The science of skincare continues to expand, and some of those advances have landed directly in consumers’ hands. Is that a good thing though? Photo: The New York Times
For years, an at-home beauty device meant a hair dryer or maybe an electric toothbrush.
Today, they have never been more omnipresent or more advanced, with heavily marketed products that range from US$500 (approximately RM2,240) LED masks that promise to reduce fine lines, pigmentation and redness to laser wands that permanently (or so they claim) remove unwanted body hair.
The appeal, in part, is the idea of being able to bring home medical-grade self-care without stepping into a dermatologist’s or plastic surgeon’s office.
Consumers have taken notice. In November, a report by the Beauty Tech Group and PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated at-home beauty devices to be growing at four times the rate of the overall skincare category, and predicted that sales will reach US$92.55bil (RM414.51bil) by 2028.
In the age of social media, do-it-yourself devices offer another kind of visual currency as well: they tend to be flashy and expensive and in selfies make you look kind of cool or scary, like a minor superhero or a sci-fi movie character.
Despite their initial sticker shock, the appeal of these tools stems in part from the relative bargains they seem to offer, when it comes to the latest tech innovations in personal care.
A red light hat from HigherDOSE is US$449 (RM2,011) and a laser starter kit from LYMA is US$2,695 (RM12,070).
Along with those price tags come promises.
The hat from HigherDOSE pledges on its website to “revitalise your scalp and support healthy hair growth with the power of 650nm red light”. LYMA’s flashlight-shaped wand “addresses everything from body scars, cellulite and spider veins to acne, sagging skin and rosacea”.
Read more: What lies beneath: Malaysians should know what goes into their beauty products
Everyday beauty enthusiasts seem more willing than ever to invest in those ideas.
“The rise of cosmetic facial surgery and the widespread use of filters and editing tools like Facetune have redefined beauty standards,” said Lily Twelftree of Barefaced, an Australian beauty analysis company with a popular TikTok account.
“This cultural shift has raised consumer expectations, with people willing to pay premium prices for beauty products that deliver elevated results. Beauty products are now expected to replicate the results of a needle or a knife, and consumers are willing to pay top dollar to get those results at home.”
It’s no longer enough to conceal a pimple with makeup, said Twelftree.
According to her, consumers “now want the ability to laser it off entirely”. For US$19.50 (RM87.30), Light Activated Beauty’s Acne Light Therapy Patch claims to do just that.
The kinds of treatments that are marketed via these devices do have real roots in science.
Red light therapy, or photobiomodulation (PBM), was discovered by Hungarian physician Endre Mester in 1967 at the Semmelweis Medical University in Budapest, Hungary, when he noticed that laser light helped promote hair growth and wound healing in rats.
Since then, it has become a treatment for skin concerns including inflammation, scars and wrinkles.
The efficacy of doing those treatments at home, however, is only beginning to be evaluated.
In October 2024, in a study published in JAMA Dermatology, researchers from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania found that patients can improve their psoriasis just as well at home with phototherapy devices that are designed to be easy to self administer.
But that was specifically for psoriasis, with a limited pool of 783 patients. Popular at-home skincare devices tend to be less vetted, said the study’s lead author, Dr Joel Gelfand, a professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the Perelman School.
“If they aren’t studied in a randomised control trial, it makes me skeptical,” he said.
“Was a study done by the manufacturer in a situation to benefit financially, or was it large with hundreds of patients? Because it’s a very murky area, most people would be best off speaking to a dermatologist and seeing if a light modality would have some effect on their skin.”
Read more: Beauty industry turns to mindfulness and sustainability, as seen in Malaysia
Dr Evan Rieder, a dual board-certified physician in dermatology and psychiatry who practices in New York City, said that many devices marketed for at-home use are cleared by the US FDA, which is different from being FDA approved.
“‘Approved’ means a device or a medicine has gone through rigorous clinical trials compared to a placebo, and the results are not just due to chance and have been replicated in other studies as well,” he said.
FDA 510(k) Clearance is often what you’re seeing at home, which indicates solely that the device has been evaluated by the FDA and is not dangerous for nonprofessional use.
Rieder declined to name specific devices, but said that many of them have photos on their websites of before and after results that are “grossly misleading”, with inconsistent lighting and shadows that make the results even harder to see.
The outcome one can expect is subtle at best, he said, for those who have “good skin or minor concerns”.
It may be wiser, he went on, to approach at-home care as a tool to support or supplement in-office treatments.
For the cost of an at-home laser device, a patient could – depending on where they live and the doctor they visit – get two or three fractionated laser treatments.
“That’s a major improvement with real brightening – decreased photo damage, decreasing the burden of pre-cancers and maintained with just sunscreen and moisturiser at home,” he added. – ©2024 The New York Times Company
