Eyelash growth-enhancing products are starting to be sold by a small but growing number of cosmetics companies. In one form or another, products like these have been around for some time without much success. The success ratio changed when Jan Marini launched her Age Intervention Eyelash product, which contained an ingredient the company merely referred to as “eyelash growth factor.” There is no such thing as eyelash growth factor, so that made-up marketing term was meaningless.
But who cared what they called it, because after a few weeks this product worked, and I mean really worked. My lashes actually became amazingly, almost preposterously long and darker, and putting mascara on made it almost look like I was wearing false eyelashes. Every woman using it in my office was also experiencing the same thing. A cosmetic product that really works (and it worked fast) doesn’t happen every day or even a few times per year.
It turned out that the mysterious eyelash growth factor was something the FDA did care about because the ingredient causing the lashes to suddenly grow was the glaucoma drug bimatoprost. Marini was using this prescription-only drug without following regulations.
As a result of FDA pressure, Marini slightly renamed the product Age Intervention Eyelash Conditioner and listed the lash-growing ingredient on the label with its ridiculously long chemical name of 7-(3, 5-dihydroxy-2-(3-hydroxy-4-(3-(triflormethyl) phenoxy)-1-butenyl) cyclopentyl), N-ethyl,) 1R-(alpha(Z), 2beta (1E,3R), 3alpha, 5alpha)). No wonder she wanted to leave that off the label!
This nearly indecipherable ingredient is similar to a class of ingredients known as prostaglandin analogues. These drugs, including latanoprost, bimatoprost (the drug present in Marini’s original formula), and travoprost, are used in eye drops to treat eye health problems such as glaucoma or ocular hypertension. One of the common side-effects of using these prescription-only glaucoma eye drops is that eyelashes grow, darken, and become thicker. Adapting this to a cosmetic made sense, so Marini stuck it in a tube, and added a thin brush to help with application. You simply brushed it along the lashline once a day, in much the same way you would apply liquid eyeliner. It was flying off the shelves in no time, and quickly became a celebrity favorite.
The “active” ingredient listed above is, according to Marini, a customized analogue her lab had created and therefore was not a drug. Therefore, she was not in any trouble with the FDA for using a prescription drug in a cosmetic product. At least that’s what Marini and her staff were telling the public. Behind the scenes, the company was embroiled in a battle with Allergan, a pharmaceutical company that holds a patent for using bimatoprost in their own lash-enhancing product. Allergan was also spending lots of money getting it approved through the proper channels for a new drug application with the FDA. Its new drug status? Growing longer, darker, thicker eyelashes, of course! On the other hand, Marini was attempting to get around Allergan’s patent and the FDA at the same time. It didn’t work.
Patent infringement and FDA regulations aren’t something to sneeze at. In 2007 the FDA seized over 12,600 tubes of Age Intervention Eyelash (the original formula) and sales were stopped. The FDA accused Marini of using a drug (bimatoprost) and misbranding it, which she was. So what was the danger? If a woman uses Age Intervention Eyelash containing a form of this glaucoma medication and they are already using glaucoma eye drops to treat the disease she could be at increased risk for optic nerve damage and eye inflammation, both of which can have serious consequences, including blindness.
Given that most of the public didn’t know what was going on and that both the original product and its successor had already gained a strong following, Marini made the decision to reformulate again and renamed her product Marini Lash. This version does not contain bimatoprost or anything else even remotely similar. Instead, it now contains peptides that Marini claims works better than the previous version. Yet there is no research anywhere proving any peptide can grow longer, thicker, or darker eyelashes so it is NOT a lash-enhancing product I can recommend.
What happens now with Allergan’s patent and FDA approval? As this book goes to press Allergan is hoping to enjoy unprecedented success with the launch of their eyelash-growing product, which they’ve named Latisse. Latisse’s active ingredient is 0.03% bimatoprost, and it will come in a brush-on formula to be applied to the lash line, just like Marini’s original lash product.
A major difference between Marini’s former Age Intervention Lash products (as well as those from other brands selling the same thing, and more on that in a moment) is that because Latisse is classified as a drug, it is available by prescription only. Not only will this require a trip to or consultation with your physician, but the cost is considerable: $120 for a one-month supply. Marini’s former lash product wasn’t cheap either at $160 per tube, but at least it lasted several months with once-per-day use.
There is every reason to believe that Latisse will have a noticeable impact on the length, color, and thickness of your eyelashes. However, there are still side effects to consider such as a stinging sensation on skin where Latisse is applied, potential skin discoloration, and a permanent change in pigmentation of the iris (the colored part of the eye). Incidences of such side effects are low, but, as with any drug, you need to discuss the pros and cons with your prescribing physician or pharmacist. By the way, these same side effects were potentially present with the Marini product, she just didn’t tell anyone. If anything, she went on and on about how safe her product was.
One question I’ve pondered since Allergan and Marini were at odds with each other is why the FDA (and Allergan, for that matter) only went after Marini for using a glaucoma drug off-label. Several other companies are selling products with the same drug or with another type of prostaglandin analogue. They include Peter Thomas Roth Lashes to Die For, MD Lash Factor, Revitalash, Lilash, and Neulash. As of this writing, all of these products are available, all are expensive, and none have been seized by the FDA or called into question by Allergan. In any event, it continues to bother me. Why should Marini take all the financial loss while other companies continue to enjoy success selling lash-enhancement products that work because, surprise, they contain prostaglandin analogues? If the FDA and Allergan wanted to make an example of Marini, the mission was accomplished. But to be fair, they should’ve endeavored to make an example of any company selling this type of product.
(Sources: Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology, November 2006, pages 755-764; www. nlm. nih. gov/medlineplus/druginfo/medmaster/a602027.html; http://dermatology. cdlib. org/93/commentary/alopecia/wolf. html; www. medscape. com/viewarticle/443657; Drugs of Today, January 2003, pages 61-74; www. elixirnews. com/newsView. php? id=1l49; www. reuters. com/article/pressRelease/idUS122104+18-July-2008+BW20080718; and www. truthinaging. com.)