Will Latisse Turn Brooke Shields' Blue Eyes Brown?
Long before there was a Hanna Montana there was a Wanda Nevada -- a 1979 movie starring Brooke Shields and Peter Fonda. I saw the movie yesterday.
I also saw the first TV ad for Latisse starring Brooke Shields last night during a re-run of "Desperate Housewives." Latisse is Allergan's "new" drug approved by the FDA for "hypotrichosis."
Hypotrichosis, according to a Wikipedia entry, "is the term dermatologists use to describe a condition of no hair growth. Unlike alopecia, which describes hair loss where formerly there was hair growth, hypotrichosis describes a situation where there wasn't any hair growth in the first place."
That, however, is NOT how Allergan describes the condition. According to the "Patient Information" sheet, "Hypotrichosis is another name for having inadequate or not enough eyelashes."
I imagine asking asking a woman if she has "adequate" or "enough" eyelashes is like asking a man if he has a "big" enough or "hard" enough penis. It is unlikely, therefore, that any woman wouldn't want, at least, to try this product once.
BTW, the "full prescribing information," which I am sure nary a single consumer will ever read, says "LATISSE™ (bimatoprost ophthalmic solution) 0.03% is indicated to treat hypotrichosis of the eyelashes by increasing their growth including length, thickness and darkness." Nothing about "inadequacy" or "not enough" here.
In the TV ad and Latisse Web site, Brooke explains why she was a good candidate for Latisse:
"I thought I'd be a good candidate for Latisse," says Brooke in her video diary on the Web site, "simply because over the years I've just been ripping off my false eyelashes while on Broadway and Allergan approached me and said 'this is a product, it works, it's FDA approved,' and my interest just piqued!"
I'm sure it "piqued" (or should I say "peaked") even more when Allergan told Brooke how much they were willing to pay her to shill their product! Watch her interest "peak" in the video here. You can also amuse yourself in "Brooke's Gallery," where you can see "before" and "after" photos -- over a 16-week period -- from every possible angle and zoom in and out! From the looks of it, Brooke earned every penny Allergan paid her! I wonder if the product manager got a personalized and autographed photo?
Brooke, like many users of Rx medications before her, is impressed that her medication is "FDA approved." As if that is equivalent to saying it is completely safe.
Recently, the FDA came out with some draft guidance (see "Communicating Risk in Online Drug Ads: Reading the Tea Leaves in Recent FDA Draft Guidance") that indicates it may have a problem with patients underestimating the side effects of drugs just because FDA has approved them or approved the ads (or statements from drug companies) about them. "Consumers have preconceived ideas about the amount of scrutiny these ads undergo. Many believe FDA exercises tight regulatory control over the content of these ads and to some extent, believe that all ads have been pre-reviewed prior to airing. As a result, consumers are likely to expect that the most relevant risks have been included in the ad."
Perhaps Brooke is not aware of one the possible "relevant risk" that's mentioned in the "About Safety" page of the Latisse web site:
"Increased brown iris pigmentation has occurred when similar medications were instilled directly into the eye to treat elevated intraocular pressure/glaucoma. Although iris pigmentation was not reported in clinical studies with LATISSE™, patients should be advised about the potential for increased brown iris pigmentation which is likely to be permanent."
I have commented on this possible side effect back in October, 2008: "Allergan's Secret Plan to Thwart Homeland Security and the FDA Approval Process."
When Allergan says "similar medications," it really should have said "this medication" because Latisse is just another name for Lumigan, Allergan's anti-glacoma drug. Both are (bimatoprost ophthalmic solution) 0.03%.
Of course, application of Latisse is outside the eye, whereas Lumigan is applied to the eye. Yet, accidents happen and some Latisse can get into the eye if not carefully applied.
It would be a shame if Brooke's blue eyes turned brown.
















12 comments:
Interesting article about Latisse. I've been hearing a lot about it recently. I use an OTC product called Revitalash, created by an eye Doctor. I got the results I hoped for, though it took about 8-9 weeks. Latisse sounds scary!! And--expensive! The fact that it may change eyecolor is enough to keep me away. I'll stick with what works (on my lashes and wallet!!)
The results don't seem any better than what most women will get with a couple of coats of Maybelline.
Yet another case of manufacturing a condition in order to boost sales.
PLEASE read this: I used Latisse, which was prescribed my my eye specialist for Glaucoma. Nowhere in the side effects did it say that one of it's effects was lash growth where it was NOT supposed to be! I had eyelashes growing in my tear ducts and around that area. They had to be pulled out one by one with tweezers! It was SO painful since NO medication could be used. My pharmacist contacted the manufacturer of this drug to let them know that this was NOT stated in the possible side effects sections. They did NOT respond!!!!Someone Has to let Brooke Shields know what she is recommending with her ads for this product. Or does she know and NOT CARE!!!
"It would be a shame if Brooke's blue eyes turned brown." A shame? And what exactly is wrong with brown eyes?
She just wouldn't be herself anymore. How would she feel?
"A shame? And what exactly is wrong with brown eyes?"
Everything, blue eyes look better.
Latisse would not be prescribed for glaucoma, so either you're not telling the truth, you're confused, or you need to sue your 'eye specialist.'
If you read the post carefully, you will see that Latisse, under a different name (Lumigan), is indicated for glacoma:
"Latisse is just another name for Lumigan, Allergan's anti-glacoma drug. Both are (bimatoprost ophthalmic solution) 0.03%."
You actually can get growth in the tear-duct area of the eye if TOO MUCH product is applied. One drop per eye is all you need and it shouldn't be applied that far down. Latisse causes lashes to grow longer, thicker and darker. And it totally works! If you dont want that to happen in the tear-duct area, do not apply it there. If your product drips, you are using too much.
one's interest is "piqued" not "peaked"
Thanks, Mary. I made the correction.
Before I changed careers I worked for many years in the health care field. When I first learned of Latisse I was intrigued. Sounded like a dream product. But, of course, I knew I had to do the research first. A training I've never let go of. But even for me this information seemed hard to find...or rather, not as easy to pin down as it should have been.
These are the questions I had, after surfing for answers (the lack of detailed clarity on 'medical' websites was absurd):
1) An 'increase' in the brown pigmentation of the colored part of the eye, meaning the iris? If so, it implies the eye would already have to have some amount of the color brown - and that it *increases* the amount or intensity of the brown color. So does this mean that blue eyes, for instance would not be affected at all? Or is "increase," which is what many websites are saying, not the right word? Does it potentially cause blue eyes to irreversibly become brown - in full or in part?
2) Why does it grow hair on other parts of the body? No matter where Latisse is applied hair can grow on a random body part? Or does it only grow where there has been direct contact with the product?
3) Why is Bimatoprost part of the formula? How does it contribute to the intended result of more/longer eyelashes? Seems like it might be an unnecessary risk to include it unless there is definite rationale.
--------
Thanks for posting this information! That it's only a new label for another medication is important to understand. What you have here is more forthcoming than 'medical' the websites I've scoured that were supposedly disclosing 'helpful' information about "Latisse." Only a website about the FDA and legal concerns re: this treatment seemed to be pointing consumers to more of the truth. This is not anything anyone should have to dig for. Also, I'm surprised at some of the comments! Clearly your post was not thoroughly read by all. And of course any liquid dropped onto or into the eye may find it's way into the tear duct, as one person posting insisted should not happen. What could be the motivation behind such criticism of another person's experience?
This is a good contribution, John Mack. Your blog is saved to favorites.
Post a Comment