Acne.org Products
1 hour ago, giddy said:I think they just quoted the NyTimes article, where they said that it was dramatically less scarring.
Maybe, maybe not.
If you read the full article, initially they mention the groundbreaking results of the mice study, and then they follow up with the quote I mentioned above, and it says that the results have been similarly dramatic.
Results have been similarly dramatic and dramatically reduced scarring are totally different things but we will never know unless we see the published paper of the pig results.
Sorry but i heard someone say micro-coring has been approved and is a big disappointment, is there a source for this or it's just the pessimism of the poster(as usually happens here).
More on why I'm hyped for microcoring, my scars are flat, the only atrophic ones i have are two and i don't really mind them.. Saw the video of the Sperry-bio microcoring system on youtube, contacting the lady who put it up led to her taking the video down(as the device is still in development), though the video said it works to remove scars. Other than that my older posts have shown that so long as your scars aren't extremely shallow(even if they're i've researched injecting insulin tends to signal the area to assemble fat, and this process has been used for years to resolve skin atrophy) then it would work.
Not holding my breathe though, lets see how all this comes together in 15 years.
11 hours ago, David4bay said:Sorry but i heard someone say micro-coring has been approved and is a big disappointment, is there a source for this or it's just the pessimism of the poster(as usually happens here).
More on why I'm hyped for microcoring, my scars are flat, the only atrophic ones i have are two and i don't really mind them.. Saw the video of the Sperry-bio microcoring system on youtube, contacting the lady who put it up led to her taking the video down(as the device is still in development), though the video said it works to remove scars. Other than that my older posts have shown that so long as your scars aren't extremely shallow(even if they're i've researched injecting insulin tends to signal the area to assemble fat, and this process has been used for years to resolve skin atrophy) then it would work.
Not holding my breathe though, lets see how all this comes together in 15 years.
You are all dreamers here on this thread.
Micro-coring hasnt been fda approved for scars and it won't be because it doesnt work. I have done my homework, speaking from research. There are lots of sources for this but everyone should do their own homework.
Still nobody on this thread answered my question.. where in the papersthey mention that verteporfin can be beneficial for ACNE scars? But anyway, you guys cannot tolerate a real discussion about anything. We will wait and see if and when verteporfin becomes a part of acne scar treatments.
On 9/16/2021 at 6:33 PM, NagarNikku_ said:It doesn't work that way, the existing scar has to be excised first.
Dealing with acne scars alone is enough, why are you bringing this wave of negativity with you?
It's called a different point of view.
And you clearly missed something in my comment.
Excision (with the risks it comes) +laser is available treatment option at the moment as well. PS only small %of acne scars are suitable for excision.
On 9/16/2021 at 9:08 PM, Ivvan said:"It will take decades"
No, it won't:
1) Works on the pigs whose skin is closest to human skin
2) It is already approved by FDA (for eyes)
3) Has big interest from hair loss community
Can a drug for hair loss be used for acne scars?
Are the pig studies done yet? No.
Have the human studies after facial surgeries begun yet?
Are studies on acne scars in plan yet?
How long does a study usually take to organize and complete?
How long does it take for the fda to issue approval IF there is compelling case for a certain therapy??
Write again, when Verteporfin gets fda approved for ACNE scars and lets see in how many years it will be, if ever
25 minutes ago, mysharon said:
Can a drug for hair loss be used for acne scars?
Are the pig studies done yet? No.
Have the human studies after facial surgeries begun yet?
Are studies on acne scars in plan yet?
How long does a study usually take to organize and complete?
How long does it take for the fda to issue approval IF there is compelling case for a certain therapy??
Write again, when Verteporfin gets fda approved for ACNE scars and lets see in how many years it will be, if ever
You can litterally use Verteporfin today, off-label. All you need is some indication that this works and is safe in humans, no specific fda approval is required.
2 minutes ago, giddy said:You can litterally use Verteporfin today, off-label. All you need is some indication that this works and is safe in humans, no specific fda approval is required.
Yes, some people apply lemon juice on their face with some indication that it works off label too, doesn't mean that it works or that dermatologists find it appropriate.
We were talking about fda approval.
1 minute ago, mysharon said:Yes, some people apply lemon juice on their face with some indication that it works off label too, doesn't mean that it works or that dermatologists find it appropriate.
Lemon juice doesnt give full regeneration ofskin withhair in mice or pigs
2 minutes ago, mysharon said:The point was the fda approval. Strong evidence that the drug works again for ACNEscars.
If it works on scars you dont need any fda appeoval for ACNE scars, they would not spend that much money when they can then use it off label. Scars are scars.
44 minutes ago, giddy said:If it works on scars you dont need any fda appeoval for ACNE scars, they would not spend that much money when they can then use it off label. Scars are scars.
Of course you need fda approval,if it works for acne scars. Why did the cetrelis group spend additional millions on acne scars studies then when they found that the micro-coring works on some wrinkles? And why did they get fda approval only for wrinkles on the lower part of the face,if, by your logic maybe, wrinkles are wrinkles?
Scars are not scars. If scars were scars there wouldn't be so many different treatments about the different types of acne scars, and there wouldn't be a difference between new and old scars.
As a scar sufferer myself, of course I wish for the drug to work, but we cannot draw any conclusions about this as of now. I wouldn't be holding my breath as of now. It's realism, not pessimism. And I most certainly wouldn't buy it on the internet or speculate how it can be used now.
45 minutes ago, mysharon said:Of course you need fda approval,if it works for acne scars. Why did the cetrelis group spend additional millions on acne scars studies then when they found that the micro-coring works on some wrinkles? And why did they get fda approval only for wrinkles on the lower part of the face,if, by your logic maybe, wrinkles are wrinkles?
Scars are not scars. If scars were scars there wouldn't be so many different treatments about the different types of acne scars, and there wouldn't be a difference between new and old scars.
As a scar sufferer myself, of course I wish for the drug to work, but we cannot draw any conclusions about this as of now. I wouldn't be holding my breath as of now. It's realism, not pessimism. And I most certainly wouldn't buy it on the internet or speculate how it can be used now.
Thats ok, I have a linearscar so I dont know too much about how acne is different
39 minutes ago, giddy said:Thats ok, I have a linearscar so I dont know too much about how acne is different
People read and research more and think logically. Everything else is wishful thinking.Off-label use means it MIGHT work and there are risks involved. Of course you need fda clearance if there is strong evidence for good results. Every researcher strives for positive results from their work, and every pharma company will test because if the drug is only off label, it means they cannot market it and earn moneyoff of it. So IF Verteporfin works for acne scars, it will get tested in trials and eventually fda approved. If it doesn't,it will mean doubts about ifs efficacy.
Interesting. Burn scars and healing of skin wounds. No mention of acne scars. However, they do mention that studies on burn victims will take a few years to complete.
Also,Stanford researchers discovered that verteporfin, a drug traditionally used to prevent vision loss, can PREVENT scar formation in mice a significant finding that could have implications on scar FORMATION in humans.
No word on existing scars.
25 minutes ago, mysharon said:Interesting. Burn scars and healing of skin wounds. No mention of acne scars. However, they do mention that studies on burn victims will take a few years to complete.
Also,Stanford researchers discovered that verteporfin, a drug traditionally used to prevent vision loss, can PREVENT scar formation in mice a significant finding that could have implications on scar FORMATION in humans.
No word on existing scars.
And there was no reason to think he couldnt go even farther. A patient who had a disabling and disfiguring scar could go to a surgeon who could dab the scar with lidocaine to numb the skin, cut open the scar, inject verteporfin around the edges, and close the wound.
- nytimes
14 minutes ago, giddy said:And there was no reason to think he couldnt go even farther. A patient who had a disabling and disfiguring scar could go to a surgeon who could dab the scar with lidocaine to numb the skin, cut open the scar, inject verteporfin around the edges, and close the wound.
- nytimes
This is hypothesis which needs to be proven in some way shape or form first. And still no specification as to acne scars. For acne scars which are often atrophic to varying degrees.
Have you read the theory of the existing scar treatments? Sounds so compelling, right? Now read the reviews of the scar sufferers and the usual % improvement they are getting after many sessions of combined treatments.
It's all new territory with the Verteporfin research. Personally, I would be more interested in drug that could regenerate the dermal matrix collagen, elastin not the hair and the glands.
Ever heard of Latisse? It's FDA-approved for treating glaucoma, but it's actuallybetter known for itsoff-label use for eyelash growth and thickening. You don't need FDA approval when something is known to work off label. Cytrellis is seeking FDA approval for scars because most doctorsdon't even know what micro-coring is, much less whether it works for scarring.
QuoteFor acne scars which are often atrophic to varying degrees.
You're looking at this all wrong. Fraxel/CROSS/etc. are all *scar removal treatments*. Verteporfin is a *wound healing treatment*.
When an acne scar is cut out, there's no longer a scar -- it's just a wound. As long as the wound does not go into the hypodermis (i.e., fat atrophy), there's no reason why Verteporfin won't work. This is also why micro-coring works: it's scarless *wound healing*. The limitation of micro-coring is that it will take many many sessions whereas Verteporfin can be one-and-done.
Similarly, Minoxidil/Fin/Dut/etc are all *hair loss treatments*. If you do a FUE hair transplant, then regenerating donor area is a *wound healing* problem, where Verteporfin will help. If you have infinite donor area, you've effectively cured hair loss.
Think of all the analog machines we used to have that each required a custom build: record player, calculator, watch, etc. Now all of that can be done on a single chipbecause of the analog-> digital shift. That's what verteporfin does. It reframes all of these differentproblems into a "wound healing" problem that can be solved.
1 hour ago, k95 said:Ever heard of Latisse? It's FDA-approved for treating glaucoma, but it's actuallybetter known for itsoff-label use for eyelash growth and thickening. You don't need FDA approval when something is known to work off label. Cytrellis is seeking FDA approval for scars because most doctorsdon't even know what micro-coring is, much less whether it works for scarring.
You're looking at this all wrong. Fraxel/CROSS/etc. are all *scar removal treatments*. Verteporfin is a *wound healing treatment*.
When an acne scar is cut out, there's no longer a scar -- it's just a wound. As long as the wound does not go into the hypodermis (i.e., fat atrophy), there's no reason why Verteporfin won't work. This is also why micro-coring works: it's scarless *wound healing*. The limitation of micro-coring is that it will take many many sessions whereas Verteporfin can be one-and-done.
Similarly, Minoxidil/Fin/Dut/etc are all *hair loss treatments*. If you do a FUE hair transplant, then regenerating donor area is a *wound healing* problem, where Verteporfin will help. If you have infinite donor area, you've effectively cured hair loss.
Think of all the analog machines we used to have that each required a custom build: record player, calculator, watch, etc. Now all of that can be done on a single chipbecause of the analog-> digital shift. That's what verteporfin does. It reframes all of these differentproblems into a "wound healing" problem that can be solved.
I came just in the nick of time to see someone answer in the way i would have too. I think mysharon confuses these upcoming therapies and devices with the current "scar removal" treatments we have that at best work to make scars harder to see or better match ones skin colour.
8 hours ago, k95 said:Ever heard of Latisse? It's FDA-approved for treating glaucoma, but it's actuallybetter known for itsoff-label use for eyelash growth and thickening. You don't need FDA approval when something is known to work off label. Cytrellis is seeking FDA approval for scars because most doctorsdon't even know what micro-coring is, much less whether it works for scarring.
You're looking at this all wrong. Fraxel/CROSS/etc. are all *scar removal treatments*. Verteporfin is a *wound healing treatment*.
When an acne scar is cut out, there's no longer a scar -- it's just a wound. As long as the wound does not go into the hypodermis (i.e., fat atrophy), there's no reason why Verteporfin won't work. This is also why micro-coring works: it's scarless *wound healing*. The limitation of micro-coring is that it will take many many sessions whereas Verteporfin can be one-and-done.
Similarly, Minoxidil/Fin/Dut/etc are all *hair loss treatments*. If you do a FUE hair transplant, then regenerating donor area is a *wound healing* problem, where Verteporfin will help. If you have infinite donor area, you've effectively cured hair loss.
Think of all the analog machines we used to have that each required a custom build: record player, calculator, watch, etc. Now all of that can be done on a single chipbecause of the analog-> digital shift. That's what verteporfin does. It reframes all of these differentproblems into a "wound healing" problem that can be solved.
About thefda approval you got it completely wrong, I am sorry.You cannot say verteporfin has already been approved for eye issues,so it doesn't need fda approval for scars. Research and medicine don't work this way. You need fda approval for the indication acne scars for threereasons 1.) to prove that it actually work 2.)safety 3.) marketing. The pharmaceutical company will always seek fda approval because without it they cannot market the product and sell it.
I have heard of Latisse and the reason why it hasn't been fda approved for eyelash growth and thickening is because it is NOT SAFE, not because you don't need FDA approval when something is known to work off label. You can catch up on the countless issues Latiesse causes and why dermatologists actually don't recommend it.
As to the rest, there is really no use in engaging in this further. The research on verteporfin is still in its infancy and at this point there are just hypotheses, littleresults. For the scar to be cut out as you say excision needs to be performed. As I wrote earlier only a very small% of the acne scars are suitable for excision, mostly ice-picks and shallow boxcars, so excision really is not a viable option currently. It is considered second choice as there are a lot of things which could go wrong with excision and you might end up worse off than before. But, yes, Verteporfin has shown some regeneration potential in mice, so it is definitely exploring it. We will live and see.
How many sessions of micro-coring will it take if it treats only 5%of the skin at a time? 20? =)) And if it hasn't been approved even for all kinds of wrinkles, only for those on the lower face, what are the chances for atrophic scars?
From the FDA website: https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/understanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label
Why might an approved drug be used for an unapproved use?
From the FDA perspective, once the FDA approves a drug, healthcare providers generally may prescribe the drug for an unapproved use when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient.
QuoteHow many sessions of micro-coring willit take if it treats only 5%of the skin at a time?
IIRC, they've removed up to 40% of the tissue and still obtained scarless healing. But let's say 15% to be conservative. Over 10 sessions -- since the cores are taken at random, you'll have overlap, so say the cored area needs to be 1.5x greater than the actual surface area of the skin-- you should have complete scar removal. With 3-month gaps, 10 sessions can be done in 3 years. Even a 50% improvement in 1.5 years would be great.
7 hours ago, David4bay said:I came just in the nick of time to see someone answer in the way i would have too. I think mysharon confuses these upcoming therapies and devices with the current "scar removal" treatments we have that at best work to make scars harder to see or better match ones skin colour.
But the scar has to be removed somehow, no? How do you imagine the 'scarless healing' therapies to work on scar tissue? Get applied on the scar and magic effect scarred skin -> scarless skin? How do you want to excise rolling scars or boxcars which are not surface level but deep and atrophic, where there is lack of skin? And how about extensive scarring?
21 minutes ago, k95 said:From the FDA website: https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/understanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label
Why might an approved drug be used for an unapproved use?
From the FDA perspective, once the FDA approves a drug, healthcare providers generally may prescribe the drug for an unapproved use when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient.
IIRC, they've removed up to 40% of the tissue and still obtained scarless healing. But let's say 15% to be conservative. Over 10 sessions -- since the cores are taken at random, you'll have overlap, so say the cored area needs to be 1.5x greater than the actual surface area of the skin-- you should have complete scar removal. With 3-month gaps, 10 sessions can be done in 3 years. Even a 50% improvement in 1.5 years would be great.
Health care providers may prescribe the drug off label but they do it on their own responsibility and at their own risk. It is not considered standard. If some complication happens, they can be legally prosecuted.Fda clerance is needed for the reasons I stated aboveproof of efficacy, safety and marketing.
No dermatologist would prescribe you Latisse for eyelash thickening because if they do and you get problems, which happens very often, it is the doctor's license on the line.
Do you have a link to the source of the 40% removal of tissue with the micro-coring? Cytrellis conducted studies on acne scars as well, two years ago. Any information as to why they didn't get fda approval for scars as well,and haven't even applied for it?
1 hour ago, nikkigirl said:To see you people endlessly wait for a cure that never happens.....and i don't come here much anymore.
Good
@k95This is the video of the microcoring treatment on wrinkles,where the lady got 3 treatments with 5% coverage each time, overall 15%. I am really curious how you come up with 40% or 50% at a time, because I looked up again today and couldn't find anything. Do you happen to have insider info of some kind? Also, do you know what happened to the Cytrellis acne scar studies conducted 2 years ago? Cytrellis applied for fda approval just for wrinkles, not for acne scars. The studies didn't show good results?
"It reduces excess skin by about 5 to 10 percent, but you dont have any scarring, so if you do it 10 times, youve removed 30 percent of skin."
Can This New FDA-Cleared Technology Rival a Facelift Without Surgery? - NewBeauty
@mysharonthe paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23357983/ 40% seems to be the upper limit but 10 - 15% probably has fewer risks, esp for older patients being treated for wrinkles.
My calculations for "10 sessions over 3 years" were still done with an assumption of 15%, which many people would be happy with.
Methods:Thirty-two 1 1-inch sites per flank received either 20 or 40 percent treatment coverage. Photographs were taken and punch biopsies were performed at days 0, 7, 28, 56, and 84. Biopsy specimens were evaluated for histology and collagen content.
Results:All treatment sites healed quickly, with no evidence of scarring or infection. Coring sites were easily identified and contained increased fibroblast activity and newly synthesized collagen. At 1 month, the papillary dermis and epidermis of the coring sites were up to 196 percent thicker compared with controls (p < 0.001).
22 minutes ago, k95 said:@mysharonthe paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23357983/ 40% seems to be the upper limit but 10 - 15% probably has fewer risks, esp for older patients being treated for wrinkles.
My calculations for "10 sessions over 3 years" were still done with an assumption of 15%, which many people would be happy with.
Methods:Thirty-two 1 1-inch sites per flank received either 20 or 40 percent treatment coverage. Photographs were taken and punch biopsies were performed at days 0, 7, 28, 56, and 84. Biopsy specimens were evaluated for histology and collagen content.
Results:All treatment sites healed quickly, with no evidence of scarring or infection. Coring sites were easily identified and contained increased fibroblast activity and newly synthesized collagen. At 1 month, the papillary dermis and epidermis of the coring sites were up to 196 percent thicker compared with controls (p < 0.001).
Thanks for the link.This study seems to have been published in 2013 however and it is not by Rox Anderson or the team at Boston Mass General Hospital, who developed the micro-coring device of Cytrellis. The official information is very scarce. I have read about 5% at a time or a small % at a time as higher % would mean more risk. We will live and see. The device isn't available at dermoffices on a large scale as of now. Hopefully, there will be some light on the mysterious acne scar studies, which seem to never have been published.