Open-label study shows Profhilo improved skin hydration in Asian females, indicating good tolerability and efficacy.
Background Few studies of Profhilo ® for facial skin regeneration in Asian patients exist. Aims The efficacy and safety of Profhilo ® in regenerating facial skin in Asian females were investigated in a single-center study. Patients/Methods Patients were treated with Profhilo ® on Weeks 0 and 4 and followed up on Week 12. Assessments included three-dimensional photography, Facial Volume Loss Scale (FVLS), Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS), superficial skin hydration, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), skin elasticity, and self-rated product tolerability. Results Of 30 enrolled Chinese females (aged 38.0–60.0 years), outcome data were analyzed for 28 and 26 patients at Weeks 0–4 and follow-up, respectively, aside from skin hydration ( N = 8 and N = 6, respectively). Treatment led to a FVLS ( P = 0.0150), WSRS ( P = 0.0057), and R 3 (“tiring effect” of the skin; P = 0.0424) decrease over time, but pairwise time point comparisons for these measures were not significant (NS). A trend toward a decrease in F 1 (elasticity) over time occurred but was NS. A statistically significant improvement in superficial skin hydration and TEWL occurred over time ( P = 0.0010 and P = 0.0055, respectively) and, specifically, at Week 12 versus baseline ( P = 0.0034 and P = 0.0029, respectively). Patients reported “good” product tolerability. Conclusions Profhilo ® for facial skin regeneration was efficacious and tolerable in Chinese patients. This study contributes to the limited available clinical data with Profhilo ® and Asian facial skin regeneration. Profhilo ® significantly improved superficial skin hydration and transepidermal water loss in Chinese patients. Profhilo ® was well tolerated in Chinese patients. Level of Evidence IV This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cheng et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: