PDRN (polydeoxyribonucleotide)

updated

PDRN (polydeoxyribonucleotide) is a mixture of DNA fragments purified from salmon sperm, promoted in Korean aesthetics to regenerate skin. Its best evidence is in wound healing: in 216 patients with diabetic foot ulcers, complete healing at 8 weeks was 37.3% with PDRN versus 18.9% with placebo. Skin rejuvenation rests on small studies, many testing polynucleotide (PN) products rather than PDRN, and a Korean phase III polynucleotide filler trial was retracted.

Deoxyribonucleotide polymer mixture acting at the adenosine A2A receptor, per a 2017 review

  • PDRN is a mixture of deoxyribonucleotides of 50 to 1,500 kDa from salmon trout or chum salmon sperm DNA; PubChem holds no compound record for it.
  • On 11 October 2026 openFDA Drugs@FDA queries for polydeoxyribonucleotide, PDRN and Placentex returned no match, so no FDA approval was found.
  • In 216 patients with diabetes and Wagner grade 1 or 2 foot ulcers, complete healing at 8 weeks was 37.3% on PDRN versus 18.9% on placebo (P = .0027).
  • In 44 patients after thyroidectomy, the scar score at 3 months was 1.619 on PDRN versus 2.500 in untreated controls (p = 0.059); the trial registry lists 22 enrolled.
  • A 2026 systematic review found seven randomized trials in 183 participants, with the most consistent benefit in wound healing.
  • A Korean phase III polynucleotide filler trial in 72 patients with crow's feet was retracted in 2016.

What is PDRN, and is it an approved drug?

PDRN (polydeoxyribonucleotide) is a mixture of DNA fragments purified from salmon sperm, not a single molecule, and products differ. No FDA approval was found on 11 October 2026. An Italian product, PLACENTEX, is described as a tissue-repair medicine for wounds and ulcers, but only in a 2017 secondary copy of its package leaflet.

A 2017 pharmacology review describes PDRN as a mixture of deoxyribonucleotides with molecular weights of 50 to 1,500 kDa, made by controlled purification and sterilization of sperm DNA from Oncorhynchus mykiss (salmon trout) or Oncorhynchus keta (chum salmon). It calls PDRN a proprietary and registered drug and says defibrotide, another oligonucleotide mixture, has a different molecular weight and DNA origin and does not share the same wound-healing effects. PubChem name lookups for PDRN, polydeoxyribonucleotide and polydeoxyribonucleotide sodium returned no compound record, consistent with a mixture, so no formula, molecular weight or CAS number is given.

PDRN and polynucleotide (PN) are not the same thing on this page. A 2025 review by authors from companies in the field says the two terms are used interchangeably in the literature for polymers of varying length, calls this a source of confusion, and proposes reserving PDRN for chains under 1,500 kDa and PN for 1,500 kDa or longer; the cut-off is the authors' own proposal. Source, molecular weight and manufacturing differ by product, so results for one product do not transfer to another.

On 11 October 2026 openFDA Drugs@FDA queries for polydeoxyribonucleotide, PDRN and Placentex each returned no match, and DailyMed searches for polydeoxyribonucleotide and Placentex returned no labels. A DailyMed search for PDRN returned cosmetic and sunscreen listings with PDRN in the product name, not a PDRN drug label. Defibrotide is a separate FDA-approved drug (DEFITELIO, NDA208114, original approval 30 March 2016) and is not PDRN.

In Italy, a reproduction of the package leaflet for PLACENTEX (polidesossiribonucleotide) on a consumer drug-information site, last modified on 13 June 2017, describes a medicine for repair of tissue damage, with the cream and cutaneous solution indicated for wounds and ulcers. It is a secondary copy, not an AIFA record, and current Italian approval is not confirmed here. It describes tissue repair and ulcers, not an aesthetic use. Korean and EU regulatory status is not established in the sources reviewed.

Identity: a salmon-sperm DNA mixture, not one molecule; no FDA approval found, 11 October 2026

Narrative review

Squadrito F et al. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:224. PMID 28491036.

A 2017 pharmacology review describes PDRN as a mixture of deoxyribonucleotides with molecular weights of 50 to 1,500 kDa, made by controlled purification and sterilization of sperm DNA from Oncorhynchus mykiss (salmon trout) or Oncorhynchus keta (chum salmon), with adenosine A2A receptor engagement as the most relevant mechanism and nucleotides supplied to the salvage pathway. It calls PDRN a proprietary and registered drug and says defibrotide, another oligonucleotide mixture, has a different molecular weight, DNA of a different origin, and does not share the same wound-healing effects. A 2025 narrative review by authors from companies in the field says the terms PDRN and polynucleotide (PN) are used interchangeably in the literature for polymers of varying length, calls this a source of confusion, and proposes reserving PDRN for chains under 1,500 kDa and PN for 1,500 kDa or longer. On 11 October 2026 PubChem name lookups for PDRN, polydeoxyribonucleotide and polydeoxyribonucleotide sodium returned no compound record, consistent with a mixture. openFDA Drugs@FDA queries for polydeoxyribonucleotide, PDRN and Placentex each returned no match, DailyMed searches for polydeoxyribonucleotide and Placentex returned no labels, and a DailyMed search for PDRN returned cosmetic and sunscreen listings with PDRN in the product name and sunscreen active ingredients, not a PDRN drug label. Defibrotide is a separate FDA-approved drug (DEFITELIO, NDA208114, original approval 30 March 2016) and is not PDRN.

Participants / model
Chemical identity, not a clinical population
Treatment
Mixture of DNA fragments from fish sperm; products differ
Follow-up
Searches run on 11 October 2026
Study design
Review articles plus dated US approval-record search
Funding
not stated in the source

Source, molecular weight and manufacturing process differ by product, so results for one product do not transfer to another. The 2025 PDRN versus PN cut-off is the review authors' own proposal. A 2022 corrigendum to the 2017 review exists and is not summarized here.

Read the original source
Italy: leaflet copy (last modified 2017) describes a tissue-repair medicine for wounds and ulcers

Official label

My-personaltrainer.it. Reproduction of the Italian package leaflet for PLACENTEX (polidesossiribonucleotide), page last modified 13 June 2017.

The leaflet copy describes PLACENTEX as a medicine for repair of tissue damage with healing and antidystrophic activity. The cream and cutaneous solution are indicated for wounds and ulcers (abrasions, burns, vascular ulcers, pressure ulcers and diabetic ulcers), and injectable forms for intramuscular or subcutaneous use are also listed. It lists allergy to polydeoxyribonucleotide or any excipient as a contraindication and says no interactions have been reported. This is a medicine for tissue repair and ulcers, not an aesthetic or anti-aging indication.

Participants / model
Patients with wounds, ulcers and connective tissue disorders, per the leaflet
Treatment
PLACENTEX injectable, cream and cutaneous solution
Follow-up
Page last modified 13 June 2017
Study design
Secondary reproduction of an official package leaflet (Italy)
Funding
not stated in the source

This is not an AIFA record, and the leaflet's date and current Italian approval are not confirmed here. The leaflet's dosing is not reproduced on this page.

Read the original source

What did the wound-healing studies find?

The best controlled study is in wound healing. In 216 patients with diabetes and foot ulcers, complete healing at 8 weeks was 37.3% with PDRN injections versus 18.9% with placebo, with a median time to healing of 30 versus 49 days. A 23-patient pressure ulcer trial supports a signal only.

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial at two Italian centers enrolled patients with diabetes and hard-to-heal Wagner grade 1 or 2 foot ulcers (placebo n = 106, PDRN n = 110), treated for 8 weeks by intramuscular and perilesional injection; 91 placebo and 101 PDRN subjects completed. Complete healing was 18.9% (95% CI 11.4 to 26.3) on placebo and 37.3% (95% CI 28.2 to 46.3) on PDRN (P = .0027). The hazard ratio for closure was 2.20 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.75; P = .004), median time to healing was 49 days on placebo versus 30 days on PDRN, and median epithelialized area was 49.3% versus 82.2% (P < .001).

The abstract does not state funding or conflicts, and an erratum corrected the route description. A registry record matching by topic and enrollment is NCT00638872 (PDRN-Placentex Mastelli for diabetic ulcers, completed, n = 215, no posted results); the abstract does not cite it.

In a Korean randomized trial of 23 patients with pressure ulcers (PDRN 11, control 12), PDRN given intramuscularly for 2 weeks and perilesionally for 4 weeks reduced wound size and the PUSH score after 4 weeks, with no adverse effects during treatment. The authors disclose nothing, and a trial of this size supports a signal only.

Diabetic foot ulcers: 216 patients, 8 weeks, complete healing 37.3% versus 18.9%

Randomized controlled trial

Squadrito F et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(5):E746-53. PMID 24483158.

Patients with diabetes and hard-to-heal Wagner grade 1 or 2 foot ulcers at two Italian centers (placebo n = 106, PDRN n = 110) were treated for 8 weeks by intramuscular and perilesional injection; 91 placebo and 101 PDRN subjects completed. Complete healing was 18.9% (95% CI 11.4 to 26.3) on placebo and 37.3% (95% CI 28.2 to 46.3) on PDRN (P = .0027), the hazard ratio for closure was 2.20 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.75; P = .004), median time to healing was 49 days on placebo versus 30 days on PDRN, and median epithelialized area was 49.3% versus 82.2% (P < .001).

Participants / model
216 patients with diabetes and Wagner grade 1 or 2 foot ulcers
Treatment
PDRN or placebo by intramuscular and perilesional injection
Follow-up
8 weeks
Study design
Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial at two centers
Funding
Not stated in the abstract, which also gives no conflict statement

An erratum corrected the route description (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015;100(2):763). A registry record matching by topic and enrollment is NCT00638872 (PDRN-Placentex Mastelli for diabetic ulcers, completed, n = 215, no posted results); the abstract does not cite it.

Read the original source
Pressure ulcers: 23 patients, 4 weeks, smaller wounds; a signal only

Randomized controlled trial

Kim JY et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2014;29 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):S222-7. PMID 25473213.

In 23 patients (PDRN 11, control 12), PDRN given intramuscularly for 2 weeks and perilesionally for 4 weeks reduced wound size and the PUSH score after 4 weeks, with no adverse effects during treatment.

Participants / model
23 patients with pressure ulcers
Treatment
PDRN 5.625 mg ampules, intramuscular and perilesional, versus control
Follow-up
4 weeks
Study design
Small randomized trial
Funding
The authors disclose nothing

A trial of this size supports a signal only.

Read the original source

Does PDRN prevent surgical scars?

Not clearly. In 44 patients after thyroidectomy, two PDRN injections gave a modified Vancouver Scar Scale of 1.619 versus 2.500 in untreated controls at 3 months (p = 0.059), with a lower vascularity subscore. There was no placebo injection, and the trial registry lists 22 enrolled while the paper reports 44.

In 44 patients after open thyroidectomy randomized to two PDRN injections 1 and 2 days after surgery or to an untreated control group, the modified Vancouver Scar Scale at 3 months was 1.619 +/- 1.244 on PDRN versus 2.500 +/- 1.540 in controls (p = 0.059). The vascularity subscore was significantly lower (0.476 versus 0.900, p = 0.010), and subjective symptoms, erythema index and scar height were lower. No specific side effects were seen.

The control group received no injection, so the comparison was not blinded by a placebo. The trial is registered as NCT05149118, but the registry lists enrollment as 22 while the paper reports 44 patients, a discrepancy not explained in the sources reviewed.

Thyroidectomy scars: 44 patients (registry lists 22), no placebo, headline p = 0.059

Randomized controlled trial

Kim BR et al. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2023;12(7):361-370. PMID 35713247.

In 44 patients after open thyroidectomy randomized to two PDRN injections 1 and 2 days after surgery or to an untreated control group, the modified Vancouver Scar Scale at 3 months was 1.619 +/- 1.244 on PDRN versus 2.500 +/- 1.540 in controls (p = 0.059), with a significantly lower vascularity subscore (0.476 versus 0.900, p = 0.010) and lower subjective symptoms, erythema index and scar height. No specific side effects were seen.

Participants / model
44 patients after open thyroidectomy (the registry lists 22)
Treatment
PDRN injection on postoperative days 1 and 2, versus untreated control
Follow-up
3 months
Study design
Randomized trial with an untreated control and no placebo injection
Funding
not stated in the source

The trial is registered as NCT05149118, but the registry lists enrollment as 22 while the paper reports 44 patients, a discrepancy not explained in the sources reviewed.

Read the original source

What do the skin rejuvenation studies show?

Little that is specific to PDRN. Reviews of 7 to 9 small, low-to-moderate quality studies pool PN and PDRN products and find the most consistent benefit in wound healing. Aesthetic trials enrolled 17 to 27 people, mostly testing PN products, and a Korean phase III polynucleotide filler trial was retracted.

A 2026 systematic review of randomized trials (PubMed to January 2026) found seven trials in 183 participants: four skin rejuvenation, one scar prevention and two wound healing. The most consistent benefits were in wound healing (faster re-epithelialization and shorter healing), no serious treatment-related adverse events were reported, and the evidence was limited by small samples and heterogeneous protocols; the authors declare no conflicts. A systematic review of polynucleotides in esthetic medicine (January 2010 to January 2024) included nine studies of low and moderate quality in 219 patients, reported improvements in wrinkles, texture and elasticity in several studies and mild transient side effects, and called for rigorous high-quality studies; its authors disclose ties to Mastelli Srl and a Mastelli distributor. A 2026 narrative review of under-eye rejuvenation found polynucleotides improved dermal quality parameters while hyaluronic acid remained superior for correcting structure. These reviews pool PN and PDRN products.

In 27 subjects with a split-face design comparing a polynucleotide filler with non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid filler around the eyes, visual analog and global aesthetic improvement scores did not differ significantly; roughness and pore volume improved more on the PN side, and there were no serious adverse events. In 20 women with grade 3 to 4 atrophic acne scars randomized to highly purified polynucleotide or saline, only the active group improved significantly from baseline at 1 and 3 months, and the authors call for larger studies. In an open-label randomized study of 17 participants with acne scars, PDRN alone lowered POSAS by 6.1 points, air-botulinum toxin by 9.0 and the combination by 12.0; the study is graded evidence level V.

The Rejuran polynucleotide filler trial, reported as a phase III matched-pair comparison in 72 patients with crow's feet, was retracted by notice in J Korean Med Sci in 2016, and no reason is stated in the notice record. Its abstract reported no statistically significant difference between the groups on the primary and secondary efficacy measures. It is not used as support on this page.

Reviews: 7 to 9 small studies pooling PN and PDRN; most consistent benefit in wound healing

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Alhussain AM et al. Cureus. 2026;18(7):e112403. PMID 42572627.

A 2026 systematic review of randomized trials (PubMed to January 2026) found seven trials in 183 participants (four skin rejuvenation, one scar prevention, two wound healing), the most consistent benefits in wound healing (faster re-epithelialization and shorter healing), no serious treatment-related adverse events, and evidence limited by small samples and heterogeneous protocols. A systematic review of polynucleotides in esthetic medicine (January 2010 to January 2024) included nine studies of low and moderate quality in 219 patients and reported improvements in wrinkles, texture and elasticity in several studies, mild transient side effects, and moderate to high patient satisfaction, while saying there is limited consensus on optimal use and calling for rigorous high-quality studies. A 2026 narrative review of under-eye rejuvenation found polynucleotides improved dermal quality parameters, hyaluronic acid remained superior for correcting structure, and heterogeneity limited conclusions.

Participants / model
Adults in 7 to 9 small trials of skin rejuvenation, scars and wounds
Treatment
Injectable and topical PN and PDRN products
Follow-up
Varied across trials
Study design
Systematic reviews and a narrative review
Funding
No conflicts declared for the 2026 systematic review; the 2025 esthetic review's authors disclose ties to Mastelli Srl and a Mastelli distributor

The reviews pool PN and PDRN products, so they are not PDRN-only evidence.

Read the original source
Aesthetic trials: 17 to 27 people, mostly PN products; a Korean phase III PN filler trial was retracted

Randomized controlled trial

Lee YJ et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022;33(1):254-260. PMID 32248707.

In 27 subjects with a split-face design comparing a polynucleotide filler with non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid filler around the eyes, visual analog and global aesthetic improvement scores did not differ significantly; skin elasticity and hydration improvement rates fell over time in both groups, with a higher rate on the PN side; roughness and pore volume improved more on the PN side; and there were no serious adverse events. In 20 women with grade 3 to 4 atrophic acne scars randomized to highly purified polynucleotide or saline, only the active group improved significantly from baseline at 1 and 3 months, and the authors call for larger studies. In an open-label randomized study of 17 participants with acne scars, PDRN alone lowered POSAS by 6.1 points, air-botulinum toxin by 9.0 and the combination by 12.0, graded evidence level V. The Rejuran polynucleotide filler trial reported as a phase III matched-pair comparison in 72 patients with crow's feet was retracted by notice in J Korean Med Sci in 2016 (no reason is stated in the notice record), and its abstract reported no statistically significant difference between the groups on the primary and secondary efficacy measures.

Participants / model
27 subjects (periocular, split-face); 20 women with acne scars; 17 participants with acne scars
Treatment
Injected PN, highly purified PN and PDRN products; comparators hyaluronic acid filler, saline and botulinum toxin
Follow-up
Up to 3 months in the acne scar trial; not stated in the source for the others
Study design
Small randomized trials, one open-label; a retracted trial
Funding
not stated in the source

Two of the three trials tested PN products, not PDRN. The retracted trial is not used as support on this page.

Read the original source

Have registered PDRN trials posted results?

No PDRN trial had posted results. A ClinicalTrials.gov search on 11 October 2026 returned 16 records, 9 of them completed, and the only one with posted results was a defibrotide trial, a different drug.

The 16 records were 3 recruiting, 1 active not recruiting, 1 not yet recruiting, 1 terminated, 1 of unknown status and 9 completed. The only record with posted results, NCT00628498, is a defibrotide trial, not PDRN.

The PDRN-related records covered acne scars and facial scar remodeling, periocular wrinkles, rotator cuff and elbow tendinopathy, genitourinary syndrome of menopause (NCT05464654, 136 participants, completed), epidural use, scleroderma (NCT03388255, PLACENTEX intramuscular, terminated with 25 enrolled), dental bone defects, and the diabetic ulcer and post-operative scar trials. Registered studies without results show that a study was registered, not that it works.

Registry, 11 October 2026: 16 records, no PDRN trial with posted results

Trial registry record

ClinicalTrials.gov search for "polydeoxyribonucleotide" run on 11 October 2026. 16 records returned.

The search returned 16 records, and all 16 titles were reviewed: 3 recruiting, 1 active not recruiting, 1 not yet recruiting, 1 terminated, 1 unknown status and 9 completed. Only one record had posted results, NCT00628498, which is a defibrotide trial and not PDRN, so no PDRN trial has posted results among these records. The PDRN-related records covered acne scars and facial scar remodeling, periocular wrinkles, rotator cuff and elbow tendinopathy, genitourinary syndrome of menopause (NCT05464654, 136 participants, completed), epidural use, scleroderma (NCT03388255, PLACENTEX intramuscular, terminated, 25 enrolled), dental bone defects, and the diabetic ulcer and post-operative scar trials. Two of the 16 titles, a topical multivitamin serum and a microneedling trial, may only mention PDRN.

Participants / model
Registered trials, not a population
Treatment
Not applicable
Follow-up
Search run on 11 October 2026
Study design
Dated trial-registry search
Funding
not stated in the source

Registered studies without results show that a study was registered, not that it works.

Read the original source

Does PDRN regenerate skin and improve skin quality?

Partly, and mainly for wounds. Wound healing has one sizeable placebo-controlled trial, scars and fine lines have weak small-study support, and a PubMed search on 11 October 2026 returned 26 trial and review records with no randomized trial of PDRN for photoaging or wrinkles in healthy adults.

Sellers say PDRN, widely used in Korean aesthetics, regenerates skin and improves skin quality when injected or applied. The best controlled result is faster healing of diabetic foot ulcers in 216 patients. For scars, the one trial had no placebo and a headline score at p = 0.059. For fine lines and skin quality, the studies are small, many tested PN rather than PDRN, and the best-known Korean phase III filler trial, which tested a polynucleotide product, was retracted.

A PubMed search on 11 October 2026 for PDRN or polydeoxyribonucleotide limited to meta-analyses, systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials returned 26 records, and all 26 titles were reviewed. They covered two aesthetic-medicine reviews, two skin trials on acne and thyroidectomy scars, the diabetic foot ulcer and pressure ulcer trials, a third molar extraction trial, tendon and joint conditions, 1989 to 1990 Italian gynecology papers, a 2004 corneal healing trial, three papers on oral defibrotide (a different drug) and several unrelated systematic reviews. None reports a randomized trial of PDRN for photoaging or wrinkles in healthy adults.

PubMed search, 11 October 2026: 26 records, no randomized trial for photoaging in healthy adults

PubMed search record

PubMed search run on 11 October 2026: (polydeoxyribonucleotide[tiab] OR PDRN[tiab]) AND (meta-analysis[pt] OR systematic review[pt] OR randomized controlled trial[pt]). 26 records returned.

The search returned 26 records, and all 26 titles were reviewed. They covered two aesthetic-medicine reviews, two PN or PDRN skin trials on acne and thyroidectomy scars, the diabetic foot ulcer and pressure ulcer trials, a third molar extraction trial, tendon and joint conditions (rotator cuff, plantar fasciitis, tendon pain, knee osteoarthritis), 1989 to 1990 Italian gynecology papers, a 2004 corneal healing trial after photorefractive keratectomy, three 1991 to 1996 papers on oral defibrotide (a different drug), and several unrelated systematic reviews. None reports a randomized trial of PDRN for photoaging or wrinkles in healthy adults. The skin-rejuvenation evidence in the records is a small, low-to-moderate quality body of studies, many using PN rather than PDRN.

Participants / model
Records reviewed, not a population
Treatment
Not applicable
Follow-up
Search run on 11 October 2026
Study design
Literature search
Funding
not stated in the source

A search result shows what PubMed returned on that date. It is not proof that no unindexed study exists.

Read the original source
Diabetic foot ulcers: 216 patients, 8 weeks, complete healing 37.3% versus 18.9%

Randomized controlled trial

Squadrito F et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(5):E746-53. PMID 24483158.

Patients with diabetes and hard-to-heal Wagner grade 1 or 2 foot ulcers at two Italian centers (placebo n = 106, PDRN n = 110) were treated for 8 weeks by intramuscular and perilesional injection; 91 placebo and 101 PDRN subjects completed. Complete healing was 18.9% (95% CI 11.4 to 26.3) on placebo and 37.3% (95% CI 28.2 to 46.3) on PDRN (P = .0027), the hazard ratio for closure was 2.20 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.75; P = .004), median time to healing was 49 days on placebo versus 30 days on PDRN, and median epithelialized area was 49.3% versus 82.2% (P < .001).

Participants / model
216 patients with diabetes and Wagner grade 1 or 2 foot ulcers
Treatment
PDRN or placebo by intramuscular and perilesional injection
Follow-up
8 weeks
Study design
Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial at two centers
Funding
Not stated in the abstract, which also gives no conflict statement

An erratum corrected the route description (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015;100(2):763). A registry record matching by topic and enrollment is NCT00638872 (PDRN-Placentex Mastelli for diabetic ulcers, completed, n = 215, no posted results); the abstract does not cite it.

Read the original source
Thyroidectomy scars: 44 patients (registry lists 22), no placebo, headline p = 0.059

Randomized controlled trial

Kim BR et al. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2023;12(7):361-370. PMID 35713247.

In 44 patients after open thyroidectomy randomized to two PDRN injections 1 and 2 days after surgery or to an untreated control group, the modified Vancouver Scar Scale at 3 months was 1.619 +/- 1.244 on PDRN versus 2.500 +/- 1.540 in controls (p = 0.059), with a significantly lower vascularity subscore (0.476 versus 0.900, p = 0.010) and lower subjective symptoms, erythema index and scar height. No specific side effects were seen.

Participants / model
44 patients after open thyroidectomy (the registry lists 22)
Treatment
PDRN injection on postoperative days 1 and 2, versus untreated control
Follow-up
3 months
Study design
Randomized trial with an untreated control and no placebo injection
Funding
not stated in the source

The trial is registered as NCT05149118, but the registry lists enrollment as 22 while the paper reports 44 patients, a discrepancy not explained in the sources reviewed.

Read the original source
Reviews: 7 to 9 small studies pooling PN and PDRN; most consistent benefit in wound healing

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Alhussain AM et al. Cureus. 2026;18(7):e112403. PMID 42572627.

A 2026 systematic review of randomized trials (PubMed to January 2026) found seven trials in 183 participants (four skin rejuvenation, one scar prevention, two wound healing), the most consistent benefits in wound healing (faster re-epithelialization and shorter healing), no serious treatment-related adverse events, and evidence limited by small samples and heterogeneous protocols. A systematic review of polynucleotides in esthetic medicine (January 2010 to January 2024) included nine studies of low and moderate quality in 219 patients and reported improvements in wrinkles, texture and elasticity in several studies, mild transient side effects, and moderate to high patient satisfaction, while saying there is limited consensus on optimal use and calling for rigorous high-quality studies. A 2026 narrative review of under-eye rejuvenation found polynucleotides improved dermal quality parameters, hyaluronic acid remained superior for correcting structure, and heterogeneity limited conclusions.

Participants / model
Adults in 7 to 9 small trials of skin rejuvenation, scars and wounds
Treatment
Injectable and topical PN and PDRN products
Follow-up
Varied across trials
Study design
Systematic reviews and a narrative review
Funding
No conflicts declared for the 2026 systematic review; the 2025 esthetic review's authors disclose ties to Mastelli Srl and a Mastelli distributor

The reviews pool PN and PDRN products, so they are not PDRN-only evidence.

Read the original source
Aesthetic trials: 17 to 27 people, mostly PN products; a Korean phase III PN filler trial was retracted

Randomized controlled trial

Lee YJ et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022;33(1):254-260. PMID 32248707.

In 27 subjects with a split-face design comparing a polynucleotide filler with non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid filler around the eyes, visual analog and global aesthetic improvement scores did not differ significantly; skin elasticity and hydration improvement rates fell over time in both groups, with a higher rate on the PN side; roughness and pore volume improved more on the PN side; and there were no serious adverse events. In 20 women with grade 3 to 4 atrophic acne scars randomized to highly purified polynucleotide or saline, only the active group improved significantly from baseline at 1 and 3 months, and the authors call for larger studies. In an open-label randomized study of 17 participants with acne scars, PDRN alone lowered POSAS by 6.1 points, air-botulinum toxin by 9.0 and the combination by 12.0, graded evidence level V. The Rejuran polynucleotide filler trial reported as a phase III matched-pair comparison in 72 patients with crow's feet was retracted by notice in J Korean Med Sci in 2016 (no reason is stated in the notice record), and its abstract reported no statistically significant difference between the groups on the primary and secondary efficacy measures.

Participants / model
27 subjects (periocular, split-face); 20 women with acne scars; 17 participants with acne scars
Treatment
Injected PN, highly purified PN and PDRN products; comparators hyaluronic acid filler, saline and botulinum toxin
Follow-up
Up to 3 months in the acne scar trial; not stated in the source for the others
Study design
Small randomized trials, one open-label; a retracted trial
Funding
not stated in the source

Two of the three trials tested PN products, not PDRN. The retracted trial is not used as support on this page.

Read the original source

How is PDRN supposed to work?

A 2017 pharmacology review names adenosine A2A receptor engagement as the most relevant mechanism, with nucleotides also supplied to the salvage pathway. Because PDRN is a mixture whose source, chain length and manufacturing vary by product, a mechanism or result shown for one product does not transfer to another.

The 2017 review describes adenosine A2A receptor engagement as the most relevant mechanism and says PDRN also supplies nucleotides to the salvage pathway. It distinguishes PDRN from defibrotide, another oligonucleotide mixture, which it says does not share the same wound-healing effects.

The clinical result that best fits a repair mechanism is the diabetic foot ulcer trial, where more ulcers closed and closure came sooner on PDRN. No pharmacokinetic data for any route appear in the sources on this page.

Identity: a salmon-sperm DNA mixture, not one molecule; no FDA approval found, 11 October 2026

Narrative review

Squadrito F et al. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:224. PMID 28491036.

A 2017 pharmacology review describes PDRN as a mixture of deoxyribonucleotides with molecular weights of 50 to 1,500 kDa, made by controlled purification and sterilization of sperm DNA from Oncorhynchus mykiss (salmon trout) or Oncorhynchus keta (chum salmon), with adenosine A2A receptor engagement as the most relevant mechanism and nucleotides supplied to the salvage pathway. It calls PDRN a proprietary and registered drug and says defibrotide, another oligonucleotide mixture, has a different molecular weight, DNA of a different origin, and does not share the same wound-healing effects. A 2025 narrative review by authors from companies in the field says the terms PDRN and polynucleotide (PN) are used interchangeably in the literature for polymers of varying length, calls this a source of confusion, and proposes reserving PDRN for chains under 1,500 kDa and PN for 1,500 kDa or longer. On 11 October 2026 PubChem name lookups for PDRN, polydeoxyribonucleotide and polydeoxyribonucleotide sodium returned no compound record, consistent with a mixture. openFDA Drugs@FDA queries for polydeoxyribonucleotide, PDRN and Placentex each returned no match, DailyMed searches for polydeoxyribonucleotide and Placentex returned no labels, and a DailyMed search for PDRN returned cosmetic and sunscreen listings with PDRN in the product name and sunscreen active ingredients, not a PDRN drug label. Defibrotide is a separate FDA-approved drug (DEFITELIO, NDA208114, original approval 30 March 2016) and is not PDRN.

Participants / model
Chemical identity, not a clinical population
Treatment
Mixture of DNA fragments from fish sperm; products differ
Follow-up
Searches run on 11 October 2026
Study design
Review articles plus dated US approval-record search
Funding
not stated in the source

Source, molecular weight and manufacturing process differ by product, so results for one product do not transfer to another. The 2025 PDRN versus PN cut-off is the review authors' own proposal. A 2022 corrigendum to the 2017 review exists and is not summarized here.

Read the original source
Diabetic foot ulcers: 216 patients, 8 weeks, complete healing 37.3% versus 18.9%

Randomized controlled trial

Squadrito F et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(5):E746-53. PMID 24483158.

Patients with diabetes and hard-to-heal Wagner grade 1 or 2 foot ulcers at two Italian centers (placebo n = 106, PDRN n = 110) were treated for 8 weeks by intramuscular and perilesional injection; 91 placebo and 101 PDRN subjects completed. Complete healing was 18.9% (95% CI 11.4 to 26.3) on placebo and 37.3% (95% CI 28.2 to 46.3) on PDRN (P = .0027), the hazard ratio for closure was 2.20 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.75; P = .004), median time to healing was 49 days on placebo versus 30 days on PDRN, and median epithelialized area was 49.3% versus 82.2% (P < .001).

Participants / model
216 patients with diabetes and Wagner grade 1 or 2 foot ulcers
Treatment
PDRN or placebo by intramuscular and perilesional injection
Follow-up
8 weeks
Study design
Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial at two centers
Funding
Not stated in the abstract, which also gives no conflict statement

An erratum corrected the route description (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015;100(2):763). A registry record matching by topic and enrollment is NCT00638872 (PDRN-Placentex Mastelli for diabetic ulcers, completed, n = 215, no posted results); the abstract does not cite it.

Read the original source

What safety information is available?

Short trials reported no serious treatment-related adverse events, with mild transient side effects in aesthetic studies and none reported in the pressure ulcer and scar trials. The Italian leaflet copy lists allergy to polydeoxyribonucleotide as a contraindication. No data on allergy to the salmon source or on long-term injection safety appear in the sources reviewed.

The 2026 systematic review of seven randomized trials found no serious treatment-related adverse events, and the 2025 esthetic review reported mild transient side effects. The pressure ulcer trial reported no adverse effects during treatment, the thyroidectomy scar trial saw no specific side effects, and the split-face filler trial reported no serious adverse events.

The Italian PLACENTEX leaflet copy lists allergy to polydeoxyribonucleotide or any excipient as a contraindication and says no interactions have been reported. It is a secondary reproduction last modified in 2017.

PDRN is made from fish sperm DNA, but no data on allergy related to the salmon source, or on long-term injection safety, appear in the sources on this page. Products differ in source, molecular weight and manufacturing, so the safety record of one product does not transfer to another.

Reviews: 7 to 9 small studies pooling PN and PDRN; most consistent benefit in wound healing

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Alhussain AM et al. Cureus. 2026;18(7):e112403. PMID 42572627.

A 2026 systematic review of randomized trials (PubMed to January 2026) found seven trials in 183 participants (four skin rejuvenation, one scar prevention, two wound healing), the most consistent benefits in wound healing (faster re-epithelialization and shorter healing), no serious treatment-related adverse events, and evidence limited by small samples and heterogeneous protocols. A systematic review of polynucleotides in esthetic medicine (January 2010 to January 2024) included nine studies of low and moderate quality in 219 patients and reported improvements in wrinkles, texture and elasticity in several studies, mild transient side effects, and moderate to high patient satisfaction, while saying there is limited consensus on optimal use and calling for rigorous high-quality studies. A 2026 narrative review of under-eye rejuvenation found polynucleotides improved dermal quality parameters, hyaluronic acid remained superior for correcting structure, and heterogeneity limited conclusions.

Participants / model
Adults in 7 to 9 small trials of skin rejuvenation, scars and wounds
Treatment
Injectable and topical PN and PDRN products
Follow-up
Varied across trials
Study design
Systematic reviews and a narrative review
Funding
No conflicts declared for the 2026 systematic review; the 2025 esthetic review's authors disclose ties to Mastelli Srl and a Mastelli distributor

The reviews pool PN and PDRN products, so they are not PDRN-only evidence.

Read the original source
Pressure ulcers: 23 patients, 4 weeks, smaller wounds; a signal only

Randomized controlled trial

Kim JY et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2014;29 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):S222-7. PMID 25473213.

In 23 patients (PDRN 11, control 12), PDRN given intramuscularly for 2 weeks and perilesionally for 4 weeks reduced wound size and the PUSH score after 4 weeks, with no adverse effects during treatment.

Participants / model
23 patients with pressure ulcers
Treatment
PDRN 5.625 mg ampules, intramuscular and perilesional, versus control
Follow-up
4 weeks
Study design
Small randomized trial
Funding
The authors disclose nothing

A trial of this size supports a signal only.

Read the original source
Thyroidectomy scars: 44 patients (registry lists 22), no placebo, headline p = 0.059

Randomized controlled trial

Kim BR et al. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2023;12(7):361-370. PMID 35713247.

In 44 patients after open thyroidectomy randomized to two PDRN injections 1 and 2 days after surgery or to an untreated control group, the modified Vancouver Scar Scale at 3 months was 1.619 +/- 1.244 on PDRN versus 2.500 +/- 1.540 in controls (p = 0.059), with a significantly lower vascularity subscore (0.476 versus 0.900, p = 0.010) and lower subjective symptoms, erythema index and scar height. No specific side effects were seen.

Participants / model
44 patients after open thyroidectomy (the registry lists 22)
Treatment
PDRN injection on postoperative days 1 and 2, versus untreated control
Follow-up
3 months
Study design
Randomized trial with an untreated control and no placebo injection
Funding
not stated in the source

The trial is registered as NCT05149118, but the registry lists enrollment as 22 while the paper reports 44 patients, a discrepancy not explained in the sources reviewed.

Read the original source
Aesthetic trials: 17 to 27 people, mostly PN products; a Korean phase III PN filler trial was retracted

Randomized controlled trial

Lee YJ et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022;33(1):254-260. PMID 32248707.

In 27 subjects with a split-face design comparing a polynucleotide filler with non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid filler around the eyes, visual analog and global aesthetic improvement scores did not differ significantly; skin elasticity and hydration improvement rates fell over time in both groups, with a higher rate on the PN side; roughness and pore volume improved more on the PN side; and there were no serious adverse events. In 20 women with grade 3 to 4 atrophic acne scars randomized to highly purified polynucleotide or saline, only the active group improved significantly from baseline at 1 and 3 months, and the authors call for larger studies. In an open-label randomized study of 17 participants with acne scars, PDRN alone lowered POSAS by 6.1 points, air-botulinum toxin by 9.0 and the combination by 12.0, graded evidence level V. The Rejuran polynucleotide filler trial reported as a phase III matched-pair comparison in 72 patients with crow's feet was retracted by notice in J Korean Med Sci in 2016 (no reason is stated in the notice record), and its abstract reported no statistically significant difference between the groups on the primary and secondary efficacy measures.

Participants / model
27 subjects (periocular, split-face); 20 women with acne scars; 17 participants with acne scars
Treatment
Injected PN, highly purified PN and PDRN products; comparators hyaluronic acid filler, saline and botulinum toxin
Follow-up
Up to 3 months in the acne scar trial; not stated in the source for the others
Study design
Small randomized trials, one open-label; a retracted trial
Funding
not stated in the source

Two of the three trials tested PN products, not PDRN. The retracted trial is not used as support on this page.

Read the original source
Italy: leaflet copy (last modified 2017) describes a tissue-repair medicine for wounds and ulcers

Official label

My-personaltrainer.it. Reproduction of the Italian package leaflet for PLACENTEX (polidesossiribonucleotide), page last modified 13 June 2017.

The leaflet copy describes PLACENTEX as a medicine for repair of tissue damage with healing and antidystrophic activity. The cream and cutaneous solution are indicated for wounds and ulcers (abrasions, burns, vascular ulcers, pressure ulcers and diabetic ulcers), and injectable forms for intramuscular or subcutaneous use are also listed. It lists allergy to polydeoxyribonucleotide or any excipient as a contraindication and says no interactions have been reported. This is a medicine for tissue repair and ulcers, not an aesthetic or anti-aging indication.

Participants / model
Patients with wounds, ulcers and connective tissue disorders, per the leaflet
Treatment
PLACENTEX injectable, cream and cutaneous solution
Follow-up
Page last modified 13 June 2017
Study design
Secondary reproduction of an official package leaflet (Italy)
Funding
not stated in the source

This is not an AIFA record, and the leaflet's date and current Italian approval are not confirmed here. The leaflet's dosing is not reproduced on this page.

Read the original source

Why does PDRN sit in C tier?

C fits a salmon-sperm DNA mixture with a plausible adenosine A2A mechanism and one reasonably sized placebo-controlled trial showing faster diabetic foot ulcer healing, alongside thin skin data and variable product identity. B is arguable for wound healing alone.

Beyond the 216-patient diabetic foot ulcer trial, the evidence is thin: a 23-patient pressure ulcer pilot, a scar trial with no placebo and a headline score at p = 0.059, aesthetic trials of 17 to 27 people, reviews of seven to nine low-to-moderate quality studies that pool PN and PDRN products, and a retracted Korean phase III filler trial. No FDA drug approval was found, product identity varies, and Korean approval status is not established. That places PDRN with the niche, small-study compounds.

"Regenerates skin and improves skin quality" is partly supported for wound healing and weakly for scars and fine lines, with no randomized evidence for photoaging in healthy adults found.

Diabetic foot ulcers: 216 patients, 8 weeks, complete healing 37.3% versus 18.9%

Randomized controlled trial

Squadrito F et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(5):E746-53. PMID 24483158.

Patients with diabetes and hard-to-heal Wagner grade 1 or 2 foot ulcers at two Italian centers (placebo n = 106, PDRN n = 110) were treated for 8 weeks by intramuscular and perilesional injection; 91 placebo and 101 PDRN subjects completed. Complete healing was 18.9% (95% CI 11.4 to 26.3) on placebo and 37.3% (95% CI 28.2 to 46.3) on PDRN (P = .0027), the hazard ratio for closure was 2.20 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.75; P = .004), median time to healing was 49 days on placebo versus 30 days on PDRN, and median epithelialized area was 49.3% versus 82.2% (P < .001).

Participants / model
216 patients with diabetes and Wagner grade 1 or 2 foot ulcers
Treatment
PDRN or placebo by intramuscular and perilesional injection
Follow-up
8 weeks
Study design
Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial at two centers
Funding
Not stated in the abstract, which also gives no conflict statement

An erratum corrected the route description (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015;100(2):763). A registry record matching by topic and enrollment is NCT00638872 (PDRN-Placentex Mastelli for diabetic ulcers, completed, n = 215, no posted results); the abstract does not cite it.

Read the original source
Pressure ulcers: 23 patients, 4 weeks, smaller wounds; a signal only

Randomized controlled trial

Kim JY et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2014;29 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):S222-7. PMID 25473213.

In 23 patients (PDRN 11, control 12), PDRN given intramuscularly for 2 weeks and perilesionally for 4 weeks reduced wound size and the PUSH score after 4 weeks, with no adverse effects during treatment.

Participants / model
23 patients with pressure ulcers
Treatment
PDRN 5.625 mg ampules, intramuscular and perilesional, versus control
Follow-up
4 weeks
Study design
Small randomized trial
Funding
The authors disclose nothing

A trial of this size supports a signal only.

Read the original source
Thyroidectomy scars: 44 patients (registry lists 22), no placebo, headline p = 0.059

Randomized controlled trial

Kim BR et al. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2023;12(7):361-370. PMID 35713247.

In 44 patients after open thyroidectomy randomized to two PDRN injections 1 and 2 days after surgery or to an untreated control group, the modified Vancouver Scar Scale at 3 months was 1.619 +/- 1.244 on PDRN versus 2.500 +/- 1.540 in controls (p = 0.059), with a significantly lower vascularity subscore (0.476 versus 0.900, p = 0.010) and lower subjective symptoms, erythema index and scar height. No specific side effects were seen.

Participants / model
44 patients after open thyroidectomy (the registry lists 22)
Treatment
PDRN injection on postoperative days 1 and 2, versus untreated control
Follow-up
3 months
Study design
Randomized trial with an untreated control and no placebo injection
Funding
not stated in the source

The trial is registered as NCT05149118, but the registry lists enrollment as 22 while the paper reports 44 patients, a discrepancy not explained in the sources reviewed.

Read the original source
Reviews: 7 to 9 small studies pooling PN and PDRN; most consistent benefit in wound healing

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Alhussain AM et al. Cureus. 2026;18(7):e112403. PMID 42572627.

A 2026 systematic review of randomized trials (PubMed to January 2026) found seven trials in 183 participants (four skin rejuvenation, one scar prevention, two wound healing), the most consistent benefits in wound healing (faster re-epithelialization and shorter healing), no serious treatment-related adverse events, and evidence limited by small samples and heterogeneous protocols. A systematic review of polynucleotides in esthetic medicine (January 2010 to January 2024) included nine studies of low and moderate quality in 219 patients and reported improvements in wrinkles, texture and elasticity in several studies, mild transient side effects, and moderate to high patient satisfaction, while saying there is limited consensus on optimal use and calling for rigorous high-quality studies. A 2026 narrative review of under-eye rejuvenation found polynucleotides improved dermal quality parameters, hyaluronic acid remained superior for correcting structure, and heterogeneity limited conclusions.

Participants / model
Adults in 7 to 9 small trials of skin rejuvenation, scars and wounds
Treatment
Injectable and topical PN and PDRN products
Follow-up
Varied across trials
Study design
Systematic reviews and a narrative review
Funding
No conflicts declared for the 2026 systematic review; the 2025 esthetic review's authors disclose ties to Mastelli Srl and a Mastelli distributor

The reviews pool PN and PDRN products, so they are not PDRN-only evidence.

Read the original source
Aesthetic trials: 17 to 27 people, mostly PN products; a Korean phase III PN filler trial was retracted

Randomized controlled trial

Lee YJ et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022;33(1):254-260. PMID 32248707.

In 27 subjects with a split-face design comparing a polynucleotide filler with non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid filler around the eyes, visual analog and global aesthetic improvement scores did not differ significantly; skin elasticity and hydration improvement rates fell over time in both groups, with a higher rate on the PN side; roughness and pore volume improved more on the PN side; and there were no serious adverse events. In 20 women with grade 3 to 4 atrophic acne scars randomized to highly purified polynucleotide or saline, only the active group improved significantly from baseline at 1 and 3 months, and the authors call for larger studies. In an open-label randomized study of 17 participants with acne scars, PDRN alone lowered POSAS by 6.1 points, air-botulinum toxin by 9.0 and the combination by 12.0, graded evidence level V. The Rejuran polynucleotide filler trial reported as a phase III matched-pair comparison in 72 patients with crow's feet was retracted by notice in J Korean Med Sci in 2016 (no reason is stated in the notice record), and its abstract reported no statistically significant difference between the groups on the primary and secondary efficacy measures.

Participants / model
27 subjects (periocular, split-face); 20 women with acne scars; 17 participants with acne scars
Treatment
Injected PN, highly purified PN and PDRN products; comparators hyaluronic acid filler, saline and botulinum toxin
Follow-up
Up to 3 months in the acne scar trial; not stated in the source for the others
Study design
Small randomized trials, one open-label; a retracted trial
Funding
not stated in the source

Two of the three trials tested PN products, not PDRN. The retracted trial is not used as support on this page.

Read the original source
PubMed search, 11 October 2026: 26 records, no randomized trial for photoaging in healthy adults

PubMed search record

PubMed search run on 11 October 2026: (polydeoxyribonucleotide[tiab] OR PDRN[tiab]) AND (meta-analysis[pt] OR systematic review[pt] OR randomized controlled trial[pt]). 26 records returned.

The search returned 26 records, and all 26 titles were reviewed. They covered two aesthetic-medicine reviews, two PN or PDRN skin trials on acne and thyroidectomy scars, the diabetic foot ulcer and pressure ulcer trials, a third molar extraction trial, tendon and joint conditions (rotator cuff, plantar fasciitis, tendon pain, knee osteoarthritis), 1989 to 1990 Italian gynecology papers, a 2004 corneal healing trial after photorefractive keratectomy, three 1991 to 1996 papers on oral defibrotide (a different drug), and several unrelated systematic reviews. None reports a randomized trial of PDRN for photoaging or wrinkles in healthy adults. The skin-rejuvenation evidence in the records is a small, low-to-moderate quality body of studies, many using PN rather than PDRN.

Participants / model
Records reviewed, not a population
Treatment
Not applicable
Follow-up
Search run on 11 October 2026
Study design
Literature search
Funding
not stated in the source

A search result shows what PubMed returned on that date. It is not proof that no unindexed study exists.

Read the original source

Studies and sources

Identity: a salmon-sperm DNA mixture, not one molecule; no FDA approval found, 11 October 2026

Narrative review

Squadrito F et al. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:224. PMID 28491036.

A 2017 pharmacology review describes PDRN as a mixture of deoxyribonucleotides with molecular weights of 50 to 1,500 kDa, made by controlled purification and sterilization of sperm DNA from Oncorhynchus mykiss (salmon trout) or Oncorhynchus keta (chum salmon), with adenosine A2A receptor engagement as the most relevant mechanism and nucleotides supplied to the salvage pathway. It calls PDRN a proprietary and registered drug and says defibrotide, another oligonucleotide mixture, has a different molecular weight, DNA of a different origin, and does not share the same wound-healing effects. A 2025 narrative review by authors from companies in the field says the terms PDRN and polynucleotide (PN) are used interchangeably in the literature for polymers of varying length, calls this a source of confusion, and proposes reserving PDRN for chains under 1,500 kDa and PN for 1,500 kDa or longer. On 11 October 2026 PubChem name lookups for PDRN, polydeoxyribonucleotide and polydeoxyribonucleotide sodium returned no compound record, consistent with a mixture. openFDA Drugs@FDA queries for polydeoxyribonucleotide, PDRN and Placentex each returned no match, DailyMed searches for polydeoxyribonucleotide and Placentex returned no labels, and a DailyMed search for PDRN returned cosmetic and sunscreen listings with PDRN in the product name and sunscreen active ingredients, not a PDRN drug label. Defibrotide is a separate FDA-approved drug (DEFITELIO, NDA208114, original approval 30 March 2016) and is not PDRN.

Participants / model
Chemical identity, not a clinical population
Treatment
Mixture of DNA fragments from fish sperm; products differ
Follow-up
Searches run on 11 October 2026
Study design
Review articles plus dated US approval-record search
Funding
not stated in the source

Source, molecular weight and manufacturing process differ by product, so results for one product do not transfer to another. The 2025 PDRN versus PN cut-off is the review authors' own proposal. A 2022 corrigendum to the 2017 review exists and is not summarized here.

Read the original source
Italy: leaflet copy (last modified 2017) describes a tissue-repair medicine for wounds and ulcers

Official label

My-personaltrainer.it. Reproduction of the Italian package leaflet for PLACENTEX (polidesossiribonucleotide), page last modified 13 June 2017.

The leaflet copy describes PLACENTEX as a medicine for repair of tissue damage with healing and antidystrophic activity. The cream and cutaneous solution are indicated for wounds and ulcers (abrasions, burns, vascular ulcers, pressure ulcers and diabetic ulcers), and injectable forms for intramuscular or subcutaneous use are also listed. It lists allergy to polydeoxyribonucleotide or any excipient as a contraindication and says no interactions have been reported. This is a medicine for tissue repair and ulcers, not an aesthetic or anti-aging indication.

Participants / model
Patients with wounds, ulcers and connective tissue disorders, per the leaflet
Treatment
PLACENTEX injectable, cream and cutaneous solution
Follow-up
Page last modified 13 June 2017
Study design
Secondary reproduction of an official package leaflet (Italy)
Funding
not stated in the source

This is not an AIFA record, and the leaflet's date and current Italian approval are not confirmed here. The leaflet's dosing is not reproduced on this page.

Read the original source
Diabetic foot ulcers: 216 patients, 8 weeks, complete healing 37.3% versus 18.9%

Randomized controlled trial

Squadrito F et al. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2014;99(5):E746-53. PMID 24483158.

Patients with diabetes and hard-to-heal Wagner grade 1 or 2 foot ulcers at two Italian centers (placebo n = 106, PDRN n = 110) were treated for 8 weeks by intramuscular and perilesional injection; 91 placebo and 101 PDRN subjects completed. Complete healing was 18.9% (95% CI 11.4 to 26.3) on placebo and 37.3% (95% CI 28.2 to 46.3) on PDRN (P = .0027), the hazard ratio for closure was 2.20 (95% CI 1.29 to 3.75; P = .004), median time to healing was 49 days on placebo versus 30 days on PDRN, and median epithelialized area was 49.3% versus 82.2% (P < .001).

Participants / model
216 patients with diabetes and Wagner grade 1 or 2 foot ulcers
Treatment
PDRN or placebo by intramuscular and perilesional injection
Follow-up
8 weeks
Study design
Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial at two centers
Funding
Not stated in the abstract, which also gives no conflict statement

An erratum corrected the route description (J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2015;100(2):763). A registry record matching by topic and enrollment is NCT00638872 (PDRN-Placentex Mastelli for diabetic ulcers, completed, n = 215, no posted results); the abstract does not cite it.

Read the original source
Pressure ulcers: 23 patients, 4 weeks, smaller wounds; a signal only

Randomized controlled trial

Kim JY et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2014;29 Suppl 3(Suppl 3):S222-7. PMID 25473213.

In 23 patients (PDRN 11, control 12), PDRN given intramuscularly for 2 weeks and perilesionally for 4 weeks reduced wound size and the PUSH score after 4 weeks, with no adverse effects during treatment.

Participants / model
23 patients with pressure ulcers
Treatment
PDRN 5.625 mg ampules, intramuscular and perilesional, versus control
Follow-up
4 weeks
Study design
Small randomized trial
Funding
The authors disclose nothing

A trial of this size supports a signal only.

Read the original source
Thyroidectomy scars: 44 patients (registry lists 22), no placebo, headline p = 0.059

Randomized controlled trial

Kim BR et al. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2023;12(7):361-370. PMID 35713247.

In 44 patients after open thyroidectomy randomized to two PDRN injections 1 and 2 days after surgery or to an untreated control group, the modified Vancouver Scar Scale at 3 months was 1.619 +/- 1.244 on PDRN versus 2.500 +/- 1.540 in controls (p = 0.059), with a significantly lower vascularity subscore (0.476 versus 0.900, p = 0.010) and lower subjective symptoms, erythema index and scar height. No specific side effects were seen.

Participants / model
44 patients after open thyroidectomy (the registry lists 22)
Treatment
PDRN injection on postoperative days 1 and 2, versus untreated control
Follow-up
3 months
Study design
Randomized trial with an untreated control and no placebo injection
Funding
not stated in the source

The trial is registered as NCT05149118, but the registry lists enrollment as 22 while the paper reports 44 patients, a discrepancy not explained in the sources reviewed.

Read the original source
Reviews: 7 to 9 small studies pooling PN and PDRN; most consistent benefit in wound healing

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Alhussain AM et al. Cureus. 2026;18(7):e112403. PMID 42572627.

A 2026 systematic review of randomized trials (PubMed to January 2026) found seven trials in 183 participants (four skin rejuvenation, one scar prevention, two wound healing), the most consistent benefits in wound healing (faster re-epithelialization and shorter healing), no serious treatment-related adverse events, and evidence limited by small samples and heterogeneous protocols. A systematic review of polynucleotides in esthetic medicine (January 2010 to January 2024) included nine studies of low and moderate quality in 219 patients and reported improvements in wrinkles, texture and elasticity in several studies, mild transient side effects, and moderate to high patient satisfaction, while saying there is limited consensus on optimal use and calling for rigorous high-quality studies. A 2026 narrative review of under-eye rejuvenation found polynucleotides improved dermal quality parameters, hyaluronic acid remained superior for correcting structure, and heterogeneity limited conclusions.

Participants / model
Adults in 7 to 9 small trials of skin rejuvenation, scars and wounds
Treatment
Injectable and topical PN and PDRN products
Follow-up
Varied across trials
Study design
Systematic reviews and a narrative review
Funding
No conflicts declared for the 2026 systematic review; the 2025 esthetic review's authors disclose ties to Mastelli Srl and a Mastelli distributor

The reviews pool PN and PDRN products, so they are not PDRN-only evidence.

Read the original source
Aesthetic trials: 17 to 27 people, mostly PN products; a Korean phase III PN filler trial was retracted

Randomized controlled trial

Lee YJ et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022;33(1):254-260. PMID 32248707.

In 27 subjects with a split-face design comparing a polynucleotide filler with non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid filler around the eyes, visual analog and global aesthetic improvement scores did not differ significantly; skin elasticity and hydration improvement rates fell over time in both groups, with a higher rate on the PN side; roughness and pore volume improved more on the PN side; and there were no serious adverse events. In 20 women with grade 3 to 4 atrophic acne scars randomized to highly purified polynucleotide or saline, only the active group improved significantly from baseline at 1 and 3 months, and the authors call for larger studies. In an open-label randomized study of 17 participants with acne scars, PDRN alone lowered POSAS by 6.1 points, air-botulinum toxin by 9.0 and the combination by 12.0, graded evidence level V. The Rejuran polynucleotide filler trial reported as a phase III matched-pair comparison in 72 patients with crow's feet was retracted by notice in J Korean Med Sci in 2016 (no reason is stated in the notice record), and its abstract reported no statistically significant difference between the groups on the primary and secondary efficacy measures.

Participants / model
27 subjects (periocular, split-face); 20 women with acne scars; 17 participants with acne scars
Treatment
Injected PN, highly purified PN and PDRN products; comparators hyaluronic acid filler, saline and botulinum toxin
Follow-up
Up to 3 months in the acne scar trial; not stated in the source for the others
Study design
Small randomized trials, one open-label; a retracted trial
Funding
not stated in the source

Two of the three trials tested PN products, not PDRN. The retracted trial is not used as support on this page.

Read the original source

Why is PDRN (polydeoxyribonucleotide) in C tier?

C fits a salmon-sperm DNA mixture with a plausible adenosine A2A mechanism and one reasonably sized placebo-controlled trial showing faster diabetic foot ulcer healing. Beyond wounds, the data are small trials, reviews that pool PN and PDRN products and a retracted filler trial, and product identity varies.