined the ranks of early clinicians who used lasers for treating port-wine stains and other dermatologic conditions.
“That was at a time when there were only a handful of pulsed dye lasers in the world, and the first time I used it was when I went to Boston,” she said. “It was life-changing. You think, ‘Isn’t this great for children with port-wine stains.’ Your heart breaks for them, but I also felt compassion for adults who had suffered a lifetime of stares, including the woman who propelled me to look into this. She ended up coming to Boston during my fellowship and had her birthmark removed, so I changed her life, but she changed mine as well.”
The real credit for that series of events, Dr. Alster continued, belongs to John A. Parrish, MD, and R. Rox Anderson, MD, who in 1983 published the concept of selective photothermolysis, a seminal work that shifted the paradigm for how lasers and other light sources are designed for skin diseases and conditions (Science. 1983 Apr 29;220(4596):524-7). The first pulsed dye laser was built on this concept, an approach that minimized or eliminated the unwanted tissue damage and significant scarring that impeded therapeutic use of laser energy for port-wine stains and other lesions prior to that time. “Lasers that were built subsequent to that seminal paper focused our attention on building lasers that were specific for treatment of certain skin conditions,” Dr. Alster said. “Selective photothermolysis catapulted not only our understanding of how lasers interact with the skin, but allowed us to identify things in the skin that we could potentially target with this new laser technology, and to build laser systems that were specific to those purposes.”
In the late 1970s, Dr. Parrish, who played a key role in making psoralens plus ultraviolet A safe and effective for patients with severe psoriasis, turned his attention to studying lasers in his lab at Harvard Medical School. He hired R. Rox Anderson, a recent graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, as a technician. “Rox then got interested in medicine and went to medical school at Harvard, got interested in dermatology, and then worked in my lab a little bit more,” said Dr. Parrish, who founded the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.
“Rox was interested in port-wine stains because of his rotation through pediatrics and was theorizing about how lasers could improve port-wine stains and hemangiomas. I think he first thought of that through the physics of what would be needed. He was thinking, ‘What are these hemangiomas under the microscope? What does the target look like, and what do you need to do to promote healing without scarring? You would have to be able to heat for this duration and this time and at this wavelength.’ He matched the physics of lasers with the pathophysiology of port-wine stains, and together we figured out how to deliver the right energy at the right wavelength at the right time. In fact, at the time, there was no ideal laser. We had to convince a laser manufacturer to build a tunable dye laser, which is what we ended up using around the specifications that we wanted for this treatment.”
Prior to the theory of selective photothermolysis, lasers were a blunt instrument. “They would target the skin but you wouldn’t just selectively target something; you’d get a result you didn’t want,” said Mathew M. Avram, MD, JD, director of laser, cosmetics, and dermatologic surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital.
Once pulsed dye lasers that incorporated principles of selective photothermolysis hit the marketplace, clinicians could treat and improve port-wine stains without scarring the skin. They could even improve scarring from port-wine stains that had been previously treated with the argon laser, the subject of early published work by Dr. Alster (Lasers Surg Med. 1993;13[3]:368-73). “When we treated port-wine stains with the pulsed dye laser on top of the argon laser scars, we observed that the scars were looking better,” Dr. Alster said. “From that observation, we were able to demonstrate improvement of a wide range of scars: traumatic and burn scars, surgical scars, acne scars, and scars caused by other lasers. But it all started with the pulsed dye laser for treating port-wine stains that had scars in them.”
, which enabled the user to deliver even shorter pulse widths in the nanosecond domain. “That changed tattoo treatment,” said Dr. Avram, who is also a past president of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery. “Prior to that, for tattoos and brown spots you would use ablative lasers like CO2 or dermabrasion. They would cause scarring and not really get rid of the tattoo ink or the brown spots. With the Q-switched nanosecond lasers and the picosecond lasers, which came about 15 years later, you had the ability to remove spots with a week of down time, and [they worked] for things like Nevus of Ota, where someone has a disfiguring blue-brown discoloration of their cheek. There’s no surgical treatment for that whatsoever. It’s not like you can take it out.”
Another key advancement was the introduction of “scanning” technology in the early 1990s for CO2 and erbium YAG lasers, which enabled precise computerized control of laser beams. Dr. Avram characterized the CO2 laser as “the gold standard for facial rejuvenation, for sun-damaged skin. The downside of CO2 lasers is that they really need to be in skilled hands. There can be serious side effects such as scarring if it’s not done appropriately or there is not appropriate follow-up. The CO2 lasers have been used in fractional modes for scars. I think it’s the best treatment for scars.”
Dr. Anderson and Melanie Grossman, MD, who practices in New York City, developed the ruby laser for hair removal in the 1990s, and today that procedure ranks as the most common laser treatment in medicine, according to Dr. Avram. He described it as “safe and effective in skilled hands,” requiring about six treatments. Indications are for hypertrichosis, hirsutism (sometimes in the setting of polycystic ovary syndrome), pseudofolliculitis barbae, pilonidal cysts, and gender reassignment surgery.
Another game-changing technology developed by Dr. Anderson came in the early 2000s with the Food and Drug Administration clearance of the Fraxel laser, which is based on the concept of fractional photothermolysis. With this technology, “instead of treating skin to a certain depth, you treat a fraction of it, anywhere from 5% to 40% of the skin,” Dr. Avram explained. “You go in deeper, but you leave surrounding viable tissue that is not affected by the laser. That serves as viable tissue to promote healing. The laser goes in deeper but it’s fractional, so there are skip zones in between the lasers that are going into the skin. You can do this with the CO2 and erbium YAG lasers.” Since hitting the marketplace, the FDA has cleared the use of Fraxel for a number of indications, from periorbital wrinkles and acne scars to surgical scars and melasma.
Dr. Parrish predicted that the next frontier for the advancement of lasers in dermatology will involve the treatment of photodamaged skin. “I’m not sure which technology is going to win,” he said.
Dr. Avram anticipates that dermatologic lasers of the future are going to be more effective, safer, and result in less downtime for patients. “I think we are going to be able to treat skin of color more safely and more effectively, and I think we’re going to become much more successful,” he said. “At some point, the standard of care of treatment for skin cancer will involve lasers and light sources. With all the advances that have happened in the last 50 years, sometimes you wonder, are we at a time to pause, or is most of the story behind us? I think that the advances in innovation that are occurring are going to accelerate greatly as we pass the 50th anniversary. In due credit, laser therapy has completely revolutionized the field of dermatology and has completely revolutionized the way we practice medicine. That will only accelerate in the future.”
Dr. Alster emphasized a “safety first” approach to her hopes for the future. “My wish is that we educate people to know that, while lasers have become ubiquitous and we’ve made them safe, they’re still only safe in the right hands,” she said. “There’s not a day that goes by when I don’t have somebody referred to me who’s been mishandled. There’s no reason for that. With proper training, the risk of bad side effects or complications is markedly reduced.”
The interesting history of dermatologist-developed skin care
Those of you who have visited my dermatology practice in Miami know that the art in my office is dedicated to the history of the skin care industry. I collect , and I have written this historical column in honor of the 50th anniversary of Dermatology News.
The first doctor to market his own cosmetic product, Erasmus Wilson, MD, faced scrutiny from his colleagues. Although he had contributed much to the field of dermatology, he was criticized by other dermatologists when he promoted a hair wash. The next doctor in my story, William Pusey, MD, was criticized for helping the company that manufactured Camay soap because he allowed his name to be used in Camay advertisements. The scrutiny that these two well-respected dermatologists endured from their colleagues deterred dermatologists from entering the skin care business for decades. The professional jealousy from dermatologic colleagues left the skin care field wide open for imposters, charlatans, and nondermatologists who had no concern for efficacy and patient outcomes to flourish. This is the story of a group of brilliant entrepreneurial dermatologists and one chiropractor who misrepresented himself as a dermatologist and how they influenced skin care as we know it.
Erasmus Wilson, MD1 (1809-1884): In 1840, Erasmus Wilson2 was a physician in London who chose to specialize in dermatology at a time when that specialization was frowned upon. He was a subeditor for The Lancet and wrote several books on dermatology including “Diseases of the Skin – A Practical and Theoretical Treatise,” “Portraits of the Diseases of the Skin,” and “Student’s Book on Diseases of the Skin.” He was the first professor of dermatology in the College of Surgeons and by 1869, was the leading English-speaking dermatologist in the world. He contributed much to dermatology, including his pioneering characterizations of Demodex mites, lichen planus, exfoliative dermatitis, neurotic excoriations, and roseola. Dr. Wilson was knighted in 1881 for his good works and notable generosity. (He was known for giving his poor patients money for food, endowing chairs in dermatology, and donating a famous obelisk in London).
In 1854, Dr. Wilson wrote a book for laypeople called “Healthy Skin: A Popular Treatise on the Skin and Hair, Their Preservation and Management,” in which he advocated cleanliness and bathing, which led to the popularity of Turkish baths and bathing resorts in Europe. Despite his undeniable contributions to dermatology, he was widely criticized by his colleagues for promoting a “Hair Wash” and a turtle oil soap. I cannot find any information about whether or not he developed the hair wash and turtle soap himself, but it seems that he earned income from sales of these two products, even though he was said to have donated it all to charities.
William A. Pusey MD (1865-1940): Dr. Pusey was the first chairman of dermatology at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago. He published several books, including “Care of the Skin and Hair,” “Syphilis as a Modern Problem,” “The Principles and Practices of Dermatology,” and “History of Dermatology” among others. He is best known for his work in developing the use of x-rays (roentgen rays) and phototherapy in dermatology, and in 1907, he was the first dermatologist to describe the use of solid carbon dioxide to treat skin lesions. He was president of the American Dermatological Association in 1910, president of the Chicago Medical Society in 1918, editor of the Archives of Dermatology in 1920, and president of the American Medical Association in 1924.
In the early 1920s, skin care companies were beginning to advertise their products using endorsements from celebrities and socialites, and were making misleading claims. Dr. Pusey wanted to work with these companies to help them perform evidence-based trials so they could make scientifically correct claims. Proctor & Gamble asked Dr. Pusey to advise them on how they could advertise honestly about their new soap, “Camay.” In Dr. Pusey’s words,3 “they (Proctor & Gamble) wanted to give the public authoritative advice about the use of soap and water. They suggested that I get a group of dermatologists of my selection to examine the soap and prepare instructions for bathing and the use of soap, and, if they found this soap was of high quality, to certify to that effect.” The research was performed as he suggested, and he allowed his name to be used in the Camay soap ads from 1926 to 1929. He said that he allowed them to use his name hoping to promote the need for evidence-based research, in contrast to the skin care products endorsed by socialites and celebrities that were flooding the market around that time.
Herbert Rattner, MD, at Northwestern University, Chicago, was his friend and one of the many dermatologists who criticized Dr. Pusey for allowing his name to be used in the Camay ads. Dr. Pusey’s reply to the criticism (according to Dr. Rattner) was that Proctor & Gamble was “proposing to do what the medical profession always is criticizing commercial concerns for not doing, namely, coming to physicians for information on medical matters. Could the profession hope to have any influence with business concerns if it was always eager to criticize bad commercial practices but never willing to support good ones?”3
While Dr. Pusey felt his reasons for adding his name to the Camay ads and research were justified, many of his friends stated that in hindsight, he regretted the action because of the negative response of his colleagues. It was years before dermatologists began providing input again into the skin care industry. During that time, radio, television and print ads were rampant with misleading claims – which led the way for a dermatologic imposter to make a fortune on skin care.
John Woodbury (1851-1909): John Woodbury, a chiropractor, never went to medical school, but that did not stop him from claiming he was a dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon. In 1889, he opened the John H. Woodbury Dermatological Institute in New York City, and over the next few years, opened Woodbury Dermatological Institutes in at least 5 states and employed 25 “physicians” who were not licensed to practice medicine. He came out with face soaps, tonics, and cold creams and spent a fortune on advertising these products and his institutes. In 1901, he sold his “Woodbury Soap” to the Andrew Jergens Company for $212,500 and 10% in royalties.
Multiple lawsuits occurred from 1898 to 1907 because he continued using the Woodbury name on his own products, despite having sold the “Woodbury” trademark to Jergens. He was sued for practicing medicine without a medical license and claiming to be a dermatologist when he was not. He lost most of these lawsuits, including one in 1907 in which the court ruled that corporations may not employ unlicensed professionals to practice medicine. In 1909, John Woodbury committed suicide. The Woodbury Soap company flourished in the 1930s and 1940s, as part of Jergens, until the brand was discontinued in 1970 when Jergens was acquired by American Brands.
The next dermatologists to come along did not make the same mistakes as those of their predecessors. They all made scientific discoveries through their basic science research in the laboratory, filed patents, formed skin care companies, perfected the formulations, and conducted research trials of the final product. Their marketing focused on science and efficacy and only rarely used their names and images in advertising, allowing them to maintain their reputations in the dermatology field.
Eugene Van Scott, MD (1922-present): Dermatologist Dr. Van Scott and dermatopharmacologist Ruey Yu, PhD, filed a method patent in the early 1970s on the effectiveness of alpha hydroxy acids to treat ichthyosis. They invented the abbreviation “AHA” and have continued their work on organic acids to this day. They now have more than 125 patents, which they have licensed to 60 companies in the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries.
In 1988, 14 years after their initial publication, they founded the company they named Polystrata, which grew into today’s NeoStrata.4 Over the years, they had to defend their patents because many personal care companies used their technologies without licensing them. In 2007, they won a $41 million settlement in a patent infringement suit against Mary Kay filed in March 2005. They have both been very philanthropic in the dermatology world5 and are highly respected in the field. Among many other honors, Dr. Van Scott was named a Master Dermatologist by the American Academy of Dermatology in 1998 and received the Dermatology Foundation’s Distinguished Service Medallion in 2004.
Sheldon Pinnell, MD (1937-2013): After Dr. Pinnell completed his dermatology residency at Harvard Medical School, he spent 2 years studying collagen chemistry at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany. In 1973, he returned to Duke University where he had earned his undergraduate degree before attending Yale University. He remained at Duke for the duration of his career and was professor and chief of dermatology there for many years. Early in his career, he focused on the role of vitamin C in collagen biosynthesis and discovered some of the mechanisms by which sun exposure causes photoaging. He described the use of the first (and most popular) topically applied L-ascorbic acid (vitamin C) to prevent and treat skin aging.
Dr. Pinnell’s many discoveries include showing that the addition of ascorbic acid to fibroblast cultures increases collagen production and that topically applied L-ascorbic acid penetrates into the skin best at a pH of 2-2.5. Dr. Pinnell changed the way the world uses topical antioxidants today; he was widely respected and was a member of the American Dermatological Association and an honorary member of the Society of Investigative Dermatology. He published more than 200 scientific articles and held 10 patents. He started the skin care company Skinceuticals, based on his antioxidant technologies. It was acquired by L’Oreal in 2005.
Richard Fitzpatrick, MD (1944-2014): The dermatologist affectionately known as “Fitz” is credited with being the first to use lasers for skin resurfacing. He went to medical school at Emory University and did his dermatology residency at the University of California, Los Angeles. He authored more than 130 publications and was one of the first doctors to specialize in cosmetic dermatology. He realized that fibroblast cell cultures used to produce the collagen filler CosmoPlast (no longer on the market) generated many growth factors that could rejuvenate the skin, and in 1999, he launched the skin care brand SkinMedica. In 2000, he received a patent for fibroblast-derived growth factors used topically for antiaging – a formula he called Tissue Nutrient Solution. In 2001, the popular product TNS Recovery Complex was launched based on the patented growth factor technology. It is still the most popular growth factor technology on the market.
What can we learn from these pioneers? I have had several interesting discussions about this topic with Leonard Hoenig, MD, section editor for Reflections on Dermatology: Past, Present, and Future, in Clinics in Dermatology. (Dr. Hoenig told me the interesting story that Listerine mouthwash was named in honor of Joseph Lister but accounts vary as to whether he gave permission to do so. This makes Dr. Lister the most famous physician to endorse a personal care product.) When Dr. Hoenig and I discussed the ethics of dermatologists creating a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice, he stated my sentiments perfectly: “We should rely on professional, ethical, and legal guidelines to help us do what is right. Most importantly, we should have the best interests of our patients at heart when recommending any treatments.”
Dermatologists have unique knowledge, experience, and perspective on treating the skin with topical agents and have the true desire to improve skin health. If we do not discover, research, patent, and develop efficacious skin care products, someone else will do it – and I do not think they will do it as well as a dermatologist can.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Everett MA. Int J Dermatol. 1978 May;17(4):345-52.
2. Moxon RK. N Engl J Med. 1976 Apr 1;294(14):762-4.
3. Rattner H. Arch Derm Syphilol. 1937;35(1):25-66.
4. Neostrata: More than Hope, by Elaine Strauss, U.S. 1 Newspaper, Feb. 24, 1999.
5. Two legends in the field of dermatology provide $1 million gift to Temple University school of medicine’s department of dermatology, Temple University, June 5, 2015.
Those of you who have visited my dermatology practice in Miami know that the art in my office is dedicated to the history of the skin care industry. I collect , and I have written this historical column in honor of the 50th anniversary of Dermatology News.
The first doctor to market his own cosmetic product, Erasmus Wilson, MD, faced scrutiny from his colleagues. Although he had contributed much to the field of dermatology, he was criticized by other dermatologists when he promoted a hair wash. The next doctor in my story, William Pusey, MD, was criticized for helping the company that manufactured Camay soap because he allowed his name to be used in Camay advertisements. The scrutiny that these two well-respected dermatologists endured from their colleagues deterred dermatologists from entering the skin care business for decades. The professional jealousy from dermatologic colleagues left the skin care field wide open for imposters, charlatans, and nondermatologists who had no concern for efficacy and patient outcomes to flourish. This is the story of a group of brilliant entrepreneurial dermatologists and one chiropractor who misrepresented himself as a dermatologist and how they influenced skin care as we know it.
Erasmus Wilson, MD1 (1809-1884): In 1840, Erasmus Wilson2 was a physician in London who chose to specialize in dermatology at a time when that specialization was frowned upon. He was a subeditor for The Lancet and wrote several books on dermatology including “Diseases of the Skin – A Practical and Theoretical Treatise,” “Portraits of the Diseases of the Skin,” and “Student’s Book on Diseases of the Skin.” He was the first professor of dermatology in the College of Surgeons and by 1869, was the leading English-speaking dermatologist in the world. He contributed much to dermatology, including his pioneering characterizations of Demodex mites, lichen planus, exfoliative dermatitis, neurotic excoriations, and roseola. Dr. Wilson was knighted in 1881 for his good works and notable generosity. (He was known for giving his poor patients money for food, endowing chairs in dermatology, and donating a famous obelisk in London).
In 1854, Dr. Wilson wrote a book for laypeople called “Healthy Skin: A Popular Treatise on the Skin and Hair, Their Preservation and Management,” in which he advocated cleanliness and bathing, which led to the popularity of Turkish baths and bathing resorts in Europe. Despite his undeniable contributions to dermatology, he was widely criticized by his colleagues for promoting a “Hair Wash” and a turtle oil soap. I cannot find any information about whether or not he developed the hair wash and turtle soap himself, but it seems that he earned income from sales of these two products, even though he was said to have donated it all to charities.
William A. Pusey MD (1865-1940): Dr. Pusey was the first chairman of dermatology at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago. He published several books, including “Care of the Skin and Hair,” “Syphilis as a Modern Problem,” “The Principles and Practices of Dermatology,” and “History of Dermatology” among others. He is best known for his work in developing the use of x-rays (roentgen rays) and phototherapy in dermatology, and in 1907, he was the first dermatologist to describe the use of solid carbon dioxide to treat skin lesions. He was president of the American Dermatological Association in 1910, president of the Chicago Medical Society in 1918, editor of the Archives of Dermatology in 1920, and president of the American Medical Association in 1924.
In the early 1920s, skin care companies were beginning to advertise their products using endorsements from celebrities and socialites, and were making misleading claims. Dr. Pusey wanted to work with these companies to help them perform evidence-based trials so they could make scientifically correct claims. Proctor & Gamble asked Dr. Pusey to advise them on how they could advertise honestly about their new soap, “Camay.” In Dr. Pusey’s words,3 “they (Proctor & Gamble) wanted to give the public authoritative advice about the use of soap and water. They suggested that I get a group of dermatologists of my selection to examine the soap and prepare instructions for bathing and the use of soap, and, if they found this soap was of high quality, to certify to that effect.” The research was performed as he suggested, and he allowed his name to be used in the Camay soap ads from 1926 to 1929. He said that he allowed them to use his name hoping to promote the need for evidence-based research, in contrast to the skin care products endorsed by socialites and celebrities that were flooding the market around that time.
Herbert Rattner, MD, at Northwestern University, Chicago, was his friend and one of the many dermatologists who criticized Dr. Pusey for allowing his name to be used in the Camay ads. Dr. Pusey’s reply to the criticism (according to Dr. Rattner) was that Proctor & Gamble was “proposing to do what the medical profession always is criticizing commercial concerns for not doing, namely, coming to physicians for information on medical matters. Could the profession hope to have any influence with business concerns if it was always eager to criticize bad commercial practices but never willing to support good ones?”3
While Dr. Pusey felt his reasons for adding his name to the Camay ads and research were justified, many of his friends stated that in hindsight, he regretted the action because of the negative response of his colleagues. It was years before dermatologists began providing input again into the skin care industry. During that time, radio, television and print ads were rampant with misleading claims – which led the way for a dermatologic imposter to make a fortune on skin care.
John Woodbury (1851-1909): John Woodbury, a chiropractor, never went to medical school, but that did not stop him from claiming he was a dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon. In 1889, he opened the John H. Woodbury Dermatological Institute in New York City, and over the next few years, opened Woodbury Dermatological Institutes in at least 5 states and employed 25 “physicians” who were not licensed to practice medicine. He came out with face soaps, tonics, and cold creams and spent a fortune on advertising these products and his institutes. In 1901, he sold his “Woodbury Soap” to the Andrew Jergens Company for $212,500 and 10% in royalties.
Multiple lawsuits occurred from 1898 to 1907 because he continued using the Woodbury name on his own products, despite having sold the “Woodbury” trademark to Jergens. He was sued for practicing medicine without a medical license and claiming to be a dermatologist when he was not. He lost most of these lawsuits, including one in 1907 in which the court ruled that corporations may not employ unlicensed professionals to practice medicine. In 1909, John Woodbury committed suicide. The Woodbury Soap company flourished in the 1930s and 1940s, as part of Jergens, until the brand was discontinued in 1970 when Jergens was acquired by American Brands.
The next dermatologists to come along did not make the same mistakes as those of their predecessors. They all made scientific discoveries through their basic science research in the laboratory, filed patents, formed skin care companies, perfected the formulations, and conducted research trials of the final product. Their marketing focused on science and efficacy and only rarely used their names and images in advertising, allowing them to maintain their reputations in the dermatology field.
Eugene Van Scott, MD (1922-present): Dermatologist Dr. Van Scott and dermatopharmacologist Ruey Yu, PhD, filed a method patent in the early 1970s on the effectiveness of alpha hydroxy acids to treat ichthyosis. They invented the abbreviation “AHA” and have continued their work on organic acids to this day. They now have more than 125 patents, which they have licensed to 60 companies in the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries.
In 1988, 14 years after their initial publication, they founded the company they named Polystrata, which grew into today’s NeoStrata.4 Over the years, they had to defend their patents because many personal care companies used their technologies without licensing them. In 2007, they won a $41 million settlement in a patent infringement suit against Mary Kay filed in March 2005. They have both been very philanthropic in the dermatology world5 and are highly respected in the field. Among many other honors, Dr. Van Scott was named a Master Dermatologist by the American Academy of Dermatology in 1998 and received the Dermatology Foundation’s Distinguished Service Medallion in 2004.
Sheldon Pinnell, MD (1937-2013): After Dr. Pinnell completed his dermatology residency at Harvard Medical School, he spent 2 years studying collagen chemistry at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany. In 1973, he returned to Duke University where he had earned his undergraduate degree before attending Yale University. He remained at Duke for the duration of his career and was professor and chief of dermatology there for many years. Early in his career, he focused on the role of vitamin C in collagen biosynthesis and discovered some of the mechanisms by which sun exposure causes photoaging. He described the use of the first (and most popular) topically applied L-ascorbic acid (vitamin C) to prevent and treat skin aging.
Dr. Pinnell’s many discoveries include showing that the addition of ascorbic acid to fibroblast cultures increases collagen production and that topically applied L-ascorbic acid penetrates into the skin best at a pH of 2-2.5. Dr. Pinnell changed the way the world uses topical antioxidants today; he was widely respected and was a member of the American Dermatological Association and an honorary member of the Society of Investigative Dermatology. He published more than 200 scientific articles and held 10 patents. He started the skin care company Skinceuticals, based on his antioxidant technologies. It was acquired by L’Oreal in 2005.
Richard Fitzpatrick, MD (1944-2014): The dermatologist affectionately known as “Fitz” is credited with being the first to use lasers for skin resurfacing. He went to medical school at Emory University and did his dermatology residency at the University of California, Los Angeles. He authored more than 130 publications and was one of the first doctors to specialize in cosmetic dermatology. He realized that fibroblast cell cultures used to produce the collagen filler CosmoPlast (no longer on the market) generated many growth factors that could rejuvenate the skin, and in 1999, he launched the skin care brand SkinMedica. In 2000, he received a patent for fibroblast-derived growth factors used topically for antiaging – a formula he called Tissue Nutrient Solution. In 2001, the popular product TNS Recovery Complex was launched based on the patented growth factor technology. It is still the most popular growth factor technology on the market.
What can we learn from these pioneers? I have had several interesting discussions about this topic with Leonard Hoenig, MD, section editor for Reflections on Dermatology: Past, Present, and Future, in Clinics in Dermatology. (Dr. Hoenig told me the interesting story that Listerine mouthwash was named in honor of Joseph Lister but accounts vary as to whether he gave permission to do so. This makes Dr. Lister the most famous physician to endorse a personal care product.) When Dr. Hoenig and I discussed the ethics of dermatologists creating a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice, he stated my sentiments perfectly: “We should rely on professional, ethical, and legal guidelines to help us do what is right. Most importantly, we should have the best interests of our patients at heart when recommending any treatments.”
Dermatologists have unique knowledge, experience, and perspective on treating the skin with topical agents and have the true desire to improve skin health. If we do not discover, research, patent, and develop efficacious skin care products, someone else will do it – and I do not think they will do it as well as a dermatologist can.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Everett MA. Int J Dermatol. 1978 May;17(4):345-52.
2. Moxon RK. N Engl J Med. 1976 Apr 1;294(14):762-4.
3. Rattner H. Arch Derm Syphilol. 1937;35(1):25-66.
4. Neostrata: More than Hope, by Elaine Strauss, U.S. 1 Newspaper, Feb. 24, 1999.
5. Two legends in the field of dermatology provide $1 million gift to Temple University school of medicine’s department of dermatology, Temple University, June 5, 2015.
Those of you who have visited my dermatology practice in Miami know that the art in my office is dedicated to the history of the skin care industry. I collect , and I have written this historical column in honor of the 50th anniversary of Dermatology News.
The first doctor to market his own cosmetic product, Erasmus Wilson, MD, faced scrutiny from his colleagues. Although he had contributed much to the field of dermatology, he was criticized by other dermatologists when he promoted a hair wash. The next doctor in my story, William Pusey, MD, was criticized for helping the company that manufactured Camay soap because he allowed his name to be used in Camay advertisements. The scrutiny that these two well-respected dermatologists endured from their colleagues deterred dermatologists from entering the skin care business for decades. The professional jealousy from dermatologic colleagues left the skin care field wide open for imposters, charlatans, and nondermatologists who had no concern for efficacy and patient outcomes to flourish. This is the story of a group of brilliant entrepreneurial dermatologists and one chiropractor who misrepresented himself as a dermatologist and how they influenced skin care as we know it.
Erasmus Wilson, MD1 (1809-1884): In 1840, Erasmus Wilson2 was a physician in London who chose to specialize in dermatology at a time when that specialization was frowned upon. He was a subeditor for The Lancet and wrote several books on dermatology including “Diseases of the Skin – A Practical and Theoretical Treatise,” “Portraits of the Diseases of the Skin,” and “Student’s Book on Diseases of the Skin.” He was the first professor of dermatology in the College of Surgeons and by 1869, was the leading English-speaking dermatologist in the world. He contributed much to dermatology, including his pioneering characterizations of Demodex mites, lichen planus, exfoliative dermatitis, neurotic excoriations, and roseola. Dr. Wilson was knighted in 1881 for his good works and notable generosity. (He was known for giving his poor patients money for food, endowing chairs in dermatology, and donating a famous obelisk in London).
In 1854, Dr. Wilson wrote a book for laypeople called “Healthy Skin: A Popular Treatise on the Skin and Hair, Their Preservation and Management,” in which he advocated cleanliness and bathing, which led to the popularity of Turkish baths and bathing resorts in Europe. Despite his undeniable contributions to dermatology, he was widely criticized by his colleagues for promoting a “Hair Wash” and a turtle oil soap. I cannot find any information about whether or not he developed the hair wash and turtle soap himself, but it seems that he earned income from sales of these two products, even though he was said to have donated it all to charities.
William A. Pusey MD (1865-1940): Dr. Pusey was the first chairman of dermatology at the University of Illinois College of Medicine, Chicago. He published several books, including “Care of the Skin and Hair,” “Syphilis as a Modern Problem,” “The Principles and Practices of Dermatology,” and “History of Dermatology” among others. He is best known for his work in developing the use of x-rays (roentgen rays) and phototherapy in dermatology, and in 1907, he was the first dermatologist to describe the use of solid carbon dioxide to treat skin lesions. He was president of the American Dermatological Association in 1910, president of the Chicago Medical Society in 1918, editor of the Archives of Dermatology in 1920, and president of the American Medical Association in 1924.
In the early 1920s, skin care companies were beginning to advertise their products using endorsements from celebrities and socialites, and were making misleading claims. Dr. Pusey wanted to work with these companies to help them perform evidence-based trials so they could make scientifically correct claims. Proctor & Gamble asked Dr. Pusey to advise them on how they could advertise honestly about their new soap, “Camay.” In Dr. Pusey’s words,3 “they (Proctor & Gamble) wanted to give the public authoritative advice about the use of soap and water. They suggested that I get a group of dermatologists of my selection to examine the soap and prepare instructions for bathing and the use of soap, and, if they found this soap was of high quality, to certify to that effect.” The research was performed as he suggested, and he allowed his name to be used in the Camay soap ads from 1926 to 1929. He said that he allowed them to use his name hoping to promote the need for evidence-based research, in contrast to the skin care products endorsed by socialites and celebrities that were flooding the market around that time.
Herbert Rattner, MD, at Northwestern University, Chicago, was his friend and one of the many dermatologists who criticized Dr. Pusey for allowing his name to be used in the Camay ads. Dr. Pusey’s reply to the criticism (according to Dr. Rattner) was that Proctor & Gamble was “proposing to do what the medical profession always is criticizing commercial concerns for not doing, namely, coming to physicians for information on medical matters. Could the profession hope to have any influence with business concerns if it was always eager to criticize bad commercial practices but never willing to support good ones?”3
While Dr. Pusey felt his reasons for adding his name to the Camay ads and research were justified, many of his friends stated that in hindsight, he regretted the action because of the negative response of his colleagues. It was years before dermatologists began providing input again into the skin care industry. During that time, radio, television and print ads were rampant with misleading claims – which led the way for a dermatologic imposter to make a fortune on skin care.
John Woodbury (1851-1909): John Woodbury, a chiropractor, never went to medical school, but that did not stop him from claiming he was a dermatologist and cosmetic surgeon. In 1889, he opened the John H. Woodbury Dermatological Institute in New York City, and over the next few years, opened Woodbury Dermatological Institutes in at least 5 states and employed 25 “physicians” who were not licensed to practice medicine. He came out with face soaps, tonics, and cold creams and spent a fortune on advertising these products and his institutes. In 1901, he sold his “Woodbury Soap” to the Andrew Jergens Company for $212,500 and 10% in royalties.
Multiple lawsuits occurred from 1898 to 1907 because he continued using the Woodbury name on his own products, despite having sold the “Woodbury” trademark to Jergens. He was sued for practicing medicine without a medical license and claiming to be a dermatologist when he was not. He lost most of these lawsuits, including one in 1907 in which the court ruled that corporations may not employ unlicensed professionals to practice medicine. In 1909, John Woodbury committed suicide. The Woodbury Soap company flourished in the 1930s and 1940s, as part of Jergens, until the brand was discontinued in 1970 when Jergens was acquired by American Brands.
The next dermatologists to come along did not make the same mistakes as those of their predecessors. They all made scientific discoveries through their basic science research in the laboratory, filed patents, formed skin care companies, perfected the formulations, and conducted research trials of the final product. Their marketing focused on science and efficacy and only rarely used their names and images in advertising, allowing them to maintain their reputations in the dermatology field.
Eugene Van Scott, MD (1922-present): Dermatologist Dr. Van Scott and dermatopharmacologist Ruey Yu, PhD, filed a method patent in the early 1970s on the effectiveness of alpha hydroxy acids to treat ichthyosis. They invented the abbreviation “AHA” and have continued their work on organic acids to this day. They now have more than 125 patents, which they have licensed to 60 companies in the cosmetics and pharmaceutical industries.
In 1988, 14 years after their initial publication, they founded the company they named Polystrata, which grew into today’s NeoStrata.4 Over the years, they had to defend their patents because many personal care companies used their technologies without licensing them. In 2007, they won a $41 million settlement in a patent infringement suit against Mary Kay filed in March 2005. They have both been very philanthropic in the dermatology world5 and are highly respected in the field. Among many other honors, Dr. Van Scott was named a Master Dermatologist by the American Academy of Dermatology in 1998 and received the Dermatology Foundation’s Distinguished Service Medallion in 2004.
Sheldon Pinnell, MD (1937-2013): After Dr. Pinnell completed his dermatology residency at Harvard Medical School, he spent 2 years studying collagen chemistry at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany. In 1973, he returned to Duke University where he had earned his undergraduate degree before attending Yale University. He remained at Duke for the duration of his career and was professor and chief of dermatology there for many years. Early in his career, he focused on the role of vitamin C in collagen biosynthesis and discovered some of the mechanisms by which sun exposure causes photoaging. He described the use of the first (and most popular) topically applied L-ascorbic acid (vitamin C) to prevent and treat skin aging.
Dr. Pinnell’s many discoveries include showing that the addition of ascorbic acid to fibroblast cultures increases collagen production and that topically applied L-ascorbic acid penetrates into the skin best at a pH of 2-2.5. Dr. Pinnell changed the way the world uses topical antioxidants today; he was widely respected and was a member of the American Dermatological Association and an honorary member of the Society of Investigative Dermatology. He published more than 200 scientific articles and held 10 patents. He started the skin care company Skinceuticals, based on his antioxidant technologies. It was acquired by L’Oreal in 2005.
Richard Fitzpatrick, MD (1944-2014): The dermatologist affectionately known as “Fitz” is credited with being the first to use lasers for skin resurfacing. He went to medical school at Emory University and did his dermatology residency at the University of California, Los Angeles. He authored more than 130 publications and was one of the first doctors to specialize in cosmetic dermatology. He realized that fibroblast cell cultures used to produce the collagen filler CosmoPlast (no longer on the market) generated many growth factors that could rejuvenate the skin, and in 1999, he launched the skin care brand SkinMedica. In 2000, he received a patent for fibroblast-derived growth factors used topically for antiaging – a formula he called Tissue Nutrient Solution. In 2001, the popular product TNS Recovery Complex was launched based on the patented growth factor technology. It is still the most popular growth factor technology on the market.
What can we learn from these pioneers? I have had several interesting discussions about this topic with Leonard Hoenig, MD, section editor for Reflections on Dermatology: Past, Present, and Future, in Clinics in Dermatology. (Dr. Hoenig told me the interesting story that Listerine mouthwash was named in honor of Joseph Lister but accounts vary as to whether he gave permission to do so. This makes Dr. Lister the most famous physician to endorse a personal care product.) When Dr. Hoenig and I discussed the ethics of dermatologists creating a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice, he stated my sentiments perfectly: “We should rely on professional, ethical, and legal guidelines to help us do what is right. Most importantly, we should have the best interests of our patients at heart when recommending any treatments.”
Dermatologists have unique knowledge, experience, and perspective on treating the skin with topical agents and have the true desire to improve skin health. If we do not discover, research, patent, and develop efficacious skin care products, someone else will do it – and I do not think they will do it as well as a dermatologist can.
Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].
References
1. Everett MA. Int J Dermatol. 1978 May;17(4):345-52.
2. Moxon RK. N Engl J Med. 1976 Apr 1;294(14):762-4.
3. Rattner H. Arch Derm Syphilol. 1937;35(1):25-66.
4. Neostrata: More than Hope, by Elaine Strauss, U.S. 1 Newspaper, Feb. 24, 1999.
5. Two legends in the field of dermatology provide $1 million gift to Temple University school of medicine’s department of dermatology, Temple University, June 5, 2015.