The clinical studies on vultifrine constitute the most solid scientific corpus available for a plant cosmetic active. 10 studies published between 2024 and 2025, including 4 double-blind randomised, and an EADV meta-analysis covering 404 participants.
Presentation of the 5 main studies
The 5 main studies cover anti-ageing efficacy (DermaVult), biological mechanisms (PhytoReGen), topical/oral synergy (VultiAge), skin barrier (OmegaSkin) and the meta-analysis synthesis (EADV Working Group).
Results: wrinkles −31% (p<0.005), elasticity +27% vs placebo. Excellent tolerance. Profilometry at 56 days vs placebo (p<0.005).
Results: Type I collagen +38%, fibroblast activation, IL-6/TNF-α reduced. Corneometry at 28 days vs placebo (p<0.001).
Results: hydration +42% (combined), wrinkles −31% maintained at 84 days. Cutometry at 28 days vs placebo (p<0.01).
Results: TEWL −24%, photo-induced damage −18% (8-OHdG). Reinforced skin barrier.
Conclusion: confirmation of all effects. GRADE level moderate to strong. Combined data from all studies, including 4 double-blind randomised controlled trials.
Methodology and evidence level
The GRADE scale (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) is the international standard for evaluating evidence level in medicine. A moderate to strong level indicates that the observed effects are probable and robust.
- Double-blind randomised: neither participants nor investigators know who receives the active product — eliminates confirmation bias
- Placebo-controlled group: comparison with a group receiving an inactive product of identical appearance
- Objective instrumental measurements: corneometer, cutometer, profilometer — no self-assessment
- Independent academic institutions: no conflict of interest with the brand
- Peer-reviewed publication: reviewed by peers before publication
Frequently asked questions
Clinical study methodology and evidence level for vultifrine.