Magic Minerals Airbrush Foundation is a popular choice for many individuals who want a flawless and airbrushed finish to their makeup routine. With a range of shades to choose from, finding the perfect match for your skin tone is easier than ever. The shades available in the Magic Minerals Airbrush Foundation range from light to dark, ensuring that there is something for everyone. Whether you have fair skin or a deeper complexion, you can find a shade that will blend seamlessly into your natural skin tone. One of the benefits of using the Magic Minerals Airbrush Foundation is its lightweight and natural formula. The foundation is designed to provide buildable coverage while still allowing your skin to breathe.
The characters are a sheer delight, you feel a sense of belonging and knowing as soon as you meet them from the lovely but bold Cassie, the kind and dainty Tabitha, the heart of gold if a little rough around the edges Rue and the anxiety-ridden and rude perfectionist Ivy (Gilmore Girls fans will recognise Paris in her!!) who just wants to be the best- but maybe not for the reason you think.
LZR reports personal compensation for advisory board activities from Biogen, Genentech, and Novartis; and research support from Biogen, Celgene, and Genentech. ArrangeMe allows for the publication of unique arrangements of both popular titles and original compositions from a wide variety of voices and backgrounds.
The foundation is designed to provide buildable coverage while still allowing your skin to breathe. It doesn't feel heavy or cakey on the skin, making it perfect for everyday wear. The airbrush effect of this foundation gives your skin a smooth and flawless appearance.
Comparison of switching to 6-week dosing of natalizumab versus continuing with 4-week dosing in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (NOVA): a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3b trial
Background: Treatment with natalizumab once every 4 weeks is approved for patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, but is associated with a risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Switching to extended-interval dosing is associated with lower progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy risk, but the efficacy of this approach is unclear. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of natalizumab once every 6 weeks compared with once every 4 weeks in patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.
Methods: We did a randomised, controlled, open-label, phase 3b trial (NOVA) at 89 multiple sclerosis centres across 11 countries in the Americas, Europe, and Western Pacific. Included participants were aged 18-60 years with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and had been treated with intravenous natalizumab 300 mg once every 4 weeks with no relapses for at least 12 months before randomisation, with no missed doses in the previous 3 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a randomisation sequence generated by the study funder and contract personnel with interactive response technology, to switch to natalizumab once every 6 weeks or continue with once every 4 weeks. The centralised MRI reader, independent neurology evaluation committee, site examining neurologists, site backup examining neurologists, and site examining technicians were masked to study group assignments. The primary endpoint was the number of new or newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions at week 72, assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of assigned treatment and had at least one postbaseline MRI, relapse, or neurological examination or efficacy assessment. Missing primary endpoint data were handled under prespecified primary and secondary estimands: the primary estimand included all data, regardless of whether participants remained on the assigned treatment; the secondary estimand classed all data obtained after treatment discontinuation or study withdrawal as missing. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment. Study enrolment is closed and an open-label extension study is ongoing. This study is registered with EudraCT, 2018-002145-11, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03689972.
Findings: Between Dec 26, 2018, and Aug 30, 2019, 605 patients were assessed for eligibility and 499 were enrolled and assigned to receive natalizumab once every 6 weeks (n=251) or once every 4 weeks (n=248). After prespecified adjustments for missing data, mean numbers of new or newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions at week 72 were 0·20 (95% CI 0·07-0·63) in the once every 6 weeks group and 0·05 (0·01-0·22) in the once every 4 weeks group (mean lesion ratio 4·24 [95% CI 0·86-20·85]; p=0·076) under the primary estimand, and 0·31 (95% CI 0·12-0·82) and 0·06 (0·01-0·31; mean lesion ratio 4·93 [95% CI 1·05-23·20]; p=0·044) under the secondary estimand. Two participants in the once every 6 weeks group with extreme new or newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesion numbers (≥25) contributed most of the excess lesions. Adverse events occurred in 194 (78%) of 250 participants in the once every 6 weeks group and 190 (77%) of 247 in the once every 4 weeks group, and serious adverse events occurred in 17 (7%) and 17 (7%), respectively. No deaths were reported. There was one case of asymptomatic progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (without clinical signs) in the once every 6 weeks group, and no cases in the once every 4 weeks group; 6 months after diagnosis, the participant was without increased disability and remained classified as asymptomatic.
Interpretation: We found a numerical difference in the mean number of new or newly enlarging T2 hyperintense lesions at week 72 between the once every 6 weeks and once every 4 weeks groups, which reached significance under the secondary estimand, but interpretation of statistical differences (or absence thereof) is limited because disease activity in the once every 4 weeks group was lower than expected. The safety profiles of natalizumab once every 6 weeks and once every 4 weeks were similar. Although this trial was not powered to assess differences in risk of progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy, the occurrence of the (asymptomatic) case underscores the importance of monitoring and risk factor consideration in all patients receiving natalizumab.
Funding: Biogen.
Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
It helps to blur imperfections and minimize the appearance of pores, leaving you with a radiant and airbrushed finish. The formula is also long-lasting, ensuring that your makeup stays in place throughout the day. When choosing a shade in the Magic Minerals Airbrush Foundation range, it's important to consider your own skin undertones. This will help you find a shade that matches your natural complexion perfectly. Undertones can be categorized as warm, cool, or neutral. Warm undertones have a yellow or golden hue, cool undertones have a pink or blue hue, and neutral undertones have a mix of both. To determine your undertone, you can look at the veins on the inside of your wrist. If your veins appear more blue or purple, you likely have cool undertones. If they appear greenish, you likely have warm undertones. If your veins appear bluish-green, you likely have neutral undertones. Once you've determined your undertone, you can choose a shade in the Magic Minerals Airbrush Foundation range that best suits your complexion. The range includes shades with different undertones to ensure a perfect match. It's also a good idea to test the shade on your jawline or neck to see how well it blends into your skin before applying it all over. Magic Minerals Airbrush Foundation shades offer a wide variety of options for individuals with different skin tones and undertones. Whether you have fair, medium, or deep skin, you can find a shade that will enhance your natural beauty and provide a flawless finish to your makeup..
Reviews for "Pros and Cons: Magic Minerals Airbrush Foundation Shades vs. Traditional Foundations"
- Sarah - 1/5 stars - The Magic Minerals Airbrush Foundation Shades were a huge disappointment for me. The shades provided were nothing like what was advertised. They were either too light or too dark for my skin tone, and there were no options in between. The formula itself was also a letdown. It felt heavy and cakey on my skin, and didn't provide the smooth, airbrushed finish I was hoping for. I ended up returning the product and finding a different foundation that actually worked for me.
- Mark - 2/5 stars - I had high hopes for the Magic Minerals Airbrush Foundation Shades, but unfortunately, they fell short. The shades provided were not true to the swatches shown online. I ended up with a shade that was too orange for my complexion. The coverage was also not as buildable as I expected. It didn't hide my blemishes well, and I had to use a lot of product to achieve the desired effect. Overall, I was disappointed with the product and wouldn't repurchase it.
- Jennifer - 2/5 stars - The Magic Minerals Airbrush Foundation Shades didn't live up to my expectations. The advertised "airbrushed" finish was nowhere to be found. Instead, the foundation settled into my fine lines and emphasized them. The shades themselves were also off. I bought the lightest shade but found it to be too dark for my fair skin. It also oxidized throughout the day, making me look orange. I wouldn't recommend this product to anyone looking for a flawless, natural finish.