Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2021;00:1–8.
|
1wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/phpp
1 | INTRODUCTION
Chronic exposure to sunlight is known to have detrimental effects
on human skin by causing skin cancer. In this regard, the use of
sunscreens has received considerable attention and correspond-
ing public campaigns have been conducted to educate consum-
ers that regular sunscreen use can effectively reduce skin cancer
risk.1- 3
In addition to causing skin cancer, exposure to sunlight also
contributes to extrinsic skin aging. Until recently, exposure to
solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation was regarded as the major, if not
the only, cause of extrinsic skin aging. As one consequence, cos-
metic products for daily photoprotection have been advocated
as a potentially effective preventive measure to slow down skin
aging. More recently, however, it has become increasingly clear
that the situation is much more complex. The solar spectrum is
Received: 7 Decemb er 2020
|
Revised: 10 March 2021
|
Accepted: 19 April 2021
DOI: 10.1111/phpp.12688
REVIEW ARTICLE
Daily photoprotection to prevent photoaging
Jean Krutmann1,2 | Sérgio Schalka3 | Rachel Elizabeth Beatrice Watson4,5,6 |
Liu Wei7 | Akimichi Morita8
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial- NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in
any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non- commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2021 The Authors. Photodermatology, Photoimmunology & Photomedicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
1IUF Leibniz Research Institute for
Environmental Medicine, Dusseldorf,
Germany
2Medical faculty, Heinrich- Heine- University,
Dusseldorf, Germany
3Medcin Skin research Center and
Biochemistry Department, Chemistry
Institute of São Paulo University, São Paulo,
Brazil
4Centre for Dermatology Research, The
University of Manchester & Salford Royal
NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK
5Manchester Institute for Collaborative
Research on Ageing, University of
Manchester, Manchester, UK
6NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research
Centre, Manchester University NHS
Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic
Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
7Department of Dermatology, The General
Hospital of Air Force PLA, Beijing, China
8Department of Geriatric and Environmental
Dermatology, Nagoya City University
Graduate School of Medical Sciences,
Nagoya, Japan
Correspondence
Jean Krutmann, IUF Leibniz Research
Institute for Environmental Medicine,
Dusseldorf, Germany.
Email: Jean.Krutmann@IUF-Duesseldorf.de
Abstract
Background: Extrinsic skin aging or photoaging was previously thought to be almost
exclusively due to solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation. However, recent literature has de-
scribed other contributing factors and clarification is thus required as to what extent
and what type of daily photoprotection is needed to mitigate extrinsic skin aging.
Methods: We reviewed the existing scientific evidence on daily photoprotection, and
specific requirements at the product level, to prevent extrinsic skin aging. We criti-
cally reviewed the existing evidence on potential ecological and toxicological risks
which might be associated with daily photoprotection.
Results: Evidence shows that broad protection against the entire solar range of UVB,
UVA, UVA1, visible light, and short infrared (IRA) is required to prevent extrinsic aging.
Other exposome factors, such as air pollution and smoking, also contribute to skin aging.
Daily broad- spectrum sunscreen photoprotection should thus contain antioxidant ingre-
dients for additional benefits against UV, IRA, and pollution- induced oxidative stress as
well as anti- aging active ingredients to provide clinical benefits against skin aging signs,
such as wrinkles and dark spots. Broad- spectrum sunscreen containing pigments, such
as iron oxide, may be required for melasma prevention. There is no conclusive clinical
evidence that daily sunscreen use is unsafe or that it compromises vitamin D synthesis.
Conclusion: Daily use of broad- spectrum sunscreen containing antioxidant and anti-
aging active ingredients can effectively reduce extrinsic aging.
KEY WORDS
photoaging, photoprotection, pigmentary disorders, sunscreens, wrinkles
2
|
KRUTMANN eT Al .
composed of various wavelengths and there are wavelengths in
other spectral regions beyond UV which contribute to extrinsic
skin aging. Furthermore, it is now generally accepted that the skin
aging exposome includes several other factors, such as air pollu-
tion and tobacco smoke.4 This leaves consumers unsure as to what
extent and what type of daily photoprotection is needed to pre-
vent external skin aging. Furthermore, ecological and toxicological
concerns have been raised about the daily use of sunscreen prod-
ucts. We therefore felt it was appropriate and timely to review the
existing scientific evidence that daily photoprotection is efficient
in preventing extrinsic skin aging. Finally, we discuss specific re-
quirements at the product level and critically review the existing
evidence as it concerns ecological and toxicological risks which
might be associated with daily photoprotection.
2 | CLINICAL SIGNS OF EXTRINSIC SKIN
AGING
Wrinkles, laxity, roughness and telangiectasia are clinical hallmarks
of both intrinsic and extrinsic skin aging processes, while pigmen-
tary conditions (including lentigines, post- inflammatory hyperpig-
mentation [PIHP], melasma), yellowing and uneven skin tone are
strongly linked to extrinsic skin aging and usually observed on the
face, neck, chest, and dorsal hands.5 - 7 Clinical signs of photoaging
differ depending on age, gender, and especially skin phototype and
ethnicity.8- 1 2 In general, wrinkles appear 10- 20 years earlier in fair
skin than in Asian skin, while dark- skinned individuals from Asian
and African ethnic groups are more prone to actinic lentigines and
hyperpigmentation.8,9
3 | THE ROLE OF ULTR AVIOLET B AND
ULTRAVIOLET A IN PHOTOAGING
Acute UVB irradiation results in decreased dermal and epidermal
hyaluronic acid (HA) content and photoexposed skin is characterized
by distinct homeostasis of HA.13,14 Skin aging is associated with loss
of skin moisture and one dramatic histochemical change observed
in aged skin is the marked disappearance of epidermal HA that has
unique capacity in retaining water.15
Both UVB (290- 320 nm) and UVA (320- 400 nm), particularly
long- wave UVA1 (340- 400 nm), cause photoaging. Because of its
physical properties, UVB radiation mainly affects the epidermis,
whereas UVA rays can penetrate more deeply into the dermal
compartment and directly affect dermal fibroblasts. The dermis
is the skin compartment which is primarily affected by photoa-
ging. UVB effects on the dermis are thus thought to be mediated
by keratinocyte- derived, UVB- inducible soluble mediators such as
selected cytokines, but also matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs),
which diffuse down into the dermis where they affect the extracel-
lular matrix (ECM).16 In contrast, long- wave UVA (UVA1) radiation
can directly cause macromolecular damage in dermal fibroblasts
and generate mitochondrial DNA deletions for example. Recent
evidence suggests that there is interplay between these mecha-
nisms, resulting in controlled dermal ECM turnover.17 Over time,
these result in fibroblast senescence and the production of a fi-
broblast secretome, which is thought to be a major driver of skin
aging.18
In vitro, ex vivo and in vivo studies in human skin cells, 3- D skin
models and human skin are consistent with the assumption that both
UVB and UVA rays contribute to the formation of skin wrinkles and
the development of uneven skin pigmentation, including the genera-
tion of age spots (solar lentigines).19,2 0
It has been demonstrated that UVA1 exposure induces skin
darkening to a similar extent in skin phototypes III to VI with sim-
ilar cellular changes in all skin phototypes, which highlights the
importance of broad- spectrum sunscreen even in dark- skinned
individuals.21
4 | THE ROLE OF VISIBLE LIGHT
AND INFRARED A RADIATION IN SKIN
PHOTOAGING
Although chronic UV exposure is widely considered as the major
cause of photoaging, all spectral regions (UV, visible light [VL] and
near infrared [IR]) cause free radical formation and hence can pro-
mote premature skin aging by modulating the expression of ECM
molecules, MMPs, and inflammatory cell infiltration in human
skin.22- 2 6 Visible light and short infrared (IR A) penetrate into the
hypodermis and thus could potentially impact all the compartments
of the skin. Furthermore, VL and IRA may play a role in photoaging
in both light and darker skin types so even people with darker skin
need solar protection.27, 28
IRC (3000 nm- 1 mm) and IRB (1400- 3000 nm) are absorbed at
the skin surface or the upper layers of the epidermis and do not con-
tribute to skin aging. In contrast, IRA (700- 1400 nm) can penetrate
deeper to directly affect cells in the epidermis, dermis, and subcu-
tis to contribute to photoaging.29 Both murine and human studies
showed that IRA causes wrinkles.25 Furthermore, IRA radiation has
been shown to induce MMP- 1 upregulation, which was reduced by
applying a sunscreen supplemented with an antioxidant cocktail,
whereas sunscreen alone did not protect against IR A.30
The relevance of VL for skin aging remains unclear and there has
been no demonstration of skin wrinkling induced by VL.31, 32 VL, as
well as synergistic effects of long- wavelength UVA1 and VL, have
been shown to induce long- lasting skin pigmentation in dark skin
but not in fair- skinned individuals,33,34 and it likely interacts with
the same melanin precursor as UV.35 The shorter wavelengths of
VL (blue- violet light), via the opsin 3 receptor in melanocytes, cause
melanin synthesis.36, 37 There is also circumstantial evidence that VL
might also contribute to the pathogenesis of melasma,38 which might
be viewed as a form of skin aging.39 Adding VL protec tion (iron oxide)
in a well- balanced UVB/UVA containing sunscreen significantly de-
creased hyperpigmentation.40
|
3
KRUTMA NN eT Al.
5 | EXPOSOME FACTORS BEYOND SOLAR
RADIATION CONTRIBUTE TO PHOTOAGING
In addition to solar radiation (UV, VL, IR), other exposome factors
may contribute to skin aging, including air pollution, smoking, and
lifestyle factors (nutrition and sleeping patterns).4,41 Both epide-
miological and mechanistic studies have demonstrated a role of
traffic- related air pollution exposure (particulate matter [PM], soot
and nitrogen dioxide) and tropospheric ozone skin damage causing
premature skin aging with lentigines and/or wrinkle formation in
Caucasians and East Asians.4, 41- 45 Epidemiological findings sug-
gest that associations of UV radiation with facial skin aging can
be negatively affected by PM exposure, which might be explained
by the fact that increased PM concentrations in the troposphere
reflect and absorb UV rays and thereby reduce the UVB dose
reaching the skin. Under certain circumstances, however, UV and
PM might be additive for skin aging, as was suggested by in vitro
experiments assessing a combined effect of pollution and UVA1
on the skin.46, 47 Additionally, tobacco smoke is an important envi-
ronmental factor that has been associated with skin aging, causing
increased wrinkles and tissue laxity, driven by loss of dermal elas-
tic fibers48; smoking also results in pigmentary changes, including
hyperpigmentation.4 9 - 5 1 To protect against high exposure to air
pollution, broad- spectrum sunscreens should be combined with
additional skin care benefits, for example, antioxidants, to pre-
vent skin pigmentation and extracellular matrix degradation.52 ,53
Ideally daily photoprotection strategies should include complete
protection against all factors of photoaging.
6 | DOES DAILY PHOTOPROTECTION
WITH BROAD- SPECTRUM SUNSCREEN
PREVENT PHOTOAGING?
Initial studies in Caucasians showed that daily use of topical, broad-
spectrum sunscreen prevents photoaging.
In the first study, the effects of chronic sunscreen use on the
histologic changes of photoaging were evaluated in 46 patients of
mean age 63 years and with a history of skin cancer who were ran-
domized to apply either sun protec tion factor (SPF) 29 UVB/ UVA
(short wavelength UVA2) sunscreen or vehicle daily for 24 months.
At 24 months, a decrease in solar elastosis was observed with treat-
ment versus placebo using punch biopsy specimens of preauricular
skin analyzed by computer enhancement.54
In a larger, randomized, controlled study in younger subjects
aged <55 years old (mean age 39 years), which was conducted
in Australia in 903 subjects, the effects of regular sunscreen use
were assessed at the level of clinical symptoms. Subjects were
randomly assigned to apply SPF 15+ broad- spectrum sunscreen
daily for 4.5 years (with instructions on how to apply it properly)
or to the control group who could apply sunscreen on a discre-
tionary basis (which was usually recreational use). The daily sun-
screen group showed no detectable increase in skin aging after
4.5 years and 24% less skin aging than the discretionary sunscreen
group (re lative o dds , 0.76 [95% CI, 0.59- 0 .98]), as measu red by mi-
crotopography of dermal elastosis on the back of the hands.55 As
that study was performed between 1992 and 1996 with a broad-
spectrum SPF 16 sunscreen with low UVA protection, more recent
sunscreens with better UVA protection may be expected to be
even more effective at preventing photoaging.56
Daily use of a facial UVA/UVB broad- spectrum, photostable
sunscreen with SPF 30 (UVA- PF not specified) in 32 subjects for
52 weeks significantly improved clinical evaluation of photoaging
(overall photodamage, overall skin tone, crow's feet, fine lines,
mottled pigmentation, discrete pigmentation, evenness of skin
tone, clarity, and texture). Assessments included dermatologist
evaluations and subjects' self- assessment. At week 52, all sub-
jects showed improvements in skin texture and clarity, and the
greatest improvements were observed in mottled and discrete
pigmentation (52% and 42% mean improvements from baseline,
respectively).57 This study demonstrated that daily use of a facial
broad- spectrum photostable sunscreen can prevent uneven pig-
mentation and may visibly reverse the signs of existing photodam-
age, in addition to preventing wrinkles and additional sun damage.
The authors speculated that daily use of a product with a higher
SPF (and a higher UVA- PF) would provide even greater protection
and greater improvements in photoaging.57
Several studies have been performed in East Asian and South
Asian subjects with darker skin types. A single– arm interventional
study in 14 elderly Japanese people of mean age 79.6 years old
(range: 62- 91 years) with photoaged skin, investigated the effects of
sunscreen application for 18 months. At the beginning of the study,
subjects received instructions from the dermatologist on the proper
method of application and were given a leaflet illustrating how much
to apply (∼2 mg/cm2) with a sample photograph. Despite this, there
were large differences in total amount of sunscreen used. After
18 months of sunscreen application, the only significant difference
was observed for skin surface hydration. However, the changes in
the number of spots and skin tone uniformity during the study pe-
riod showed good correlation with the amount of sunscreen used.58
A randomized, uncontrolled and investigator- blinded study was
conducted in India in 216 subjects, aged 18- 45 years old, with skin
phototype IV and V with pigmentation irregularities (actinic lentigi-
nes and PIHP), who did not previously use sunscreens. Participants
were randomized to apply twice daily either sunscreen product A
(sun protec tion factor 50 with high UVA protection fac tor PA+++) or
sunscreen product B (sun protection factor 19 with high UVA protec-
tion factor PA+++) before sun exposure for ≥2 hours for 12 weeks.
The clinical assessment of the density of pigmented spots and skin
radiance showed significant (P < .001) improvement in both groups
compared to baseline.59 There were no significant differences de-
tected when the two treatment groups were compared with each
other.
In the aggregate, these studies provide compelling evidence that
regular use of sunscreens is effective in preventing the development
of wrinkles and uneven pigmentation in different ethnic groups.
4
|
KRUTMANN eT Al .
It has also been speculated that the efficacy of daily photopro-
tection might be increased by supplementing UV filters with actives
that have anti- skin- aging properties and/or that extend the protec-
tion beyond the UV spectrum. There is indeed evidence that such
combination products are capable of partially preventing and even
reverting clinical signs of skin aging.19,60,61 As an example, a 6- month,
randomized, double- blind, vehicle- controlled study of 346 subjects
with photoaged skin, as defined by the presence of wrinkles in the
periorbital region, evaluated the efficacy of SPF 15 sunscreen and
a cream formulation of 0.05% isotretinoin. After once- daily appli-
cation for 6 months, subjects using sunscreen with 0.05% isotreti-
noin had statistically significant improvement in the appearance of
wrinkles associated with photoaged skin compared with the vehicle
group.62
The additional benefit of protecting against VL was shown in a
randomized controlled trial in 40 melasma patients comparing two
UVA/UVB sunscreens, one of which was supplemented with VL
protection (tinted and contained iron oxides). The use of the sun-
screen with VL protection prevented melasma relapses compared
to the UV- only sunscreen, as measured by the evolution of Melasma
Area and Severity Index score.63 Similarly, in a double- blind, ran-
domized trial in 68 melasma patients, UV- VL sunscreen enhanced
the depigmenting efficacy of hydroquinone compared with UV- only
sunscreen in the treatment of melasma.64
Similarly, addition of antioxidants to UV filter- containing sun-
screens w as found to be effe ctive in protec ting agains t IRA- indu ced
molecular events indicative of skin aging. A vehicle- controlled,
double- blind, randomized study in 30 healthy volunteers evalu-
ated the effectiveness of an SPF 30 sunscreen versus the same
sunscreen supplemented with an antioxidant cocktail containing
grape seed extract, vitamin E, ubiquinone and vitamin C to pro-
tect human skin against IRA radiation- induced MMP- 1 upregula-
tion. The sunscreen supplemented with antioxidants protected
human skin against IRA radiation, which contributes to photoa-
ging, whereas the regular sunscreen did not.30 Of note, this study
used IRA- induced MMP- 1 mRNA expression as a surrogate marker
for wrinkle formation. A human study comparing regular use of
sunscreens with and without IRA protection, however, has not yet
been conducted.
At present, there is no clear evidence that topical application of
DNA repair enzymes or nicotinamide, which is highly effective in
preventing actinic keratosis, have benefits in reducing the incidence
of chronic sun exposure- related photoaging.65- 67
7 | CURRENT CONCERNS AND
CONTROVERSIES IN THE USE OF TOPICAL
PHOTOPROTECTION
The studies described above support the beneficial effects of
sunscreen to prevent photoaging. However, certain challenges
remain, as discussed in a recently published review by Krutmann
et al.68
7.1 | Should photoprotection include UVA
protection?
Sunscreens were originally developed to minimize erythema (sun-
burn) and sun protection factor (SPF) is thus mainly an index of UVB
protection, measuring eythema. However, it is now widely accepted
that other acute and chronic pathogenic effects may occur after cu-
mulative exposure to sub- erythemal doses of solar UVR, including
UVA and an ideal sunscreen should protect against the entire solar
UVB/UVA range.20,69
7. 2 | Does photoprotection impair vitamin D
synthesis?
There are concerns that sunscreen may block the beneficial effects
of UVR, for example, vitamin D synthesis, antimicrobial effects, tan-
ning and photoadaptation. Several recently published reviews have
concluded that broad- spectrum sunscreens for daily use in real- life
settings are unlikely to compromise vitamin D synthesis, even after
application of proper amounts.70,71 Vitamin D screening for vitamin
D supplementation should be restricted to those at risk of hypovi-
taminosis, such as patients with photosensitivity disorders requiring
strict sun avoidance and photoprotection.71
7.3 | Is sunscreen photoprotection safe for daily
use?
As photoaging prevention requires daily use of sunscreen, the safety of
these products is critical. UV absorbers are regulated as cosmetics in
most countries in Europe and Latin America, as well as Japan, as over-
the- counter drugs in the United States and Canada, and as therapeutic
drugs in Australia. Similarly, various different UV filters are available in
the different regions. The United States Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) published a prior pilot study on four commercially available or-
ganic sunscreen products (lotion, aerosol spray, non- aerosol spray and
pump spr ay)72 and a randomized clinic al trial on the effect of sunscreen
application on plasma concentration of six sunscreen organic filters
under single- dose and maximal use conditions.73 All six tested active
ingredients and all of the formulations, resulted in measurable blood
levels of the active ingredient. However, this study was conducted in
situations that do not accurately reflect the reality of sunscreen ap-
plications (dose per cm2, surface, and frequency of application). The
authors suggest performing larger- scale studies to assess the clinical
implications of these findings, as the f act that an ingredient is absor bed
through the skin and into the blood does not necessarily mean that
the ingredient is unsafe. Furthermore, daily photoprotection concerns
limited surface areas which are exposed to the sun all year long, such
as the face and hands. The FDA calls for further industry testing to
determine the safety and effect of systemic exposure of sunscreen in-
gredients, especially with chronic use, and these results do not indicate
that individuals should refrain from the use of sunscreen. Inorganic
|
5
KRUTMA NN eT Al.
sunscreens have been linked to frontal fibrosing alopecia but at pre-
sent there remains insufficient evidence to establish a direct causal
relationship.74
7.4 | Is sunscreen photoprotection deleterious
for the environment?
Another controversial topic is the environmental impact of sun-
screen, especially organic UVR filters and their toxic effects on ma-
rine ecosystems and aquatic organisms.75- 78 The chronic effects of
common sunscreen UV filters and preservatives were tested on the
photosynthetic efficiency of scleractinian coral and several organic
UV filters showed no significant decrease in coral photosynthetic ef-
ficiency and hence were not likely to cause coral bleaching, but zinc
oxide was more toxic.79 To put these concerns into perspective we
would like to emphasize that the major cause for coral bleaching is
global warming and the concomitant increase in water temperature,
although oxybenzone may further weaken coral experiencing global
warming.80 Further studies are warranted on the in- situ concentra-
tions of UV filters and preservatives as well as their individual and
combined effects on corals.79
8 | REQUIREMENTS FOR DAILY
PHOTOPROTECTION FOR SKIN AGING
PREVENTION
Dermatologists advocate a multi- pronged approach to minimizing
UVR exposure including lifestyle modifications, UVR protective
clothing and sunglasses, and topically applied sunscreen products.74
The main criteria for topical sunscreens for daily photoprotection
to prevent photoaging are summarized in Table 1. A high UVA- PF
should take priority over high- SPF values, which may have insuffi-
cient long UVA1 protection. In general, an SPF of at least 30 should
ensure UV protection over the whole day even if small amounts
are applied. However, the skin type, latitude and altitude should
be taken into consideration and a higher SPF for example may be
required at lower latitudes. Furthermore, while high- SPF products
require higher concentrations of actives and thus have potentially
higher health risks if they penetrate the skin and higher environ-
mental risks, sunscreen is generally under- applied at only 25% of
the recommended dose, which may compromise photoprotection.
Analysis by UV imaging in 57 participants revealed that eyelid and
periorbital regions were disproportionately missed during routine
sunscreen application (median 14% missed in the eyelid region vs 7%
of rest of face missed, P < .01).81 This highlights the importance of
sunscreens with good cosmeticity and tolerability, as well as wear-
ing sunglasses. Sunscreens should contain antioxidant ingredients to
provide additional benefits against UV, IRA and pollution- induced
oxidative stress and contain anti- aging active ingredients to optimize
clinical benefits against skin aging signs such as wrinkles and dark
spots. Formulations that leave white residues are not desirable, es-
pecially for dark- skinned individuals, whereas formulations that are
easy and pleasant to apply are likely to result in better adherence to
daily photoprotection. Tinted broad- spectrum sunscreens contain-
ing pigments such as iron oxide to protect against VL may be re-
quired for melasma prevention and for the prevention of cutaneous
hyperchromias (actinic lentigo).40
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Editorial assistance was provided by Helen Simpson, PhD, ISMPP
CMPP™, of My Word Medical Writing and funded by Vichy
Laboratoires.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Dr Krutmann reports personal fees from L aboratoires Vichy (L'Oreal)
related to t his work; grant s and persona l fees from Amway, grant s and
personal fees from Beiersdorf, grants and personal fees from bitop,
grants and personal fees from Blue Lagoon, grants and personal fees
from Estee Lauder, grants and personal fees from Evonik, grants and
personal fees from Galderma, grants and personal fees from Henkel,
grants and personal fees from Horphag, grants and personal fees
from ISDIN, grants and personal fees from Kiessling, grants and
personal fees from Lancaster- Coty, grants and personal fees from
La Roche Posay, grants and personal fees from L'Oreal, grants and
personal fees from Lycored, grants and personal fees from Mar y Kay,
grants and personal fees from Procter & Gamble, grants and per-
sonal fees from Repairogen, grants and personal fees from RepliCel,
grants and personal fees from Skinceuticals, grants and personal
fees from SkinMedica, an Allergan Company, grants and personal
fees from Stada, grants and personal fees from Symrise, grants and
personal fees from Unilever, grants and personal fees from Vichy,
TABLE 1 Summary of the main criteria for topical sunscreens for
daily photoprotection to prevent photoaging
Topical sunscreen criteria
Sunscreen application Apply daily
Apply proper amount
Apply on whole face including eyelid and
periorbital regions
Protection against
UVB, UVA, UVA1,
and VL
SPF of at least 30 with high UVA- PF (the
PF should be adapted to the latitude
and skin type)
Additional protection
against IRA and
pollution
Antioxidant ingredients
Prevention of skin
aging signs
Anti- aging active ingredients
Prevention of melasma
and actinic lentigo
Tinted sunscreen with UVB, UVA1 and
HEV protection
Obtain optimal
compliance
Good cosmeticity, sensoriality and
tolerability
Avoid white residues
Abbreviations: HEV, high energy visible blue- violet light; IR A, infrared;
SPF, sun protection factor; UV, ultraviolet; VL, visible light.
6
|
KRUTMANN eT Al .
grants and personal fees from Walgreen- Boots- Alliance, outside the
submitted work. Dr Schalka has received speaker and consultancy
fees from Johnson & Johnson, La Roche Posay, ISDIN, Mantecorp
Brasil, Galderma Brasil, NAOS France, consultancy fees from Pierre
Fabre, Vichy, Farmoquímica Brasil, AMIFAR Spain, speaker fees from
Beiersdorf and investigator fees from Libbs Brasil, outside the sub-
mitted work. Dr Watson has received consulting fees from Nestle
Skin Health, NAOS, Allergan, and research funding from Walgreens
Boots Alliance, outside the submitted work. Dr Wei has nothing to
disclose. Dr Morita has nothing to disclose.
DATA AVAIL ABI LIT Y S TATEM ENT
This is a review article and no data is available.
ORCID
Jean Krutmann https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8433-1517
Rachel Elizabeth Beatrice Watson https://orcid.
org/0000-0002-5162-7503
Akimichi Morita https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8372-3754
REFERENCES
1. van der Pols JC, Xu C, Boyle GM, Parsons PG, Whiteman DC , Green
AC. Expression of p53 tumor suppressor protein in sun- exposed
skin and associations with sunscreen use and time spent outdoors:
A community- based study. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163(11):982- 988.
2. Gree n AC, Williams GM . Point: Sunscree n use is a safe and effective
approach to skin cancer prevention. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers
Prev. 2007;16(10 ):1921- 192 2.
3. Green AC , Williams GM, Logan V, Strutton GM. Reduced melanoma
after regular sunscreen use: Randomized trial follow- up. J Clin
Oncol. 2011;29(3):257- 263.
4. Krutmann J, Bouloc A, Sore G, Bernard BA, Passeron T. The skin
aging exposome. J Dermatol Sci. 2017;85(3):152- 161.
5. Flament F, Bazin R, Laquieze S, Ruber t V, Simonpietri E, Piot B.
Effect of the sun on visible clinical signs of aging in Caucasian skin.
Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2013;6:221- 232.
6. Flament F, Bazin R, Qiu H, et al. Solar exposure(s) and facial clinical
signs of aging in Chinese women: Impacts upon age perception. Clin
Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2015;8:75- 84.
7. Trojahn C, Dobos G, Lichterfeld A, Blume- Peytavi U, Kottner
J. Characterizing facial skin ageing in humans: Disentangling
extrinsic from intrinsic biological phenomena. Biomed Res Int.
2015;2015:318586.
8. Nouveau- Richard S, Yang Z, Mac- Mary S, et al. Skin ageing: A com-
parison between Chinese and European populations. A pilot study.
J Dermatol Sci. 2005;4 0(3):187- 193.
9. Vierkötter A, Hüls A , Yamamoto A, et al. Extrinsic skin ageing in
German, Chinese and Japanese women manifests differently in all
three groups depending on ethnic background, age and anatomical
site. J Dermatol Sci. 2016;83(3):219- 225.
10. Flament F, Amar D, Forichon M, Caron J, Negre C. Distinct hab-
its of sun exposures lead to different impacts on some facial signs
of chinese men of different ages. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol.
2019;12:833- 841.
11. Flament F, Velleman D, Yamamoto S, et al. Clinical impacts of sun
exposures on the faces and hands of Japanese women of different
ages. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2019;41(5):425- 436.
12. Ayer J, Ahmed A , Duncan- Parry E, et al. A photonumeric scale
for the assessment of atrophic facial photodamage. Br J Derm atol.
2018 ;178 (5):1190 - 1195.
13. Averbeck M, Gebhardt CA, Voigt S, et al. Differential regulation
of hyaluronan metabolism in the epidermal and dermal com-
partments of human skin by UVB irradiation. J Invest Dermatol.
2007;127(3):687- 697.
14. Tzellos TG, Klagas I, Vahtsevanos K, et al. Extrinsic ageing in the
human skin is associated with alterations in the expression of
hyaluronic acid and its metabolizing enzymes. Exp Dermatol.
200 9;18(12):1028- 1035.
15. Papakonstantinou E, Roth M, Karakiulakis G. Hyaluronic acid: A key
molecule in skin aging. Dermatoendocrinol. 2012;4(3):253- 258.
16. Quan T, Qin Z, Xia W, Shao Y, Voorhees JJ, Fisher GJ. Matrix-
degrading metalloproteinases in photoaging. J Investig Dermatol
Symp Proc. 2009;14(1):20- 24.
17. Hibbert SA, Watson REB, Griffiths CEM, Gibbs NK, Sherratt
MJ. Selective proteolysis by matrix metalloproteinases of
photo- oxidised dermal extracellular matrix proteins. Cell Signal.
2019;54 :191- 199.
18. Walder a Lupa DM, Kalfalah F, Safferling K, et al . Characteriz ation of
Skin Aging- Associated Secreted Proteins (SAASP) produced by der-
mal fibroblasts isolated from intrinsically aged human skin. J Invest
Dermatol. 2015;135(8):1954 - 196 8.
19. Shanbhag S, Nayak A, Narayan R, Nayak UY. Anti- aging an d
sunscreens: Paradigm shift in cosmetics. Adv Pharm Bull.
2019;9(3):348- 359.
20. Marionnet C, Tricaud C, Bernerd F. Exposure to non- extreme solar
UV daylight: Spectral characterization, effects on skin and photo-
protection. Int J Mol Sci. 2014;16(1):68- 90.
21. Marionnet C, Nouveau S, Hourblin V, et al. UVA1- induced skin
darkening is associated with molecular changes even in highly pig-
mented skin individuals. J Invest Dermatol. 2017;137(5):1184- 1187.
22. Cho S, Lee MJ, Kim MS, et al. Infrared plus visible light and heat
from natural sunlight participate in the expression of MMPs and
type I procollagen as well as infiltration of inflammatory cell in
human skin in vivo. J Dermatol Sci. 2008;50(2):123- 133.
23. Schroeder P, Haendeler J, Krutmann J. The role of near infrared ra-
diation in p hotoaging of the sk in. Exp Ger ontol. 2008;43(7):629- 632.
24. Liebel F, Kaur S, Ruvolo E, Kollias N, Southall MD. Irradiation of
skin with visible light induces reactive oxygen species and matrix-
degrading enzymes. J Invest Dermatol. 2012;132(7):190 1- 1907.
25. Barolet D, Christiaens F, Hamblin MR. Infrared and skin: Friend or
foe. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2016;155:78- 85.
26. Hudson L, Rashdan E, Bonn CA, Chavan B, Rawlings D, Birch-
Machin MA. Individual and combined effects of the infrared, vis-
ible, and ultraviolet light components of solar radiation on damage
biomarkers in human skin cells. FAS EB J. 2020;34(3):3874- 3883.
27. Albrecht S, Jung S, Müller R, et al. Skin type differences in solar-
simulated radiation- induced oxidative stress. Br J Dermatol.
2019;180(3):597- 603.
28. Langton AK, Alessi S, Hann M, et al. Aging in skin of color: disrup-
tion to elastic fiber organization is detrimental to skin's biomechan-
ical function. J Invest Dermatol. 2019;139(4):779- 788.
29. Schieke SM, Schroeder P, Krutmann J. Cutaneous effects of
infrared radiation: From clinical observations to molecular re-
sponse mechanisms. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed.
2003;19(5):228- 234.
30. Grether- Beck S, Marini A, Jaenicke T, Krutmann J. Effective photo-
protection of human skin against infrared A radiation by topically
applied antioxidants: Results from a vehicle controlled, double-
blind, randomized study. Photochem Photobiol. 2015;91(1):248- 25 0.
31. Cohen L, Brodsky MA, Zubair R, Kohli I, Hamzavi IH, Sadeghpour
M. Cutaneous interaction with visible light: What do we know. J Am
Acad Dermatol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2020.03.115.
[Epub ahead of print]
32. Narla S, Kohli I, Hamzavi IH, Lim HW. Visi ble light in photode rmatol-
ogy. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2020;19(1):99- 104.
|
7
KRUTMA NN eT Al.
33. M ahmoud BH, Ru volo E, Hexsel C L, et al. Impac t of long- wavele ngth
UVA and visible light on melanocompetent skin. J Invest Dermatol.
2010;130(8):2092- 2097.
34. Kohli I, Chaowattanapanit S, Mohammad TF, et al. Synergistic ef-
fects of long- wavelength ultraviolet al and visible light on pigmen-
tation and erythema. Br J Dermatol. 2018;178(5):1173- 1180.
35. Ramasubramaniam R, Roy A, Sharma B, Nagalakshmi S. Are
there mechanistic differences between ultraviolet and visible
radiation induced skin pigmentation? Photochem Photobiol Sci.
2011;10(12):1887- 1893.
36. Duteil L, Cardot- Leccia N, Queille- Roussel C, et al. Differences in
visible light- induced pigmentation according to wavelengths: A
clinical and histological study in comparison with UVB exposure.
Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2014;27(5):822- 826.
37. Regazzetti C, Sormani L, Debayle D, et al. Melanocytes sense blue
light and regulate pigmentation through Opsin- 3. J Invest Dermatol.
2018;138(1):171- 178.
38. Passeron T, Picardo M. Melasma, a photoaging disorder. Pigment
Cell Melanoma Res. 2018;31(4):461- 465.
39. Passeron T, Nouveau S, Duval C, et al. Development and validation
of a reproducible model for studying post- inflammatory hyperpig-
mentation. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2018;31(5):649- 652.
40. Martini APM, Maia Campos PMBG. Influence of visible light
on cutaneous hyperchromias: Clinical efficacy of broad-
spectrum sunscreens. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed.
2018;34(4):241- 248.
41. Passeron T, Krutmann J, Andersen ML , Katta R, Zouboulis CC.
Clinical and biological impact of the exposome on the skin. J Eur
Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(Suppl 4):4- 25.
42. Vierkötter A, Schikowski T, Ranft U, et al. Airborne particle exposure
and ext rinsic skin aging . J Invest Dermatol. 2010;130(12):2719- 2726.
43. Flament F, Bourokba N, Nouveau S, Li J, Charbonneau A. A se-
vere chronic outdoor urban pollution alters some facial aging
signs in Chinese women. A tale of two cities. Int J Cosmet Sci.
2018;40(5):467- 481.
44. A raviiska ia E, Bera rdesca E , Bieber T, et al. Th e impact of a irborn e pol-
lution on skin. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2019;33(8):1496- 1505.
45. Schikowski T, Hüls A. Air pollution and skin aging. Curr Environ
Health Rep. 2020;7(1):58- 64.
46. Soeur J, Belaidi JP, Chollet C, et al. Photo- pollution stress in skin:
Traces of pollutants (PAH and particulate matter) impair redox
homeostasis in keratinocytes exposed to UVA1. J Dermatol Sci.
2017;86 (2):162- 169.
47. von Koschembahr A, Youssef A, Beal D, Gudimard L, Giot JP,
Douki T. Toxicity and DNA repair in normal human keratino-
cytes co- exposed to benzo[a]pyrene and sunlight. Toxicol In Vitro.
2020;63:104744.
48. Langton AK, Tsoureli- Nikita E, Merrick H, et al. The systemic influ-
ence of chronic smoking on skin structure and mechanical function.
J Pathol. 2020;251(4):420- 428.
49. Yin L, Morita A , Tsuji T. Tobacco smoke extract induces age-
related changes due to modulation of TGF- beta. Exp Dermatol.
2003;12(Suppl 2):51- 56.
50. Doshi DN, Hanneman KK, Cooper KD. Smoking and skin aging in
identical twins. Arch Dermatol. 2007;143(12):1543- 1546.
51. Tamai Y, Tsu ji M, Wada K, et al . Associatio n of cigarette sm oking with
skin colour in Japanese women. Tob Control. 2014;23(3):253- 256.
52. Marrot L. Pollution and sun exposure: A deleterious synergy.
mechanisms and opportunities for skin protection. Curr Med Chem.
2018;25(40):5469- 5486.
53. Huang N, Mi T, Xu S, et al. Traffic- derived air pollution compromises
skin barrier function and stratum corneum redox status: A popula-
tion study. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 ;19(7 ):1751- 1759.
54. Boyd AS, Naylor M, Cameron GS, Pearse AD, Gaskell SA, Neldner
KH. The effects of chronic sunscreen use on the histologic changes
of dermatoheliosis. J A m Acad Dermatol. 1995;3 3(6):941- 946.
55. Hughes MC, Williams GM, Baker P, Green AC. Sunscreen and
prevention of skin aging: A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med.
2013;158(11):781- 790.
56. Iannacone MR, Hughes MC , Green AC. Effec ts of sunscreen on skin
cancer and photoaging. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed.
2014;30(2– 3):55- 61.
57. Randhawa M, Wang S, Leyden JJ, Cula GO, Pagnoni A, Southall MD.
Daily use of a facial broad spectrum sunscreen over one- year sig-
nificantly improves clinical evaluation of photoaging. Dermatol Surg.
2016;42(12):1354- 1361.
58. Mizuno M, Kunimoto K, Naru E, Kameyama K, Furukawa F,
Yamamoto Y. The effects of continuous application of sunscreen on
photoaged skin in Japanese elderly people - the relationship with
the usage. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2016;9:95- 105.
59. Sarkar R, Garg VK, Jain A, et al. A randomized study to evaluate
the efficacy and effectiveness of two sunscreen formulations on
Indian skin types IV and V with pigmentation irregularities. Indian J
Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2019;85(2):160- 168.
60. McDaniel DH, Waugh JM, Jiang LI, et al. Evaluation of the antiox-
idant capacity and protective effects of a comprehensive topical
antioxidant containing water- soluble, enzymatic, and lipid- soluble
antioxidants. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2019;12(4):46- 53.
61. Wang SQ, Balagula Y, Osterwalder U. Photoprotection: A re-
view of the current and future technologies. Dermatol Ther.
2010;23(1):31- 47.
62. Griffiths CE, Maddin S, Wiedow O, Marks R, Donald AE, Kahlon
G. Treatment of photoaged skin with a cream containing 0.05%
isotretinoin and sunscreens. J Dermatolog Treat. 2005;16(2):79- 86.
63. Boukari F, Jourdan E, Fontas E, et al. Prevention of melasma re-
lapses with sunscreen combining protection against UV and shor t
waveleng ths of visible light : A prospective r andomized comparative
trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72(1):189- 190.e1.
64. Castanedo- Cazares JP, Hernandez- Blanco D, Carlos- Ortega B,
Fuentes- Ahumada C, Torres- Álvarez B. Near- visible light and
UV photoprotection in the treatment of melasma: A double-
blind randomized trial. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed.
2014;30(1):35- 42.
65. Yarosh DB, Rosenthal A, Moy R. Six critical questions for DNA re-
pair enzymes in skincare products: a review in dialog. Clin Cosmet
Investig Dermatol. 2019;12:617- 624.
66. Kimball AB, Kaczvinsky JR, Li J, et al. Reduction in the appearance
of facial hyperpigmentation after use of moisturizers with a combi-
nation of topical niacinamide and N- acetyl glucosamine: Results of
a randomized, double- blind, vehicle- controlled trial. Br J Dermatol.
2010;162(2):435- 441.
67. Bissett DL , Oblong JE, Berge CA. Niacinamide: A B vitamin that im-
proves aging facial skin appearance. Dermatol Surg. 2005;31(7 Pt
2):860- 865; discussion 5.
68. Krutmann J, Passeron T, Gilaberte Y, et al. Photoprotection of the
future: Challenges and opportunities. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol.
2020;34(3):447- 454.
69. Marionnet C, Pierrard C, Golebiewski C, Bernerd F. Diversity of
biological effects induced by longwave UVA rays (UVA1) in recon-
structed skin. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e10 5263.
70. Neale RE, Khan SR , Lucas RM, Waterhouse M, Whiteman DC,
Olsen CM. The effect of sunscreen on vitamin D: A review. Br J
Dermatol. 2019;181(5):907- 915.
71. Passeron T, Bouillon R, Callender V, et al. Sunscreen photoprotec-
tion and vitamin D status. Br J Dermatol. 2019;181(5):916- 931.
72. Matta MK , Zusterzeel R, Pilli NR, et al. Effect of sunscreen appli-
cation under maximal use conditions on plasma concentration of
sunscreen active ingredients: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA.
2019;321(21):2082- 2091.
73. Matta MK, Florian J, Zusterzeel R, et al. Effect of sunscreen appli-
cation on plasma concentration of sunscreen active ingredients: A
randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2020;323(3):256- 267.
8
|
KRUTMANN eT Al .
74. Suozzi K, Turban J, Girardi M. Cutaneous photoprotection: A re-
view of the current status and evolving strategies. Yale J Biol Med.
2020;93(1):55- 67.
75. Mitchelmore CL, He K, Gonsior M, et al. Occurrence and distribu-
tion of UV- filters and other anthropogenic contaminants in coastal
surface water, sediment, and coral tissue from Hawaii. Sci Total
Environ. 2019;670:398- 410.
76. Meng Q, Yeung K, Kwok ML, Chung CT, Hu XL, Chan KM. Toxic
effects and transcriptome analyses of zebrafish (Danio rerio) larvae
exposed to benzophenones. Environ Pollut. 2020;265(Pt A):114857.
77. Cocci P, Mosconi G, Palermo FA. Sunscreen active ingredients in
loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) and their relation to molecular
markers of inflammation, oxidative stress and hormonal activity in
wild populations. Mar Pollut Bull. 2020;153:111012.
78. Yan S, Liang M, Chen R, Hong X, Zha J. Reproductive toxicity and
estrogen activity in Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes) exposed to
environmentally relevant concentrations of octocrylene. Environ
Pollut. 2020;261:114104.
79. Fel J- P, Lacherez C, Bensetra A, et al. Photochemic al response of
the scleractinian coral Stylophora pistillata to some sunscreen in-
gredients. Coral Reefs. 2019;38(1):109- 122 .
80. Wijgerde T, van Ballegooijen M, Nijland R, et al. Adding insult
to injury: Effects of chronic oxybenzone exposure and ele-
vated temperature on two reef- building corals. Sci Total Environ.
2020;733:139030.
81. Pratt H, Hassanin K, Troughton LD, et al. UV imaging reveals facial
areas that are prone to skin cancer are disproportionately missed
during sunscreen application. PLoS One. 2017;12(10):e0185297.
How to cite this article: Krutmann J, Schalka S, Watson REB,
Wei L, Morita A. Daily photoprotection to prevent
photoaging. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed.
2021;00:1– 8. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpp.1268 8
