COSMETIC PLATELET-RICH PLASMA  ADVERTISMENT AS WRINKLE REJUVENATOR IS MISLEADING

Cape Town Thursday, 9 April 2009: Cosmetic and Beauty News.PRP fact or fiction?

A 12-month outcome- based, independent watchdog study, indicate that there is no firm scientific evidence that best-selling or revolutionary platelet-rich plasma (PRP), with or without cultured living cells, compared to cosmetic creams, can reduce wrinkles, lift or rejuvenate the face.  All ads from beauty and cosmetic laboratories are misleading, and the latest blow to the reputation of claims regarding PRP offering the elixir of youth. The ads are not supported by “robust science”, have contributed to failures, and that the sales pitch is not endorsed by independent Biomed Rated Scientists in Cape Town. The claims that PRP can give a middle-aged women young-looking skin is false and that most methodologies are flawed, either by poor objective measures and research been carried out by manufacturer employees or designates. The earlier 3 month results, claiming measurable rejuvenation have not held up and that PRP is far less effective than, peels, Botox or conventional fillers. PRP for plasma or “facial resurfacing” with your own cells does not produce a permanent lift or convincing rejuvenation/regeneration.  Independent graders show that skin sagging after intended PRP-facial rejuvenation with your own plasma, or mixed with cultured fibroblasts, is no better than placebo creams, regarding the face and neck. The earlier reports from UK and Japanese aesthetic units, utilizing new generation or revolutionary  PRP, could not be substantiated locally, using highly sophisticated measuring skin-analysis devices. At best, the beauty results are very modest and temporary, necessitating ad-on’s  to combat ongoing aging, as soon as 3-months after PRP-enhancement. Twelve-months results are a bridge too far and not realistic or backed by proper clinical trials or scientific publications.

The down-side of facial dermal injections with platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been unsuspected severe and acute cutaneous anaphylaxis following injections near the eye, thus ruling out safety of PRP-mesotherapy of wrinkles under the eye. Reactions are supposedly due to the blood separator and anti-coagulant compounds in the collection tubes. Cavernous sinus thrombosis has been seen after rapid absorption of activated plasma and platelets in PRP, via the eye-cavity. The mitogenic pathways of growth factors in the skin dermis seen after activation of human platelets in PRP, may interact with growth promoters of human breast cancer cells. These include transforming growth factor-alpha and platelet-derived growth factor, found in enriched PRP used for cosmetic reasons. The incidence of breast cancer in women world-wide is 1 in 8, and 75% occur above the age of 50. In such persons absorption of GF over 10 hours, from cosmetic PRP factor-release, may be of great concern and therefore rules out safe needle-induced, PRP-mesotherapy of a women’s neck, décolleté or breast area. For the moment, attempts at dermal rejuvenation and regeneration with A-PRP by biological injection techniques should be discouraged in the peri-orbital, neck, décolleté or breast areas of pre-and post menopausal women who may be at risk. Such skin rejuvenation techniques should urgently be discontinued in any person who has had or received treatment for a growth. Time is needed to assess if super-concentrated autologous platelet-rich gels, given as dermal pulse-therapy in the facial and décolleté for rejuvenation, does not induce remote growths. Growth factors, cause cells to divide more rapidly, and are associated with tumour growth. For instance, recombinant forms of human platelet-derived growth factor cannot be used in persons with a history of skin cancer. Use thereof has been associated with a higher risk and incidence of variable remote tumours, and cancer deaths, than control population. For the moment, and for the above risks, Platelet Rich Gels, Lysates or Plasma, cannot be supported for facial anti-wrinkle or anti-aging rejuvenation therapy in the beauty industry, and until further, prospective clinical trials are urgently completed. A role is identifiable in clinical therapeutic medicine to enhance wound healing in selected persons.

"Device design and separator propriety may clearly explain successes and failures in the clinic, regarding rejuvenation capability, as well as cell stimulation.The various devices seem to induce slightly different end-products with differing biological GF-activity and potential uses.Platelet content and enrichment, varying types of platelet activators, leucocyte and fibrin content, centrifugation methodology, cell separators used, as well as growth factor variability and release-speed, play important roles in optimal PRP generation and ultimate biological effect seen in the clinic. Some of the devices now commercially available include: Regen, Plateltex, SmartPrep, Mycells, PCCS, Magellan or GPS PRP, Fibrinet, Choukroun's PRF ( contains thrombospondin-1: see Growth Factors, 2009), Vivostat PRF, Cell Separator PRP ( Ehrenfest D., et al :  Classification of platelet concentrates: Trends Biotechnology , 2009) ".

REFERENCES:

POSTED: 9 APRIL 2009 AND THE CONTENTS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY A BIOMED-RATED SCIENTIST AND CLINICIAN FOR ACCURACY.