A Randomized, Double‐Blinded Pilot Study Comparing Synthetic Versus Human‐Derived Topical Epidermal Growth Factor for Facial Rejuvenation and Psychosocial Perception

BACKGROUND: Topical growth factor-containing cosmeceuticals are widely used to improve visible signs of facial photoaging. Interest has increased in peptide-based alternatives that aim to support similar regenerative pathways without relying on human-derived biologics. AIM: To compare the clinical efficacy, tolerability, and exploratory psychosocial perception outcomes of a topical recombinant epidermal growth factor (REGF), oligopeptide-1, serum with a human-derived growth factor (operationally labeled HDEGF) serum. METHODS: This was a 12-week, prospective, randomized, double-blinded, parallel-group pilot trial involving 20 adult female participants (50-65 years), predominantly non-Hispanic White with Fitzpatrick Skin Types II and III with moderate to severe facial photoaging. Participants applied their assigned serum twice daily and used a standardized cleanser and sunscreen regimen. Primary endpoints included investigator-rated changes in skin texture and firmness. Secondary endpoints included participant-reported satisfaction. Tertiary endpoints evaluated psychosocial perception using standardized photographs rated by blinded lay evaluators. RESULTS: Investigator ratings favored the REGF cohort for improvements in skin texture and firmness at later study visits, while global wrinkle severity ratings changed minimally in both cohorts. Participants in the REGF cohort reported higher satisfaction across multiple questionnaire items. In exploratory lay-evaluator assessments, small between-visit differences were observed in select perception domains, including estimated age. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, the REGF formulation was associated with greater improvement in selected investigator- and participant-reported outcomes compared with the HDEGF formulation over 12 weeks. Perception-based findings are exploratory and limited by the non-validated nature of the rating instrument. Interpretation is further limited by the small, female-only sample and short follow-up; larger, longer, and more diverse studies are warranted.