Wish you all a merry Christmas and a happy new year!
For the last few weeks I have been discussing about PRP. I came across this article and thought I will review this as it is closely related to PRP. It is from an open access Dovepress journal – Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology. So you should be able to download the full article from the linked page above. The study describes the use of block-polymer nanoparticles based on phosphatidylcholine, hyaluronan, and chitin nanofibrils entrapping amino acids, vitamins, and melatonin.
I have always reckoned that research in cosmetic dermatology may follow different rules from conventional clinical research. Do you still spot any incredulous arguments in this article?
The emphasis on ‘in vitro’ study is always dubious. In fact if you skim through the results section, you may get confused between what is ‘in vitro’ and what is ‘in vivo’.
How do you plan your study protocol when you test an expensive new intervention? You have to compare it to the less expensive gold standard in the form of a equivalence or superiority trial. Here there is no comparison. So is it better than a simple moisturising cream?
We can see a hint of marketing tactics in the statement “This product was formulated to increase, accelerate, and ameliorate the activity of both antiaging cosmetics and injected temporary or permanent fillers” There is no mention of its effect on dermal fillers in the study design. If you can’t beat them, join them…
Sustainability is an important consideration in cosmetic dermatology. Figure 4 in the article shows that the general amelioration in all factors shows a declining trend during the regression period of 30 days. 90 days follow-up data may be more interesting. Will it show any apparent benefit at all?
There is no mention of the sample size any where! Or did I miss it?
The theory as a whole seems interesting and inspirational! If Only, it works as promised! I give only 2 peels.