Peptide LibraryHuman study PLS-00028
Efficacy and Safety Assessment of ThriveCo Scar Fader Gel With Scarcede™ in the Treatment of Skin Scars.
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.
- Efficacy and Safety Assessment of ThriveCo Scar Fader Gel With Scarcede™ in the Treatment of Skin Scars.primary · Cureus · 2025-08-25 · PMID 41001334 · DOI
Design and participants
- Design
- Single-arm trial
- Population
- Females with acne scars
- Conditions
- Acne scars
- Setting
- Open-label, interventional, prospective real-world evidence study; dermatologist-assessed. Site not stated.
- Planned enrollment (registry)
- Not reported
- Enrolled
- Not reported
- Randomized
- Not reported
- Completed follow-up
- Not reported
- Funding
- Not stated in the abstract
- Authors’ conflicts
- Not stated in the abstract. The test product is a proprietary commercial product of Anveya Living Private Limited.
Intervention and comparator
What each group received. Related peptides, analogs and combinations are never treated as the compound itself.
- ThriveCo Scar Fader Gel with Scarcede (intervention) · ghk-cu (combination) · Proprietary blend (Scarcede) of copper tripeptide-1, L-carnitine L-tartrate, alpha-glucosyl hesperidin and sodium hyaluronate, in a gel · topical · Assessments at day 21 and day 45 · Not reported assigned
What the authors reported
As stated in the sources. This is the authors’ account, not Peptide Library’s assessment.
Scar appearance (Manchester Scoring Scale)
unclear outcome · patient-important · Day 21 and day 45 · Manchester Scoring Scale rated by a dermatologist; digital photographs
- ThriveCo Scar Fader Gel with Scarcede: change from baseline 7.17 — Scar appearance reduced by 7.17% at day 21
- ThriveCo Scar Fader Gel with Scarcede: change from baseline 26.57 — Scar appearance reduced by 26.57% at day 45
Skin texture (smoothness, roughness, scaliness; Visioscan)
unclear outcome · surrogate · Day 21 and day 45 · VISIOSCAN VC20 Plus instrumental skin texture assessment
- ThriveCo Scar Fader Gel with Scarcede: change from baseline 33.08 — Skin smoothness improved by 33.08% at day 21
- ThriveCo Scar Fader Gel with Scarcede: change from baseline 44.56 — Skin smoothness improved by 44.56% at day 45
- ThriveCo Scar Fader Gel with Scarcede: change from baseline 100.86 — Skin roughness decreased by 100.86% at day 21
- ThriveCo Scar Fader Gel with Scarcede: change from baseline 161.62 — Skin roughness decreased by 161.62% at day 45
- ThriveCo Scar Fader Gel with Scarcede: change from baseline 39.71 — Scaliness reduced by 39.71% at day 21
- ThriveCo Scar Fader Gel with Scarcede: change from baseline 58.92 — Scaliness reduced by 58.92% at day 45
Adverse effects and in-use tolerability
unclear outcome · safety · Through day 45 · Local and systemic adverse effects; method of ascertainment not described
- ThriveCo Scar Fader Gel with Scarcede: narrative — No local or systemic adverse effects were reported
Adverse events
None reported. That is not evidence of safety.
Monitoring: Clinical safety and in-use tolerability were evaluated. The abstract reports no local or systemic adverse effects but does not describe how they were ascertained.
The authors concluded (paraphrased): The authors concluded that the gel was clinically safe and effective in reducing scars, supporting smoother, clearer skin without adverse effects, and suitable for routine skincare use.
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: Single-arm open-label study with only before-after comparisons; there is no vehicle or untreated control.
- inadequate blinding: The study was open-label, and the dermatologist rating scars on the Manchester scale was presumably aware of treatment.
- other: The product is a combination of copper tripeptide-1 with three other actives, so effects cannot be attributed to GHK-Cu.
- small or imprecise: The abstract does not report the number of participants, and no confidence intervals are given.
- short follow up: Outcomes were assessed only up to day 45, which is short for scar remodeling and long-term safety.
- funding or conflicts: It evaluates a proprietary commercial product; funding and conflicts are not reported in the abstract.
- abstract only: Only the abstract was available, so methods, sample size, attrition and AE ascertainment are unknown.
- inappropriate population: Only females with acne scars were studied, not adults with photoaged skin or other populations.
Scar appearance (Manchester Scoring Scale): 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.
| Control group | Serious concern | No control group; only change from baseline in a single treated group is reported. |
|---|---|---|
| Selection of participants | Not reported | Recruitment and eligibility criteria beyond females with acne scars are not described in the abstract. |
| Confounding | Serious concern | Natural scar evolution, other skincare and the co-active ingredients cannot be separated from the effect of the peptide. |
| Follow-up and attrition | Not reported | Numbers enrolled, completing and analyzed are not reported in the abstract. |
| Outcome measurement | Serious concern | Subjective dermatologist Manchester scale rating in an open-label study, with no blinded assessment stated. |
| Completeness of reporting | Some concern | Only percentage changes and p-values are given; no baseline scores, SDs or prespecified primary outcome are stated. |
| Precision | Not reported | Neither the sample size nor confidence intervals are reported in the abstract. |
| Funding and conflicts of interest | Not reported | Funding and conflicts are not stated in the abstract; the product is proprietary. |
Uncontrolled, unblinded subjective rating of a combination product, with sample size and attrition unreported.
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.
Skin texture (smoothness, roughness, scaliness; Visioscan): 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.
| Control group | Serious concern | No control group; texture changes are compared only with baseline. |
|---|---|---|
| Selection of participants | Not reported | Eligibility and recruitment methods are not described in the abstract. |
| Confounding | Serious concern | Multiple co-actives and the lack of a control prevent attributing texture changes to copper tripeptide-1. |
| Follow-up and attrition | Not reported | Completion and dropout numbers are not reported in the abstract. |
| Outcome measurement | Some concern | An instrumental Visioscan measurement is less subjective, but the study is open-label and standardization is not described. |
| Completeness of reporting | Some concern | Percentage changes exceeding 100% for roughness are reported without baseline values or explanation. |
| Precision | Not reported | No sample size or confidence intervals are reported in the abstract. |
| Funding and conflicts of interest | Some concern | A commercial proprietary product was evaluated; funding and conflicts are not stated in the abstract. |
No control, confounding by co-actives, and unclear reporting of surrogate instrument measures.
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 and in-use tolerability: 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.
| Control group | Serious concern | No control arm, so the background rate of skin reactions cannot be compared. |
|---|---|---|
| Selection of participants | Not reported | Eligibility criteria, including exclusion of sensitive skin, are not described in the abstract. |
| Confounding | Some concern | The combination product means any reactions or their absence cannot be attributed to GHK-Cu alone. |
| Follow-up and attrition | Not reported | The number of participants followed for safety through day 45 is not reported. |
| Outcome measurement | Not reported | The abstract does not describe how adverse effects were solicited or recorded. |
| Completeness of reporting | Some concern | Safety is reported only as a narrative statement that no adverse effects occurred. |
| Precision | Serious concern | Without a reported sample size, the absence of adverse events cannot be interpreted with any precision. |
| Funding and conflicts of interest | Some concern | A commercial product study; funding and conflicts are not disclosed in the abstract. |
Narrative claim of no adverse effects, with unknown sample size, ascertainment method and no control.
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
- Improves signs of skin aging: not eligible (wrong population) for “Wrinkles and skin quality, measured or rated”
- Is safe for human use: eligible for “Adverse events, including skin reactions”, indirect evidence
- Very low certainty Adverse events, including skin reactions
Where each value comes from
- adverse_events: PMID 41001334, abstract (Result, sentence 5) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- arms: PMID 41001334, abstract (Introduction, sentence 2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- author_conclusion: PMID 41001334, abstract (Conclusion, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- design: PMID 41001334, abstract (Method, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- outcomes: PMID 41001334, abstract (Method, sentences 3-5) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- participants: PMID 41001334, abstract (Method; participant counts not stated) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- population: PMID 41001334, abstract (Method, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
- results: PMID 41001334, abstract (Result, sentences 1-4) · 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).