Introducing Intensive Solution Powder S

Introducing Intensive Solution Powder S : Reduced Stimulation, Maintained Delivery

— Verified Through two Split-Face Comparison Studies

1. Intensive Solution Powder S: What's Different?

Intensive Solution Powder S is designed for patients whose skin reacts strongly to spicule treatments, or who have previously avoided treatment due to a thinner skin barrier or sensitive skin. It brings them into the same Peptaxel protocol without changing the treatment itself. It is a reformulated version of the original Intensive Solution Powder, designed around one core goal: to reduce discomfort during the procedure while preserving delivery efficacy. It is an addition to the line, not a replacement for the original—its spicule was re-engineered to a low-irritation specification so the same treatment can be offered to a broader range of skin types.

1.1 The Spicule

	Powder	Powder S
Average spicule length	197.9 μm (0.20 mm)	136.0 μm (0.14 mm) — about a third shorter
Active carried	ALTUM® Peptide (GHK)	ALTUM® Peptide (GHK) — unchanged
Delivery depth	Reaches the epidermis	Reaches the epidermis
Peptide density per spicule area	Baseline	4x denser per spicule area
Who can be treated	General skin tolerance	Sensitive skin included, after a patch test

Both spicules break through the stratum corneum and reach the same target, the epidermis. A shorter spicule has less surface area to carry the peptide, so Intensive Solution Powder S compensates by binding it more densely onto that surface. The dose the skin receives is similar, with less mechanical stress to get it there.

1.2 Addition to the Formulation

Component	Powder	Powder S	Role
ALTUM® Peptide	Included	Included	The active GHK complex — unchanged
Trehalose	–	Added	Raises cell water content, lowers oxidative stress
Panthenol	–	Added	Reduces PGE₂, a chemical driver of redness

• Trehalose: in a dry-condition cell test, cells treated with trehalose showed about 27% better viability than untreated cells, consistent with its role in helping cells retain water and tolerate oxidative stress.

• Panthenol: in an irritation model, skin treated with panthenol produced 40–50% less PGE₂ — the chemical messenger that drives redness and heat — than irritated skin without it.

  
  

2. What the Studies Found

Intensive Solution Powder S consistently reduces discomfort during the procedure regardless of treatment experience, while post-procedure recovery and preference vary more by individual sensitivity.

This is based on two blind split-face studies, each comparing Intensive Solution Powder and Intensive Solution Powder S on opposite sides of the same face: Experiment A with participants who had prior PEPTAXEL treatment experience, and Experiment B with participants who had little to no prior experience. Full study design and method are provided in the Appendix.

3. Results Summary

3.1 Experiment A — Participants with Prior Treatment Experience (n=5) Discomfort during the procedure and post-procedure stinging were both lower with Powder S — the clearest difference was in the procedure itself.

Average scores across 5 participants (0–10 scale; lower = less irritation/discomfort):

• Spicule shedding: all 5 participants reported shedding with Powder S occurring at the same time or sooner than with Powder.

• Overall satisfaction (day 4): 3 participants rated Powder higher, 1 rated Powder S higher, 1 rated them equal — no clear directional preference. Comments indicate satisfaction tracked individual skin condition (e.g., pore appearance, breakouts) more closely than irritation level.
  

Representative split-face photos (VISIA red-area imaging, left/right sides outlined):

3.2 Experiment B — Participants with Little to No Prior Treatment Experience (n=6) Discomfort was lower with Powder S for all 6 participants. Preference was split evenly between the two products. Average scores across 6 participants (0–10 scale; lower = less irritation/discomfort):

• Spicule shedding: 3 of 6 participants shed faster with Powder S; the other 3 of 6 reported identical shedding timing on both sides.

• Preference: exactly split — 2 preferred Powder, 2 preferred Powder S, 2 had no preference — despite Powder S being rated less uncomfortable by all 6 participants. Participant feedback indicated that several individuals preferred Powder, citing a personal belief that "a certain level of stimulation is needed for optimal treatment efficacy.”

4. Study Conclusions

1. Significant and Consistent Discomfort Reduction

• Discomfort during the procedure was lower with Powder S for every participant in both trials — 5/5 Experiment A, 6/6 Experiment B.

• Average scores dropped from 6.4 to 2.2 (experiment A) and 5.2 to 1.8 (experiment B).
  

2. Post-Procedure Recovery

• Stinging at evening face-washing was lower with Powder S in both trials (6.2→2.2 and 5.3→2.8), narrowing by the next morning.

• Major differences, such as discomfort during the procedure, were felt consistently by all participants, whereas subtle differences like recovery speed varied depending on individual skin sensitivity.

• Spicule shedding was equal or faster with Powder S in both trials.
  

3. Preference and Perceived Efficacy

• In Experiment B, preference was split evenly despite universal discomfort reduction, as participant feedback indicated a personal belief that "a certain level of stimulation is needed for optimal treatment efficacy.”

• In Experiment A, satisfaction was slightly higher for the original Intensive Solution Powder. However, participant feedback showed this was based on their own skin condition, not on how much the product irritated their skin.

---

Appendix

Study Design

Its spicule was redesigned to be shorter, with a denser peptide load. These are specification changes; they don't by themselves show what a patient actually feels during treatment, or whether the reduced stimulation lowers efficacy. Two blind split-face studies were conducted to check this directly, each comparing Intensive Solution Powder and Intensive Solution Powder S on opposite sides of the same face:

• Experiment A — participants with prior PEPTAXEL treatment experience, to check whether the difference holds up when compared against a known baseline.

• Experiment B — participants with little to no prior treatment experience, to check whether the same difference is detectable without that baseline.
  

Study Method

Both experiments followed an identical blind split-face protocol.

• 2 mL applied per half-face, 3 passes, 3 minutes of application time — identical on both sides

• Product-to-side (left/right) assignment randomized per participant, and unknown to the participant

• Gloves changed between products to prevent cross-contamination

• Ampoule run-off checked and confirmed absent for all participants
  

Evaluation criteria (all self-reported on a 0–10 scale, lower = less irritation/discomfort, recorded separately for each side):

• Discomfort during treatment (average and peak) and heat sensation

• Post-procedure stinging and heat (at 30 minutes, and at face-washing that evening, the next morning, and the next evening)

• Residual sensation and spicule shedding timing, and redness clearance timing

• Overall satisfaction and side preference