The only negative recurring comment was that the treatment
regimen had too many products and was too time-consuming.
This comment was expected with enrollment of a broad range
of female consumers with varying skincare routines.
Efficacy of Products Other Than Serum: Subject Assessment at Week 14
The subjects were asked to assess the appearance of their skin
for the products they used, other than the peptide treatment serum,
at week 14 using the same scoring system noted above.
They agreed that they had better skin texture (mean=0.90),
more radiance (mean=1.17), more even skin tone (mean=1.34),
less skin discoloration (mean=1.31), less redness (mean=1.34),
less noticeable fine lines (mean=1.10), less noticeable wrinkles
(mean=1.31), healthier-looking skin (mean=0.90), younger, firmer
skin (mean=1.31), more moisturized skin (mean=0.62), and
overall improved appearance (mean=0.86) when compared to
baseline results.
Aesthetic Attributes of Serum: Subject Assessment at Week 14
The subjects were asked to assess the aesthetic attributes
of only the peptide treatment serum at week 14 using the
same numeric scale. The subjects agreed that the product
absorbed well (mean=1.38) and that the smell (mean=1.00),
texture (mean=0.66), and ease of application (mean=0.86)
were excellent. They agreed that the product did not cause irritation
(mean=0.62) and that they would purchase the product
(mean=0.93).
Efficacy of Serum: Subject Assessment at Week 14 Eye Area
The subjects were asked to examine only the area around the
eyes at 14 weeks and assess the peptide treatment serum using
the numeric scale. They agreed that they had better skin texture
(mean=1.07), more radiance (mean=1.14), improved fine lines
(mean=1.21), improved wrinkles (mean=1.34), healthier-looking
skin (mean=1.10), younger, firmer skin (mean=1.48), more moisturized
skin (mean=0.83), and overall improved appearance
(mean=1.07) around the eyes when compared to baseline results.
