Egyptian National Consensus on Dermocosmetic Ingredient Selection Across Common Dermatology Scenarios: A RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Study

Le résumé fourni par la source

Dermocosmetics are widely used to complement dermatologic care, yet context-specific guidance remains limited for populations with Fitzpatrick skin types III–V. We convened a national expert panel to generate transparent, reproducible recommendations across ten common clinical scenarios. Egyptian dermatologists participated in round 1 (national survey, n = 601) and round 2 (expert panel, n = 16), both with anonymous ratings and inter-round feedback, using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method (median bands 1–3/4–6/7–9; disagreement index (DI) = interpercentile range (IPR)/IPR adjusted for symmetry (IPRAS); DI > 1.0 = disagreement). Per-item outputs included median, P30, P70, IPR (30–70), asymmetry Index (AI), IPRAS, DI, and final category (appropriate/uncertain/inappropriate). We additionally benchmarked classifications against prior consensus, guidelines, and key evidence frameworks. Across ten vignettes and 30 ingredients (30 ingredients × 10 scenarios = 300 items; multiple raters per item in round 1), 158 (52.7%) items were appropriate (median ≥ 7; DI ≤ 1.0), 135 (45.0%) were uncertain, and 7 (2.3%) were inappropriate. Photoprotection had the highest appropriateness across scenarios (broad-spectrum/tinted SPF), with a small number of DI-flagged uncertain exceptions. Hydration/barrier agents (e.g., hyaluronic acid, peptides, ceramides) were appropriate in stress-aging, post-laser, and post-procedure care. Pigment modulators (tranexamic acid, arbutin, niacinamide, vitamin C, glabridin) were appropriate in melasma/post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation and chronic sun-induced pigmentation. Classical retinoids were inappropriate for postpartum/breastfeeding and immediate post-procedure; lower-irritancy retinoid esters were context-dependent. Botanicals showed inconsistent support. Panel disagreement (DI > 1.0) declined from 38.3% in round 1 to 15.7% (47/300) in round 2. Patterns largely aligned with prior consensus; visible-light-mitigating photoprotection and timing-specific retinoid use were emphasized for darker phototypes. We provide a transparent, regionally relevant framework for dermocosmetic ingredient selection. Sun protection and barrier support are foundational; pigment modulators are scenario-specific; retinoids require selective use; botanicals remain adjunctive. Doctors and patients often use “dermocosmetics” (medical-grade skincare) to support treatments for dark spots or patches (melasma, post-acne marks), aging, or recovery after procedures. But it has not been clear which ingredients fit which situations—especially for people with darker skin types living in sunny climates. We brought together dermatology experts from across Egypt to rate 30 ingredients (for example sunscreen, hydrating agents, vitamin C, tranexamic acid, and retinoids) across 10 everyday scenarios such as melasma after pregnancy, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation after acne, post-laser care, and stress-related skin aging. We used a structured method that keeps individual ratings anonymous and sets rules in advance for what counts as “appropriate,” “uncertain,” or “inappropriate.” We also measured when the experts disagreed and reported those details to keep the process transparent. In summary, sunscreen was essential across scenarios—especially tinted options that also block visible light. Hydrators and barrier-repair ingredients (like hyaluronic acid and ceramides) were a strong base for stressed or recently treated skin. Brightening ingredients (like tranexamic acid, arbutin, niacinamide, and vitamin C) helped most when pigmentation was the main concern. Retinoids were helpful for aging in suitable patients but not right after procedures or while breastfeeding. Botanical extracts had mixed support and are best used as add-ons. This guidance can help tailor skincare choices to real-world patients and skin tones.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.