Mesotherapy: the word names a way of injecting, not a substance

A 2026 trial at Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University. Split-face, prospective, randomised, single-centre.

25 people aged 18 to 35 with clinically diagnosed post-acne erythema (PAE) and bilaterally symmetrical lesions enrolled; 23 completed all sessions.

• three sessions at four-week intervals, over 12 weeks
• what was injected is non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid
• the primary outcome is the Clinician Erythema Assessment Scale (CEAS) at week 12 against baseline

There are many secondary endpoints — Dermatology Life Quality Index, patient self-assessment, VISIA analysis (red areas, pores, texture), instrument measures (erythema index, melanin index, hydration, transepidermal water loss), dermoscopic imaging, adverse effects, relapse.

Results:

• at week 12 the mesotherapy side had significantly lower CEAS scores than the control side
• satisfaction was higher, and improvements in red areas, pores, texture, erythema index, hydration, water loss and dermoscopic findings were more marked
• there was a significant change in DLQI too
• no serious adverse events and no erythema flares, and one of the 23 had an acne relapse

How to read it.

First, and this matters most — the abstract does not state what the control side received. It says only 'the control group'. Whether saline went in, whether a needle went in with nothing, or whether nothing was done at all, we cannot tell.

That difference changes the conclusion a great deal. If the comparison was against nothing, how much of the improvement belongs to the hyaluronic acid and how much to a needle having gone in cannot be told apart. We do not guess at what we do not know, so the comparator field on the badge reads 'not stated'.

Second, split-face is a good design. Comparing two sides of the same person cancels out age, skin and habits. That is this trial's strength.

Third, 23 people, one centre.

Fourth, the endpoint is a score a person assigns. CEAS is rated by a clinician, and the abstract does not say whether that assessor was masked.

So it sits at 'early evidence'. There is something good in the design, and without knowing what the control was we cannot write more than that.

A 2026 multicentre trial in China, including Peking Union Medical College Hospital.

156 adults with moderate-to-severe sensitive skin were randomised 2:1.

• PPI arm — mesotherapy with placenta polypeptide injection, three sessions 30 days apart, 4 mL each, over 90 days
• control arm — no treatment

The primary endpoint was change in total facial skin haemoglobin content, measured by a 3D skin analysis system as a proxy for cutaneous inflammation.

Results (full analysis set of 154: 103 PPI, 51 control):

• at day 90 the reduction in haemoglobin content was significantly greater than control — mean change −1705.82 ± 1808.17 against −756.65 ± 1493.17 (P = 0.001)
• on GAIS, 88.9% against 5.9% were rated 'improved' to 'very much improved' (P < 0.001)
• adverse events 5.8% against 9.6% (P = 0.376), none serious

How to read it.

First, it is open-label. Participants and investigators both know which arm they are in. And the control arm received nothing.

In that combination, 88.9% against 5.9% on GAIS cannot be read at face value. One group came in three times and was injected; the other did nothing. Ask 'did it improve?' in that situation and the fact of having been injected enters the answer. It is the problem we set out repeatedly on PRP and GHK-Cu.

Second, the primary endpoint at least came from an instrument — haemoglobin content on a 3D analysis system. Though in an unmasked design the conditions of an instrument measurement (light, angle, timing) can drift too.

Third, look at the spread. Mean change −1705.82 with a standard deviation of 1808.17 — larger than the mean. Results varied enormously between people.

Fourth, the sponsor supplied both the product and the funding — Guizhou Taibang Biological Products. The paper states the sponsor was not involved in design, collection, analysis, interpretation or writing. We mark this on the badge as 'industry funding'.

So it sits at 'not established'. 156 people across centres is a large size for this layer, and an open-label design against no treatment does not let that size do its work.

And we restate why this entry sits beside the one above. The two trials injected different substances. They share only the name 'mesotherapy'.