Everyday sunscreen use may compromise vitamin D in temperate climes

Ultraviolet Filters: Dissecting Current Facts and Myths

Skin cancer is a global and increasingly prevalent issue, causing significant individual and economic damage. UV filters in sunscreens play a major role in mitigating the risks that solar ultraviolet ra-diation poses to the human organism. While empirically effective, multiple adverse effects of these compounds are discussed in the media and in scientific research. UV filters are blamed for the dis-ruption of endocrine processes and vitamin D synthesis, damaging effects on the environment, induction of acne and neurotoxic and carcinogenic effects. Some of these allegations are based on scientific facts while others are simply arbitrary. This is especially dangerous considering the risks of exposing unprotected skin to the sun. In summary, UV filters approved by the respective governing bodies are safe for human use and their proven skin cancer-preventing properties make them in-dispensable for sensible sun protection habits. Nonetheless, compounds like octocrylene and ben-zophenone-3 that are linked to the harming of marine ecosystems could be omitted from skin care regimens in favor of the myriad of non-toxic UV filters.

Results of longitudinal Nutri-D study: factors influencing winter and summer vitamin D status in a Caucasian population

Introduction

Inadequate vitamin D status is a worldwide public health issue. In humans, vitamin D status is affected by diet, and even more by exposure to ultraviolet B (UVB) light and consequential endogenous synthesis. Various personal and environmental factors influence endogenous synthesis. Factors affecting vitamin D status were investigated in a prospective longitudinal cohort study with a summer and winter observation period.

Methods

The final sample included 292 adults, of those 111 (38%) males and 181 (62%) females, with a mean age of 38.2 (±11.8) years from Slovenia who were not supplementing vitamin D. Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] concentrations were measured in both periods; vitamin D intake, self-reported body mass index (BMI), and protective behaviors against sun were also recorded. Other measured parameters included measurements of constitutive skin color using the objective individual typology angle (ITA), and difference in the melanin index (ΔMI) for assessment of objective sun exposure.

Results

In winter a high prevalence (63.4%) of insufficient vitamin D status (< 50 nmoL/L) was observed with higher odds ratios (OR) for insufficiency in those with a higher BMI and light ITA. During summer, insufficiency prevalence was low (5.5%), but half of the participants (50.0%) had suboptimal 25(OH)D concentration (< 75 nmol/L). In summer OR for suboptimal status were higher in those with obesity, lower ΔMI, light ITA, low vitamin D intake, and protective clothing behaviors.

Conclusion

Using a series of measures, we showed that vitamin D status is hugely affected by several personal factors such as BMI, ITA, vitamin D intake, ΔMI, and protective behavior against the sun. This conclusion questions the usefulness of generalized population-level recommendations since personal factors are a major predictor of vitamin D status.

Prevalence, trend, and predictor analyses of vitamin D deficiency in the US population, 2001-2018

Background

The National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES) collect and release data to the public every 2 years. The latest NHANES study on the vitamin D status of Americans was based on data from 2001 to 2014, and the latest data (2015–2016 and 2017–2018) have not been studied yet. Thus, we extracted all the available data from NHANES (2001–2018), aiming to analyze the prevalence and trends of vitamin D deficiency (VDD) in the US population to bridge the research gap.

Methods

According to previous studies and nutritional guidelines for vitamin D, severe VDD was defined as serum 25(OH)D levels of <25 nmol/L, moderate deficiency as 25–50 nmol/L, insufficiency as 50–75 nmol/L, and sufficiency as >75 nmol/L. We comprehensively estimated the prevalence of serum 25(OH)D levels of <25, 25–50, 50–75, and >75 nmol/L in Americans and described trends in vitamin D status from 2001 to 2018. Weighted multivariate linear regression models were used to explore the predictors of VDD. All analyses and the data were adjusted for the complex sampling design of NHANES using Mobile Examination Center (MEC) weights.

Results

Based on the most recent data of 71,685 participants, our study showed that the weighted prevalence of severe and moderate VDD was 2.6% and 22.0%, and the prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency (VDI) and sufficiency was 40.9% and 34.5%. The prevalence of severe and moderate VDD was higher in women, non-Hispanic black Americans, people aged 20–29 years, and during the season of winter. From 2001 to 2018, we found a slight linear decrease in the prevalence of moderate VDD (coefficient = −0.847; P = 0.009) and VDI (coefficient = −0.810; P = 0.014). We also found a slight linear increase in vitamin D sufficient (coefficient = 1.693; P = 0.004). However, no trend change was observed in severe VDD (coefficient = −0.037; P = 0.698). Age, sex, ethnicity, season, sun-protective behaviors, lower BMI, lower socioeconomic status (SES), drinking, and lower milk consumption were predictors of severe VDD.

Conclusion

Vitamin D deficiency is still prevalent in the United States, especially in non-Hispanic black Americans, women, individuals aged 20–29, and during winter. Therefore, individuals, healthcare providers, and policymakers should take public health measures to develop and implement prevention strategies to deal with VDD.

Photoprotection according to skin phototype and dermatoses: practical recommendations from an expert panel

Increasing evidence on the impact of the different wavelengths of sunlight on the skin demonstrates the need for tailored recommendations of sunscreen according to skin phototype and dermatoses, which is now possible due to advances in the filters and formulations of sunscreens. A selective literature search was performed by an international expert panel, focusing on the type of sunscreen to recommend for photoaging, skin cancers, photodermatoses, pigmentary disorders and skin inflammatory disorders. Protection against ultraviolet (UV)B is especially important for light skin as there is a high risk of sunburn, DNA damage and skin cancers. Darker skin may be naturally better protected against UVB but is more prone to hyperpigmentation induced by visible light (VL) and UVA. Protection against UVA, VL and infrared A can be helpful for all skin phototypes as they penetrate deeply and cause photoaging. Long‐wave UVA1 plays a critical role in pigmentation, photoaging, skin cancer, DNA damage and photodermatoses. Adapting the formulation and texture of the sunscreen to the type of skin and dermatoses is also essential. Practical recommendations on the type of sunscreen to prescribe are provided to support the clinician in daily practice.