Main Category: Infectious Diseases / Bacteria / Viruses
Also Included In: Dermatology
Article Date: 13 Jan 2011 - 1:00 PST
Previously, researchers thought the detection of P. acnes at the site of these infections was due to contamination from the skin. For example, an infection at a site within the body after surgery, could have been caused by bacteria transferred to an open wound from the skin during an operation. But recent research has contradicted this, suggesting P. acnes already within the body, may be the cause. Although it is often disregarded as a harmless bystander when found in blood and tissue swabs taken from patients, we should not rule out this bug in the diagnosis of disease.
People who are wrongly diagnosed may go on to develop complications of their infection if the wrong bug is the target for treatment. So it is vital that infection with P.acnes is not ignored, and that the public are made aware of this overlooked bug.
Professor Peter Lambert, expert in P.acnes infection from Aston University said: "it is important to recognise that this organism has the ability to grow slowly inside our body cells as well as on the surface of medical devices in the body. It has long been associated with common acne, where it contributes to the inflammation and pain. Recent studies show that it might also be involved in other important conditions such as prostate cancer".
On 12 January 2011, 10.30am Professor Peter Lambert will present the Denver Russell Memorial lecture at the Society for Applied Microbiology Winter Meeting 2011: "Propionibacterium acnes: an emerging pathogen"
Dr Lucy Harper
By Genevra Pittman
NEW YORK | Tue Jan 18, 2011 5:32pm EST
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Many daily skin creams that claim to provide ultraviolet protection and anti-aging benefits may not have enough of the critical ingredients needed to block UV-A light, according to new research.
That means consumers who rely on these products may be vulnerable to the effects of UV-A rays, including skin darkening, wrinkles, and skin cancer, in some cases.
The finding "is not surprising at all," Dr. Bruce Brod, a dermatologist at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine who was not involved in the study, told Reuters Health. "There's a lot of variability in these products."
Many companies sell facial creams claiming UV protection, including L'Oreal, Elizabeth Arden, and Mary Kay. But SPF levels on the bottle only reflect how much UV-B protection the product offers, and companies currently aren't required to back up UV-A claims on their labels, Dr. Steven Wang, the lead author on the study from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, told Reuters Health.
Even though UV-A and UV-B rays are about equally harmful, Wang said, "UV-A penetrates much deeper into the skin, which can also cause darkening of the skin as well as degrading and destroying the elastins and collagens," proteins in the skin that keep skin firm and protect against wrinkles.
The UV-A rays, Brod said, are "less involved with what we associate with a sunburn-type reaction." But, he said, "they do play a role in (skin) cancer - they damage the DNA of the cells over time."
And Wang pointed out that for many people, UV-A protection may be more important in a skin care product than UV-B protection. "In day-to-day living, most of the UV-B is completely blocked by windows, whereas the UV-A penetrates the windows," he said. "For most of us who work indoors, you really need more UV-A protection than UV-B protection."
Wang and his colleagues analyzed 29 daily facial creams that, according to their labels, protect against UV light. Some of the products claimed to protect against UV-A rays specifically, while others claimed general UV protection. The products had SPF labels from 15 to 50.
When the researchers examined ingredients in the creams for those known to block some kinds of UV-A light, 6 of the 29 products had no active ingredients for UV-A protection at all. Of the 23 products with active ingredients, only 6 of those likely had enough of the right ingredients - including either zinc oxide or a combination of avobenzone and octocrylene - to provide adequate UV-A protection.
While the researchers declined to name the products they tested and how much protection each provided, they did say that more expensive daily creams didn't necessarily offer any more UV-A protection than less expensive creams. The products tested cost anywhere from $1.88 per ounce to $64.71 per ounce, and the most expensive had no ingredients to protect against UV-A light, according to the research team. The findings were published as a research letter in Archives of Dermatology.
The authors did not test the effectiveness of the different products; they only looked at their labeled ingredient contents. While that's a reasonable way to get at their UV-blocking capabilities, "it doesn't tell you the whole story," Dr. Cheryl Rosen, Chief of Dermatology at Toronto Western Hospital and the head of the Canadian Dermatology Association's Sun Awareness Program, told Reuters Health.
The University of Pennsylvania's Brod pointed out that whereas UV-B rays are less damaging during the winter, UV-A levels stay pretty constant throughout the year. Especially considering the lack of regulation of skin care products with UV-A protection, Brod said, people should focus on getting their skin protection through other means - such as avoiding the sun in the middle of the day, and wearing protective clothing and hats.
If you do want to make sure that your daily skin moisturizer is living up to its UV claims, Brod said, "ask your dermatologist for specific recommendations on products that more effectively block UV-A."
And if you choose to use sunscreen or another UV-blocking skin care product, make sure you put plenty of it on, Brod said, or you may be negating any skin protection effects it has altogether.
SOURCE: bit.ly/g4XAnJ Archives of Dermatology, online January 17, 2011.
Many women who perform skin rejuvenation facial with exfoliation (peeling). It is expected to give a fresh complexion and bright face shone. However, note the custom chemical peels. Because the chemical peel is very dangerous for the body’s immunity. This is based on the results of research from the University of Haifa, Israel. The study examines the immune system of women who used to perform chemical peels, and women who do not. Antibodies are the first group is really bad, this means that resistance to infection and other diseases is fairly low. So that was launched Genius Beauty, Sunday (02/01/2011). The doctors who recommend chemical peels usually peel the top skin and penetrate the deepest layers of skin. So, this exfoliating can irritate the dermis layer and destroy the cell structure. And this one can be so more dangerous for women’s skin. So, you women must be aware of it before you got something bad and harmful to your beautiful skin.
Microbes can penetrate and get into the liver, and liver will be increasingly difficult to resist the attack because of reduced immune disease earlier. Thus, the use of chemical peels regularly will cause various diseases. The diseases can be more awful each day.
to dermagrace cosmetic rejuvenation blog and information center. If you're looking for dramatic and long lasting skin improvements…look no further. My goal is to provide the most authoritative skin care protocols, research and articles. Everyday I search for relevant and reliable information. I look forward to any comments or questions.