Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00030

The effects of hydroporation on melasma with anti-aging cocktail.

Uncontrolled pilot study · Not reported 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.

  • The effects of hydroporation on melasma with anti-aging cocktail.primary · Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2017-01-29 · PMID 28133891 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Uncontrolled pilot study
Population
Volunteers with melasma (small group; number and characteristics not stated in abstract)
Conditions
Melasma
Setting
not stated
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
Not reported
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.

  • Hydroporation with GHK-Cu combination formulation (intervention) · ghk-cu (combination) · Mixed solution of copper-GHK, oligo-hyaluronic acid, Rhodiola extract, tranexamic acid and beta-glucan, delivered by hydroporation (Jet-M device) · Topical, delivered into skin by hydroporation (air and microdroplet spray device) · not stated · Not reported assigned

What the authors reported

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

Clinical pigmentation and erythema

unclear outcome · patient-important · not stated · Subjective clinical evaluation

  • Hydroporation with GHK-Cu combination formulation: narrative — Pigmentation and erythema were clinically relieved after treatment

Melanin index

unclear outcome · surrogate · not stated · Objective melanin index (MI) measurement

  • Hydroporation with GHK-Cu combination formulation: narrative — Melanin index decreased after treatment

Erythema index

unclear outcome · surrogate · not stated · Objective erythema index (EI) measurement

  • Hydroporation with GHK-Cu combination formulation: narrative — Erythema index decreased after treatment

Dermal type IV collagen and procollagen

unclear outcome · surrogate · not stated · Histopathologic observation of upper dermis

  • Hydroporation with GHK-Cu combination formulation: narrative — Type IV collagen and procollagen were increased in the upper dermis

p63-positive cells along basement membrane

unclear outcome · surrogate · not stated · Histopathologic count of p63-positive cells

  • Hydroporation with GHK-Cu combination formulation: narrative — Number of p63-positive cells along the basement membrane increased

Adverse events

None reported. That is not evidence of safety.

Monitoring: Not reported in the abstract

The authors concluded (paraphrased): The authors suggest hydroporation with the copper-GHK-containing formulation may have depigmenting and erythema-reducing effects in melasma by improving the skin microenvironment and reconstructing the extracellular matrix.

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 treated group with no vehicle or untreated comparison, so changes cannot be attributed to treatment.
  • small or imprecise: Described as a small group of volunteers. Sample size and statistics are not reported in the abstract.
  • confounding: GHK-Cu was given with tranexamic acid, Rhodiola, hyaluronic acid and beta-glucan by a device, so its own effect cannot be isolated.
  • inappropriate endpoint: Most outcomes are instrument indices and histologic markers rather than patient-rated outcomes.
  • inappropriate population: Population had melasma, not photoaged or aging facial skin as specified in the claim.
  • abstract only: Only the abstract is available. Methods, numbers, follow-up and adverse events are not described.
  • selective reporting: Results are reported only narratively, with no effect sizes or p-values, and no safety data are reported.
  • other: The solution combines five active components, so effects cannot be attributed to GHK-Cu alone.

Clinical pigmentation and erythema: 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. Only a single group of treated volunteers is described in the abstract.
Selection of participantsNot reportedRecruitment and eligibility of the small volunteer group are not described in the abstract.
ConfoundingSerious concernMulti-ingredient formulation plus device delivery, and seasonal variation in melasma, confound any attribution.
Follow-up and attritionNot reportedDuration of follow-up and completion numbers are not reported in the abstract.
Outcome measurementSerious concernSubjective clinical evaluation, with no mention of blinded assessors, in an unblinded single-arm design.
Completeness of reportingSerious concernOnly narrative statements of relief are given, without numbers, scales or statistics.
PrecisionSerious concernSmall group of unstated size, with no estimates or intervals reported.
Funding and conflicts of interestNot reportedFunding and conflicts of interest are not stated in the record.

Uncontrolled, small, abstract-only study with a subjective outcome and confounding by co-ingredients.

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.

Melanin index: 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 untreated or vehicle comparison group is reported for the melanin index change.
Selection of participantsNot reportedParticipant selection criteria are not described in the abstract.
ConfoundingSerious concernTranexamic acid and other ingredients in the formulation could explain the depigmentation.
Follow-up and attritionNot reportedTimepoints and losses to follow-up are not reported in the abstract.
Outcome measurementSome concernAn instrument-based melanin index is more objective, but measurement details and blinding are not given.
Completeness of reportingSerious concernThe abstract states only that MI decreased, without values or statistical testing.
PrecisionSerious concernSmall sample of unstated size, with no estimate or interval reported.
Funding and conflicts of interestNot reportedNo funding or conflict-of-interest information is present in the record.

No control group and confounding by co-administered depigmenting agents, with narrative reporting only.

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.

Erythema index: 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 concernSingle-arm design with no comparator for the erythema index change.
Selection of participantsNot reportedHow volunteers were selected is not described in the abstract.
ConfoundingSerious concernMultiple active ingredients and the device procedure confound any GHK-Cu attribution.
Follow-up and attritionNot reportedFollow-up duration and completeness are not reported in the abstract.
Outcome measurementSome concernErythema index is instrument-measured, but the protocol and blinding are not described.
Completeness of reportingSerious concernOnly a narrative statement that EI decreased is reported, with no numbers.
PrecisionSerious concernSmall group of unknown size, with no quantitative result reported.
Funding and conflicts of interestNot reportedFunding and conflicts are not stated anywhere in the record.

Uncontrolled, confounded, small, abstract-only study with narrative reporting.

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 type IV collagen and procollagen: 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. Histology appears to be compared before and after treatment only.
Selection of participantsNot reportedHow many participants had biopsies and how they were selected is not reported.
ConfoundingSerious concernHyaluronic acid, beta-glucan and the device procedure may also affect collagen.
Follow-up and attritionNot reportedBiopsy timepoints and completeness are not reported in the abstract.
Outcome measurementSerious concernHistopathologic observation is described qualitatively, with no blinded or quantitative assessment mentioned.
Completeness of reportingSerious concernThe abstract states only that collagen increased, with no quantification.
PrecisionSerious concernUnknown, likely very small, number of biopsies, with no estimates given.
Funding and conflicts of interestNot reportedConflicts of interest are not reported in the record.

Qualitative histology in an uncontrolled, confounded, small study known only from its abstract.

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.

p63-positive cells along basement membrane: 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 for the change in p63-positive cell counts.
Selection of participantsNot reportedSelection of biopsied participants is not described in the abstract.
ConfoundingSerious concernThe combination formulation and device delivery prevent isolating the effect of any one component.
Follow-up and attritionNot reportedTiming of biopsies and follow-up are not reported in the abstract.
Outcome measurementSome concernThe cell-counting method and assessor blinding are not described in the abstract.
Completeness of reportingSerious concernThe increase is reported narratively, without counts or statistics.
PrecisionSerious concernSample size is not stated and no quantitative estimate is provided.
Funding and conflicts of interestNot reportedNo funding or conflict information is available in the record.

Biomarker outcome from an uncontrolled, confounded, small study with narrative reporting only.

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

Where each value comes from

  • arms: PMID 28133891, abstract (sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
  • author_conclusion: PMID 28133891, abstract (sentences 9-10) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
  • design: PMID 28133891, abstract (sentence 4) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
  • limitations: PMID 28133891, abstract (sentences 2, 4-8) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
  • outcomes: PMID 28133891, abstract (sentence 5) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
  • participants: PMID 28133891, abstract (sentence 4) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
  • population: PMID 28133891, abstract (sentence 4) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
  • results: PMID 28133891, abstract (sentences 6-8) · 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).