Mechanisms by which HA augments the skin’s native self-defense mechanisms (this one’s quite technical, hope you’re well-versed in cell bio)

While you work on that, here are some clinical trials, published in peer-reviewed dermatological journals, that demonstrate statistically significant (!!) efficacy of sodium hyaluronate/hyaluronic acid (HA) and its related compounds in a wide range of dermatological (not to mention ocular, oncological, and surgical) applications.

An overview of hyaluronic acid and its clinical uses; note their characterization of HA’s hygroscopic effects as “remarkable”

On the role of HA compounds in reducing free radical damage

Mechanisms by which HA augments the skin’s native self-defense mechanisms (this one’s quite technical, hope you’re well-versed in cell bio)

Note that the abstracts begin with definitive statements regarding HA (e.g. “…is a glycosaminoglycan that increases collagen production”). Needless to say, you can’t make such declarative statements in scientific journal articles unless the statement has been repeatedly, reliably, and consistently corroborated to the point where citing a source for said statement is unnecessary.

It is true that the high molecular weight (MW) of some HA compounds is a barrier to their topical efficacy. Higher MW compounds are frequently used in surgical cosmetic procedures (e.g. Restylane) for obvious reasons. However, low MW compounds exist and have been FDA approved for over a decade (e.g. diclofenac, a topical NSAID that employs HA as a vehicle for drug delivery). When micronized, HA readily penetrates the dermis, and since HA is native and uniform across organisms, it is easily utilized by dermal cells once present. Given the demonstrated efficacy of low MW preparations with respect to transdermal uptake, is it too vast a mental leap to presume that, once present in the intercellular matrix of the dermis, HA compounds will exert the same hygroscopic, collaged-repairing, and keratinocyte-promoting effects that have been repeatedly observed in vitro and with injectables?

Lastly, if P&G’s material chemists are really the brightest and their standards the most rigorous, why are their products continually called out for false advertising claims?

Would absolutely love a reply.

1. You’ve found old product. Products can be produced and last on store shelves for over 2 years.

2. They have a loyal following. The big companies are slow to adapt new technology when they have a successful product. Every change could result in annoying current customers. Instead of changing older, successful products, they launch new products with the new technology. Then they slowly phase out the old ones.

But what exactly is the problem with our logic?