Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00027

Significant improvement in crow's feet after treatment with Jet-M and a mixed solution of copper-GHK, oligo-hyaluronic acid, rhodiolar extract, tranexamic acid, and β-glucan (GHR formulation).

Case report · 1 participants enrolled

Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

Only the abstract was available. Essential methods may be missing, which limits what can be judged.

Reports of this study

Every publication, registration and abstract describing this one study. Participants are counted once.

  • Significant improvement in crow's feet after treatment with Jet-M and a mixed solution of copper-GHK, oligo-hyaluronic acid, rhodiolar extract, tranexamic acid, and β-glucan (GHR formulation).primary · Journal of cosmetic and laser therapy : official publication of the European Society for Laser Dermatology · 2016-05-26 · PMID 27064823 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Case report
Population
One 59-year-old male with crow's feet (periorbital wrinkles).
Conditions
Crow's feet (periorbital wrinkles), Skin aging
Setting
Not stated; cosmetic or dermatologic skin resurfacing treatment.
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
1
Randomized
Not reported
Completed follow-up
Not reported
Funding
Not stated
Authors’ conflicts
Not stated

Intervention and comparator

What each group received. Related peptides, analogs and combinations are never treated as the compound itself.

  • Jet-M plus GHR formulation (treated area) (intervention) · ghk-cu (combination) · Mixed cosmetic solution of copper-glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine, oligo-hyaluronic acid, rhodiolar extract, tranexamic acid and beta-glucan, applied with the Jet-M microdroplet/air-jet resurfacing device. · Topical/transdermal via Jet-M spray device to the periorbital skin · Once a week for 12 weeks · 1 assigned
  • Untreated area (same patient) (comparator) · Untreated skin area of the same patient, used for comparison biopsy and possibly the untreated eye. · no treatment · 1 assigned

What the authors reported

As stated in the sources. This is the authors’ account, not Peptide Library’s assessment.

Periorbital wrinkles (crow's feet)

unclear outcome · patient-important · After the 12-week weekly treatment course (exact timing not stated) · Clinical photographs

  • Jet-M plus GHR formulation (treated area): narrative — Wrinkles around the treated eye were greatly decreased in clinical photographs.

Dermal collagen on histology

unclear outcome · surrogate · Not stated · Skin biopsy with hematoxylin and eosin and Masson's trichrome staining

  • Jet-M plus GHR formulation (treated area) vs Untreated area (same patient): narrative — Staining showed increased collagen production in the upper dermis.

Dermal matrix proteins (collagen IV, fibrillin-1, procollagen type 1, tropoelastin)

unclear outcome · surrogate · Not stated · Skin biopsy staining of treated versus untreated areas

  • Jet-M plus GHR formulation (treated area) vs Untreated area (same patient): narrative — Collagen IV production was slightly increased.
  • Jet-M plus GHR formulation (treated area) vs Untreated area (same patient): narrative — Fibrillin-1 was greatly increased.
  • Jet-M plus GHR formulation (treated area) vs Untreated area (same patient): narrative — Procollagen type 1 was greatly increased.
  • Jet-M plus GHR formulation (treated area) vs Untreated area (same patient): narrative — Tropoelastin was also increased.

Pain during treatment

unclear outcome · safety · During treatment sessions · Not stated; reported absence of pain without anesthesia

  • Jet-M plus GHR formulation (treated area): narrative — No anesthesia was given and there was no pain during treatment.

Adverse effects

unclear outcome · safety · During and after treatment · Not stated

  • Jet-M plus GHR formulation (treated area): narrative — No adverse effect occurred during or after treatment.

Adverse events

None reported. That is not evidence of safety.

Monitoring: Not described beyond the statement that no adverse effect occurred during or after treatment and no pain was felt during treatment.

The authors concluded (paraphrased): The authors concluded that Jet-M combined with the GHR mixed solution markedly improved crow's feet in this patient. Biopsies showed increased dermal collagen and elastic-fiber markers, and there were no adverse effects.

Peptide Library’s assessment

An automated assessment, made by AI separately from the authors’ conclusions and not reviewed by a person. How risk of bias is assessed.

Limitations

  • no control group: A single treated patient with no vehicle or other-product control. The only comparison is an untreated skin area or eye of the same patient.
  • small or imprecise: Only one patient was treated, so the findings cannot be generalized and there is no estimate of precision.
  • confounding: GHK-Cu was given in a mixture with four other actives and delivered by a resurfacing device. Any effect cannot be attributed to GHK-Cu.
  • inappropriate endpoint: Wrinkle improvement was judged only from clinical photographs, without a validated scale or blinded rating. Most other outcomes are histologic surrogates.
  • inadequate blinding: No blinding of assessors is described for the photographs or the biopsy staining interpretation.
  • abstract only: Only the abstract is available. Methods, timing of assessments, funding and conflicts are not reported.
  • funding or conflicts: Funding and possible ties to the device maker (Tav-Tech Ltd.) are not stated in the record.
  • other: Wrinkle improvement judged from clinical photographs without a described validated or blinded rating.

Periorbital wrinkles (crow's feet): Serious concern (Structured limitations appraisal)

For uncontrolled studies, case series and case reports, where no validated comparative tool applies. It lists limitations; it is not a risk-of-bias rating.

Domain judgments
Control groupSerious concernNo control product. The only comparison is the untreated side of the same single patient.
Selection of participantsNot reportedThe abstract does not state how the single patient was selected.
ConfoundingSerious concernThe multi-ingredient solution plus device resurfacing prevents isolating any GHK-Cu effect.
Follow-up and attritionNot reportedTiming of the photographic assessment and any follow-up after week 12 are not stated.
Outcome measurementSerious concernWrinkles were assessed from clinical photographs with no stated scale or blinded rater.
Completeness of reportingSerious concernThe result is described only narratively as 'greatly decreased', with no quantitative data.
PrecisionSerious concernA single patient gives no measure of precision or variability.
Funding and conflicts of interestNot reportedFunding and conflicts of interest are not reported in the abstract record.

Single-patient uncontrolled photographic assessment of a combination treatment. Serious concerns in several domains.

Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Peptide Library structured appraisal pl-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

Dermal collagen on histology: Serious concern (Structured limitations appraisal)

For uncontrolled studies, case series and case reports, where no validated comparative tool applies. It lists limitations; it is not a risk-of-bias rating.

Domain judgments
Control groupSome concernAn untreated-area biopsy from the same patient served as comparison. There is no vehicle control.
Selection of participantsNot reportedPatient selection and biopsy site selection are not described in the abstract.
ConfoundingSerious concernThe device and four other actives were applied together, so the collagen change cannot be attributed to GHK-Cu.
Follow-up and attritionNot reportedThe timing of biopsies relative to treatment is not stated in the abstract.
Outcome measurementSerious concernQualitative staining interpretation with no stated quantification or blinding of the pathologist.
Completeness of reportingSerious concernOnly a narrative statement of 'increased collagen production' is given, without data.
PrecisionSerious concernBiopsies from a single patient give no estimate of variability.
Funding and conflicts of interestNot reportedFunding and conflicts of interest are not reported in the record.

Qualitative single-patient histology of a combination treatment, with serious confounding and measurement concerns.

Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Peptide Library structured appraisal pl-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

Dermal matrix proteins (collagen IV, fibrillin-1, procollagen type 1, tropoelastin): Serious concern (Structured limitations appraisal)

For uncontrolled studies, case series and case reports, where no validated comparative tool applies. It lists limitations; it is not a risk-of-bias rating.

Domain judgments
Control groupSome concernThe only comparison is a within-patient untreated-area biopsy. There is no vehicle or other-product control.
Selection of participantsNot reportedThe abstract does not describe how the patient or biopsy sites were chosen.
ConfoundingSerious concernThe combination solution and device delivery confound any attribution of the marker changes to GHK-Cu.
Follow-up and attritionNot reportedBiopsy timing relative to the 12-week course is not reported.
Outcome measurementSerious concernStaining is described only qualitatively ('slightly', 'greatly increased'), with no stated method or blinding.
Completeness of reportingSerious concernNarrative descriptors only, with no quantitative values for any marker.
PrecisionSerious concernData come from a single patient, so no precision can be assessed.
Funding and conflicts of interestNot reportedFunding and conflicts of interest are not stated in the record.

Surrogate markers from one patient after a combination treatment, described qualitatively. Serious concerns.

Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Peptide Library structured appraisal pl-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

Pain during treatment: Serious concern (Structured limitations appraisal)

For uncontrolled studies, case series and case reports, where no validated comparative tool applies. It lists limitations; it is not a risk-of-bias rating.

Domain judgments
Control groupSerious concernNo comparison group exists for tolerability. Only one treated patient was reported.
Selection of participantsNot reportedHow the patient was selected is not reported in the abstract.
ConfoundingSome concernPain reflects both the device and the mixture, so it is not specific to GHK-Cu.
Follow-up and attritionNo concern identifiedPain was relevant only during the sessions, which the abstract states were pain free.
Outcome measurementNot reportedNo pain scale or method of assessing pain is described in the abstract.
Completeness of reportingSome concernOnly a brief narrative statement of no pain is given, without per-session data.
PrecisionSerious concernA single patient cannot establish tolerability with any precision.
Funding and conflicts of interestNot reportedFunding and conflicts of interest are not stated in the record.

Tolerability observed in a single uncontrolled patient using an unstated method, so the evidence is very weak.

Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Peptide Library structured appraisal pl-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

Adverse effects: Serious concern (Structured limitations appraisal)

For uncontrolled studies, case series and case reports, where no validated comparative tool applies. It lists limitations; it is not a risk-of-bias rating.

Domain judgments
Control groupSerious concernNo control group. A single patient received the combination treatment.
Selection of participantsNot reportedPatient selection is not described in the abstract.
ConfoundingSome concernAny adverse effects would reflect the device plus five actives, not GHK-Cu alone.
Follow-up and attritionNot reportedThe duration of post-treatment observation for adverse effects is not stated.
Outcome measurementNot reportedThe method of adverse effect ascertainment is not described in the abstract.
Completeness of reportingSome concernOnly the blanket statement 'no adverse effect' is given, with no detail.
PrecisionSerious concernOne patient is far too few to detect even common adverse effects.
Funding and conflicts of interestNot reportedFunding and conflicts of interest are not reported in the record.

Absence of adverse effects in one uncontrolled patient with unstated monitoring gives very limited safety information.

Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Peptide Library structured appraisal pl-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

Claims this study informs

  • Very low certainty Wrinkles and skin quality, measured or rated
  • Very low certainty Adverse events, including skin reactions

Where each value comes from

  • adverse_events: PMID 27064823, abstract (sentences 5 and 12) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
  • arms: PMID 27064823, abstract (sentences 4, 6 and 8) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
  • author_conclusion: PMID 27064823, title (full title) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
  • design: PMID 27064823, abstract (sentence 4) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
  • limitations: PMID 27064823, abstract (sentences 4 and 6-8) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
  • outcomes: PMID 27064823, abstract (sentences 5 and 7-12) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
  • participants: PMID 27064823, abstract (sentences 4 and 6) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
  • population: PMID 27064823, abstract (sentence 6) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
  • results: PMID 27064823, abstract (sentences 7, 9, 10 and 11) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only

  • Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

These assessments describe published research. Records marked automated were produced by AI under the published methodology and have not been reviewed by a person; they can contain errors. None of this is medical advice, not a statement about any product’s safety for human use, and not a regulatory approval. Peptide Library’s vendor and partner relationships play no part in them (editorial independence).