Only a handful of places left for our September 2026 cohort. Applications close soonApply now →

MSTA
Your future
starts here.

AnteAGE

Also known as: ante age, anteage, anteage md, AnteAGE MD

AnteAGE is a US professional skincare brand from Cellese Regenerative Therapeutics (Irvine, California), built on cell-free conditioned medium harvested from cultured human bone-marrow mesenchymal stem cells, supplemented with recombinant growth factors and cytokines, and — in some product lines — human bone-marrow- and umbilical-cord-derived exosomes.

Evidence status

Manufacturer-supported

No indexed clinical trial evaluates an AnteAGE finished product; the brand's headline percentages are unpublished 'Data on file' without a stated denominator, control or blinding. Conditioned-media and extracellular-vesicle research is promising but heterogeneous across models, cell sources and routes, and does not validate the brand's formulations. In Great Britain, the company's own human-derived ingredient declarations conflict with Annex II entry 416 for cosmetics, while regional reformulations differ.

What AnteAGE is, and the ranges available#

AnteAGE is a professional skincare brand of Cellese Regenerative Therapeutics at Irvine, California. The company's European site calls it a Cellese division and describes Cellese as the parent company.[6, 7]

The core technology is cell-free conditioned medium collected from cultured human bone-marrow mesenchymal stem cells, with added recombinant growth factors and cytokines. AnteAGE says the cells and cellular remnants are removed by ultrafiltration. “Cell-free” therefore describes the absence of intact cells in the final material; it does not mean the medium was not produced by human cells.[5, 6]

The published AnteAGE MD Growth Factor Solution list includes human bone-marrow stem-cell conditioned media, hyaluronic acid, TGF-β3, acidic FGF, IGF-1 and IL-10. The Exosome Solution lists human bone-marrow stem-cell exosomes, human umbilical-cord stem-cell exosomes and trehalose, with a hyaluronic-acid diluent; the manufacturer states at least ten billion exosomes per vial.[5][4]

Human-derived declarations also appear in US home-care Biosome Serum and Biosome System lists. “Biosome” is the brand's name for a biosynthetic lipid particle made without human cells, but that particle can sit inside a finished formula that also contains human conditioned medium.[5][5, 7]

The European professional Growth Factor and MDX Biosome solutions list recombinant polypeptides, synthetic phospholipids and excipients without human-derived material. At the same access date, the European home-care Serum and Accelerator still declared human conditioned media and no exosome product was listed.[7]

Two British companies have carried the name: AnteAGE UK Ltd was incorporated in 2020 and dissolved in July 2025; Cellese UK Ltd was incorporated in March 2024 and remained active. Both used the same Covent Garden registered office and directors gave the Irvine address for correspondence.[9]

Use of AnteAGE in aesthetic practice#

GB cosmetics are governed by assimilated Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 and enforced by OPSS and local Trading Standards. A Responsible Person must notify the product and retain its Product Information File. The MHRA is not the cosmetics regulator unless a product is instead presented or used as a medicine or medical device.[3]

Annex II entry 416 prohibits “Cells, tissues or products of human origin” in cosmetics without a concentration or product-type exception. Article 14 bars Annex II substances, and breach is an offence under the 2013 Enforcement Regulations.[1][1, 2]

AnteAGE itself declares human bone-marrow conditioned media and human bone-marrow and umbilical-cord exosomes in named formulas. Read together with Annex II, those products cannot lawfully be placed on the GB market as cosmetics. A Department for Business and Trade spokesperson stated the narrower proposition that cosmetics containing human exosomes are banned in the UK. No court or published OPSS determination naming AnteAGE was located, so conditioned medium remains a plain-text legal reading rather than adjudicated brand enforcement.[1, 2, 15]i

The distinction is product-specific. A reformulated European vial listing only recombinant or synthetic ingredients does not present the same Annex II issue; a US or home-care formula declaring human conditioned medium does. The current pack, Responsible Person, formulation and GB notification basis therefore matter more than the AnteAGE name.

Microneedling and mesotherapy placements in England's 2023 green tier were proposals. The 2025 response did not assign procedures and no scheme is in force. Scotland's 2026 Act names microneedling and injectable procedures, but the relevant provisions were not in force at Royal Assent and commencement is staged. Wales's four statutory special procedures do not include microneedling.[14][16][17]

The US FDA has separately stated that there are no FDA-approved exosome products. That American safety notice does not determine whether a topical cosmetic complies with GB law.[13]

We could not locate any published MHRA statement, guidance or enforcement notice addressing topical human-derived exosome or conditioned-media cosmetic products specifically; claims circulating in UK aesthetics media about 'the MHRA position' on these products trace back to trade commentary rather than to a document the MHRA has published.[no source found]

A 5 News investigation reported in November 2025 contacted 50 UK clinics across Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow, London and Liverpool; 40 disclosed the exosome brand they used and roughly a quarter said they used products derived from human stem cells, from umbilical cords or fat — self-reported, not laboratory-verified, and with no brands named in the trade-press accounts we could verify.[15]

Contraindications and cautions#

The exact instructions govern contraindications, preparation and procedural use. Conditioned media, recombinant growth factors, exosome preparations and ordinary home-care serums are not interchangeable products; the professional solutions are marketed for use alongside barrier-disrupting procedures, so product identity, current directions and the procedure's own contraindications must all be checked.[4, 5]

Donor claims are incomplete. AnteAGE says its bone-marrow cells are ethically sourced from healthy adults, while the exosome formula also uses umbilical-cord-derived material and the same donor sentence does not cover that source. No public donor-screening protocol was located.[4, 6]

Application after microneedling does not establish transdermal or injectable legality, sterility or clinical benefit. Device instructions, cosmetic intended use and product presentation remain separate.

Clinical uses and the evidence behind them#

AnteAGE product evidence

No indexed clinical literature evaluating AnteAGE was identified. The only full-text mentions were incidental use in trials of other interventions and a narrative review arguing about cell source. The brand's prominent figures—93% reporting hydration, 86% visible fine-line reduction and 100% brighter skin after two P.E.A.R.L. treatments—are footnoted “internal clinical evaluation. Data on file”, without a sample size, control, randomisation, blinding or objective endpoint.[no source found][8]

These numbers may describe customer experience, but they cannot be appraised as controlled clinical evidence.

Conditioned-media class evidence

A systematic review of 101 mesenchymal-stromal-cell conditioned-media studies included only 15 on skin rejuvenation and pooled animal with human work, several tissue sources, and injected with topical routes. It reported encouraging findings in wound healing, hair restoration, rejuvenation and inflammatory skin conditions and called the class promising, while also requiring more safety, effectiveness and manufacturing-standardisation research.[10]

An independent commercial-market review similarly described extracellular-vesicle therapeutics as in their infancy, with unresolved standardisation, potency and regulatory questions. It also recognised their possible safety and scalability advantages over whole-cell therapy and ongoing wound-healing trials.[11]

The positive and limiting findings belong together. They support further research into the class, not transfer to a named AnteAGE bottle or a ten-billion-particle specification.

Cell-source debate

A 2019 narrative review singled out AnteAGE and argued that bone-marrow secretome could carry inflammatory, proliferative or fibrotic concerns compared with other sources. The argument was theoretical rather than an AnteAGE trial, and the sole author part-owned a competing secretome skincare company.[12]

That paper is neither neutral evidence of harm nor a reason to ignore source selection. It shows that cell source is unsettled and that commercial provenance applies to criticism as well as promotion.

Selecting an AnteAGE product#

Selection starts with the intended use and complete formulation, not the product name. AnteAGE sells professional topical solutions for use with or after microneedling, RF microneedling and laser, alongside home-care serums; manufacturer positioning does not establish that these categories are interchangeable or clinically effective.[4, 5]

The reformulated EU Growth Factor and MDX Biosome solutions should be distinguished from US human-conditioned-media and exosome formulas. “Biosome”, “cell-free” and “growth factor” do not identify the entire composition.[4, 5, 6, 7]

Evidence claims should identify whether they concern an AnteAGE finished product, mesenchymal-cell conditioned medium as a broad class, extracellular vesicles, or recombinant proteins. None is evidence for all the others.

The current manufacturer instructions and procedure-device directions govern any lawful use. Skinipedia does not publish a microneedling, mesotherapy or post-procedure protocol.

Adverse effects and their management#

Product and procedural reactions

There is no brand trial from which a reliable AnteAGE adverse-event rate can be calculated. Reactions after use may reflect the formula, the procedure, contamination, barrier injury or another concurrent product.

Persistent or serious presentations

Unexpected inflammation, infection, delayed healing, nodules, progressive pigment change, allergy or systemic symptoms require prompt clinical assessment. The record should preserve product name, lot, ingredient list, source market, procedure, device and timing.

Referral and scope boundaries#

AnteAGE does not turn wound healing, inflammatory skin disease or another medical condition into an aesthetic indication. Infection, delayed healing, suspected inflammatory disease, significant scarring or an unexplained post-procedure reaction requires appropriate medical referral.

Mechanism of action#

Conditioned medium contains soluble products released by cultured cells; extracellular vesicles are membrane-bound particles; recombinant growth factors are manufactured signalling proteins. AnteAGE combines these categories differently by product.[4, 5, 6, 7]

Proposed effects involve signalling in inflammation, matrix remodelling and repair. Class reviews remain heterogeneous across cell source, preparation, dose, route and outcome. Particle count alone is not a validated potency assay and no study links AnteAGE's stated ten billion particles with a clinical result.[10, 11]

Commonly misstated claims#

“Cell-free or topical means the material is permitted”

AnteAGE says cells are removed, but its own ingredient list names human bone-marrow conditioned media. Annex II covers “products of human origin”, not only intact cells, and contains no topical-route exception.[1, 5, 6]

Supported statement: selected AnteAGE formulas are cell-free preparations derived from cultured human donor cells.

“Biosome products are automatically human-free”

The particle is described as human-free, while some finished Biosome formulas still list human conditioned medium.[5, 7]

Supported statement: only the complete current ingredient list establishes whether a Biosome product contains human-derived material.

“Ten billion exosomes proves clinical potency”

The count is a manufacturer specification. No validated skin-outcome threshold or brand trial connects it to efficacy.[4, 11]

Supported statement: AnteAGE states at least ten billion particles per vial; the clinical meaning of that count is unknown.

Areas of remaining uncertainty#

  • No court or published OPSS decision has interpreted cell-free conditioned medium under entry 416; this leaves enforcement risk unquantified despite the broad statutory wording.
  • Current UK supply may include US or reformulated European versions; this means the product must be identified from pack and Responsible Person rather than assumed from the brand.
  • No AnteAGE product trial was located; this prevents quantifying efficacy, adverse events or benefit over an ordinary post-procedure formula.
  • Donor-screening and manufacturing-standardisation details are not public; this limits appraisal of biological consistency and traceability.
  • No agreed extracellular-vesicle potency assay links particle count with topical outcome; this prevents a dose or superiority claim.

Frequently asked questions#

What are AnteAGE professional solutions sold for?

They are sold for topical use with or after microneedling, RF microneedling, laser and other ablative treatments. This is manufacturer positioning, not product-level proof of efficacy.[4, 5]

Does cell-free mean human-free?

No. AnteAGE says the cells are removed, while named formulas still declare material produced by human cells.[5, 6]

Are the European and US products the same?

Not necessarily. The European professional range lists human-free reformulations, while US and some European home-care listings declare human conditioned media.[5, 7]

Is there clinical evidence for AnteAGE?

No indexed product trial was located. The available class research is encouraging but heterogeneous and cannot validate the brand.[10, 11]

What protocol applies after microneedling?

Only the current instructions for the exact lawful product and device apply. Skinipedia does not publish a generic protocol.

References#

Each source is graded by evidence tier. Tier 4 material (manufacturer documents, expert consensus, practitioner experience) is useful for protocol and context, and is never presented as equivalent to independent clinical evidence.

  1. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (recast), ANNEX II — List of substances prohibited in cosmetic products; and Article 14 — Restrictions for substances listed in the Annexes. Assimilated law as published for the UK on legislation.gov.uk (accessed 2 August 2026).Tier 1Supports: Annex II, reference number 416 reads in full: 'Cells, tissues or products of human origin'. The row carries no chemical/INN name qualifier, no CAS number and no EC number — the entry is the whole prohibition, unqualified by concentration, product type or route. Annex II is headed 'LIST OF SUBSTANCES PROHIBITED IN COSMETIC PRODUCTS'. Article 14(1) provides: 'Without prejudice to Article 3, cosmetic products shall not contain any of the following: (a) prohibited substances listed in Annex II'. Scope limits: legislation.gov.uk publishes the UK (assimilated) version, kept up to date with UK amendments since IP completion day (31 December 2020, 11pm). Verified 2 August 2026: the page is served as 'Latest available (Revised)', the most recent revised version listed is dated 3 December 2020, and the page states 'There are currently no known outstanding effects by UK legislation for Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council, ANNEX II.' This is the text of the prohibition only — it is not a determination by any authority about any named product, and no case law was located interpreting 'products of human origin' in relation to cell-free conditioned medium.
  2. The Cosmetic Products Enforcement Regulations 2013, SI 2013/1478, regulations 12 and 13 and Schedule 4 (accessed 2 August 2026).Tier 1Supports: Regulation 12(1): 'It is an offence for a person to contravene a provision of the EU Cosmetics Regulation set out in Schedule 4.' Schedule 4 lists Article 14 ('Restrictions for substances listed in the Annexes') among the provisions whose breach is an offence, alongside Articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23 and 24. Regulation 13 sets the penalties, grouping Article 14 with Articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 18, 19, 20 and 23: for that group, a person guilty of the offence is liable on summary conviction to 'a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to imprisonment not exceeding three months, or to both', and on conviction on indictment to 'a fine not exceeding £20,000 or to imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, or to both'. (A separate, lower tier — level 5 on the standard scale — applies to Articles 11, 13, 16, 21 and 24.) Scope limits: this is the enforcement architecture, not evidence that any enforcement action has been taken against any exosome or conditioned-media product. No prosecution was located.
  3. Office for Product Safety and Standards / Department for Business and Trade. Making cosmetic products available to consumers in Great Britain. GOV.UK guidance, published 4 October 2021 (accessed 2 August 2026).Tier 1Supports: States the applicable GB regime as 'Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on Cosmetic Products, as amended by the Product Safety and Metrology etc. (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019', with the Office for Product Safety and Standards, within the Department for Business and Trade, as the responsible body. Sets out the Responsible Person duties: the Responsible Person must make sure products made available are safe, must notify OPSS before a product is made available to consumers, and must keep a Product Information File in English for ten years after the last batch of the product was made available, containing the safety assessment, GMP statement and proof of claimed effects. Scope limits: this guidance page does not itself reference Annex II or discuss human-derived ingredients; it establishes who regulates cosmetics in GB, not the position on any specific ingredient.
  4. AnteAGE (Cellese). 'AnteAGE MD Exosome Solution' product page and 'Exosome FAQ's' page, anteage.com (accessed 2 August 2026).Tier 4Supports: Declared ingredients, verbatim: 'Exosome Solution Ingredients: Phosphate buffered saline, Human Bone Marrow Stem Cell Exosomes, Human Umbilical Cord Stem Cell Exosomes, Trehalose. Diluent Ingredients: Water (Aqua), Hyaluronic Acid, Dehydroacetic Acid, Benzyl Alcohol', followed by 'Note: AnteAGE MD Exosome Solution is intended for topical, cosmetic use only.' The product page describes 'a hybrid exosome cocktail derived both from human bone marrow stem cells and human umbilical cord stem cells' supplied lyophilised in a kit of three exosome vials and three 5ml diluent vials, 'for topical use in combination with microneedling, radiofrequency, laser, and other ablative treatments'. The FAQ states each vial contains 'at least 10 Billion viable exosomes for the entirety of its shelf life', measured by in-house 'nanoparticle analysis equipment'; that manufacture is entirely in-house in a 'GMP Certified, Irvine, California laboratory'; that 'There are no cells or cell remnants in any AnteAGE product'; and, on FDA status, 'The FDA does not regulate cosmetic treatments for topical use. As a result, there are currently no aesthetic exosome treatment solutions approved by the FDA in the market today.' Scope limits: every figure here is the company's own; no independent particle characterisation, sterility, viral-safety or donor-screening documentation was located. Re-verified 2 August 2026 against anteage.com/pages/exosome-faqs and anteage.com/products/exosome-solution: all quoted wording, the three-vial-plus-three-5ml-diluent kit format and the 'topical, cosmetic use only' notice match.Funding / interest: Manufacturer's own promotional and product-information material. AnteAGE is a brand of Cellese Regenerative Therapeutics, which manufactures and sells the products described. No independent review, no external data.
  5. AnteAGE (Cellese). Published ingredient listings for AnteAGE MD Growth Factor Solution 2mL, AnteAGE MD Hair Growth Factor Solution 2mL, AnteAGE MD Biosome Serum 30ml and AnteAGE MD Biosome System, anteage.com (accessed 2 August 2026).Tier 4Supports: AnteAGE MD Growth Factor Solution, ingredients verbatim: 'Water (Aqua), Human Bone Marrow Stem Cell Conditioned Media, Hyaluronic Acid, TGF-beta 3 (sh-Polypeptide-5), aFGF (sh-Polypeptide-11), IGF-1 (sh-Oligopeptide-2), IL-10 (sh-Polypeptide-6), Dehydroacetic Acid, Benzyl Alcohol'. Product copy: growth factors and cytokines 'derived from laboratory culture of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells'; 'AnteAGE MD products contain no cells or cell remnants. They are removed during ultrafiltration, the final step in the laboratory culture process.' AnteAGE MD Hair Growth Factor Solution lists the same human bone marrow conditioned media base plus twelve named recombinant factors (IGF-1, HGF, TGF-b3, bFGF, KGF, SCF, KGF-2, CSF-1, PDGF-A, EPO, Noggin, CG-VEGF) and claims the culture is steered toward the Wnt-1a pathway. Critically, the home-care line carries the same declaration: AnteAGE MD Biosome Serum (30ml, $220) lists 'Water (Aqua), Human Bone Marrow Stem Cell Conditioned Media' as its first two ingredients, and both the Serum and the Accelerator in the AnteAGE MD Biosome System list Human Bone Marrow Stem Cell Conditioned Media. Scope limits: ingredient declarations only — no batch data, no assay of actual growth-factor concentrations, and no evidence that declared sh-polypeptides are present at biologically active levels. Re-verified 2 August 2026: the Growth Factor Solution list, the ultrafiltration sentence, the twelve named hair factors and the Wnt-1a claim all match the live pages; the Biosome Serum (anteage.com/products/anteage-mdx-biosome-serum-30ml, $220, 30ml) does open 'Water (Aqua), Human Bone Marrow Stem Cell Conditioned Media...'; the Biosome System Serum opens the same way and its Accelerator lists the conditioned media mid-list.Funding / interest: Manufacturer's own product pages. Cellese Regenerative Therapeutics manufactures and sells all products listed.
  6. AnteAGE (Cellese). 'Cell-Free' and 'About Us' pages, anteage.com (accessed 2 August 2026).Tier 4Supports: Cell-Free page, verbatim in full: 'AnteAGE® manufactures products which include the ingredient Human Bone Marrow Stem Cell Conditioned Media (INCI). This ingredient is a cell-free conditioned media which is compliant with FDA rules surrounding cosmetic products. Cellese (the parent company to AnteAGE®) has manufactured and sold over 1 million units of products containing this ingredient since 2011. Cellese is a GMP certified manufacturer and tracks all reports of adverse events. The above-mentioned ingredients and products are made in US facilities (Irvine,CA). While some resellers use the term "Stem Cell" to describe the products, they technically contain no stem cells or cell components-but rather the helpful proteins which stem cells produce in culture. AnteAGE® products are cosmetic and intended to improve the look and feel of skin.' About Us page: 'All bone marrow stem cells used to cultivate our biosignals and growth factors are ethically sourced from healthy adult donors'; 'AnteAGE scientists pioneered the use of human bone marrow stem cell technology in aesthetics and dermatology fields'; products described as 'always 100% cell and pathogen free'. Registered address given throughout as 1842 Barranca Pkwy, Irvine, California 92606. Scope limits: the compliance claim made is expressly about FDA rules; the page makes no statement about GB or EU cosmetics law. The '1 million units since 2011' and 'pathogen free' assertions are unaudited company statements; no donor screening protocol, adverse-event register or third-party pathogen testing was located.Funding / interest: Manufacturer's own position statement, written to address questions about the human-derived ingredient it sells.
  7. AnteAGE (Cellese). AnteAGE MD Europe storefront: 'Growth Factor Solution', 'ANTEAGE MDX' (Biosome Solution), 'Serum', 'Accelerator' and 'Biosomes' pages, europe.anteage.com (accessed 2 August 2026).Tier 4Supports: The EU-facing professional products are reformulated without human-derived material. EU AnteAGE MD Growth Factor Solution ingredients verbatim: 'Water (Aqua), Sodium Hyaluronate, Benzyl Alcohol, Dehydroacetic Acid, Trehalose, Mannitol, sh-Oligopeptide-33, sh-Polypeptide-5, sh-Polypeptide-62, sh-Polypeptide-3, sh-Polypeptide-10, sh-Polypeptide-14, sh-Polypeptide-66, sh-Polypeptide-67, sh-Polypeptide-2, sh-Polypeptide-58' — no conditioned media, no exosomes. EU ANTEAGE MDX Biosome Solution vial: 'Trehalose, Sodium Chloride, Disodium Phosphate, Potassium Phosphate, Potassium Chloride, Phosphatidylcholine, Phosphatidylserine, Sphingomyelin, Cholesterol, Mannitol' plus ten recombinant peptides (sh-Oligopeptide-33 and nine sh-Polypeptides), with a diluent vial of 'Aqua (Water/Eau), Sodium Hyaluronate, Dehydroacetic Acid, Benzyl Alcohol' — synthetic lipids and recombinant peptides only. The Biosomes page describes 'the first truly biomimetic exosome product derived without human cells'. HOWEVER, on the same EU storefront and as accessed on 2 August 2026, the home-care AnteAGE MD Serum ingredient list still opens 'Water (Aqua), Human Bone Marrow Stem Cell Conditioned Media...' and the AnteAGE MD Accelerator list includes 'Human Bone Marrow Stem Cell Conditioned Media' as its fifth ingredient. No exosome product is listed on the EU storefront at all. Scope limits: web ingredient listings are not the legal label; they may lag the physical pack in either direction. This source shows what the company publishes for a European audience, not what any given imported unit contains. Re-verified 2 August 2026: the EU Growth Factor Solution list matches verbatim; the EU Serum (europe.anteage.com/products/anteage-md-cyto-serum) does open 'Water (Aqua), Human Bone Marrow Stem Cell Conditioned Media...'; the EU Accelerator (anteage-md-cyto-accelerator) does list it fifth; the EU catalogue lists System, MDX, Serum, Accelerator, Growth Factor Solution, Hair Growth Factor Solution and Biogel, with no exosome product; and the footer does read 'AnteAGE® is a division of Cellese®'.Funding / interest: Manufacturer's own regional storefront. Footer states 'AnteAGE® is a division of Cellese®'.
  8. AnteAGE (Cellese). 'Discover P.E.A.R.L.' — P.E.A.R.L. Complete Multi-Targeted System, anteage.com (accessed 2 August 2026).Tier 4Supports: Headline results, verbatim: 'After just two P.E.A.R.L. Fusion Services (over 8 weeks)*: 93% said their skin feels more hydrated; 86% saw a visible reduction in fine lines and wrinkles; 100% said their skin looks brighter and more radiant; 79% noticed improved skin elasticity; 100% noticed an improvement in overall skin texture; 93% said their skin looks more youthful; 86% saw a noticeable improvement in hyperpigmentation; 100% would recommend a P.E.A.R.L. Fusion to others.' The footnote reads in full: '*Patient-reported outcomes from an internal clinical evaluation. Data on file, P.E.A.R.L. Complete Multi-Targeted System, August 2025.' The system is described as combining PDRN ('A Salmon DNA derivative'), Exosomes or Biosomes, antioxidants, recombinant growth factors and amino acids, used with an ablative service such as radiofrequency microneedling. The page states AnteAGE follows 'the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles's (ISEV) guidelines'. Scope limits: no sample size, no control or comparator, no randomisation, no blinding, no objective instrumental endpoint, no adverse-event reporting, no publication and no protocol. Every figure is a subjective patient-reported percentage; with 100% appearing three times, the denominator is likely very small. Editor awards cited (Elle, Shape, People en Español) are marketing recognitions, not evidence.Funding / interest: Manufacturer's marketing page for its own combination system; the only efficacy data cited are the company's own unpublished file data.
  9. Companies House, register entries for ANTEAGE UK LTD (company number 12666954) and CELLESE UK LTD (company number 15584627) (accessed 2 August 2026).Tier 1Supports: ANTEAGE UK LTD, company number 12666954: private limited company, incorporated 12 June 2020, registered office 71-75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9JQ, SIC 46450 'Wholesale of perfume and cosmetics', last accounts made up to 30 June 2024, last confirmation statement 8 June 2024, company status Dissolved, dissolved on 1 July 2025. CELLESE UK LTD, company number 15584627: private limited company, incorporated 22 March 2024, registered office 71-75 Shelton Street Covent Garden, London WC2H 9JQ, status Active, SIC 82990 'Other business support service activities not elsewhere classified', last accounts made up to 31 March 2025, last confirmation statement 26 March 2026. Officers: Andrew Richard Frye, director, appointed 19 February 2026, American, resident United States, correspondence address 1842 Barranca Parkway, Irvine, California 92606; Ian Sanderson, director, appointed 22 March 2024, resigned 19 February 2026, correspondence address Barranca, Irvine, California. Scope limits: the register shows corporate existence and stated activity only. Companies House does not verify the accuracy of filings, and a UK company's existence is not evidence that any product has been notified to OPSS or lawfully placed on the GB market. Re-verified 2 August 2026: both companies' numbers, names, incorporation dates, registered office, SIC codes, status (ANTEAGE UK LTD dissolved 1 July 2025; CELLESE UK LTD active), accounts and confirmation-statement dates match the register. The officer details (Frye, Sanderson) were taken from the officers tab on the original pass and were not re-fetched on this pass.
  10. Montero-Vilchez T, Sierra-Sánchez Á, Sanchez-Diaz M, Quiñones-Vico MI, Sanabria-de-la-Torre R, Martinez-Lopez A, Arias-Santiago S. Mesenchymal stromal cell-conditioned medium for skin diseases: a systematic review. Front Cell Dev Biol. 2021 Jul 23;9:654210. PMID 34368115; PMCID PMC8343397.Tier 1Supports: Systematic review of 101 studies of mesenchymal stromal cell conditioned medium (MSC-CM) in skin, distributed as: wound healing 55, hypertrophic scars 9, flap reperfusion 4, hair restoration 15, skin rejuvenation 15, inflammatory skin disease 3. Conditioned medium was sourced 'mainly from adipose tissue, bone marrow, and umbilical cord blood' and administered intravenously, intraperitoneally, subcutaneously, intradermally, intralesionally or topically. Reported improvement in wound healing, hair restoration, skin rejuvenation, atopic dermatitis and psoriasis 'in both animals and humans'; reduced hypertrophic scarring and flap ischaemia in animal models only. The conclusion is two-sided and must be reported as such: the authors state that 'MSC-CM is a promising therapy for skin conditions' AND that 'Further studies are needed to corroborate safety and effectiveness and to standardize CM manufacturing.' The paper carries a declaration of no commercial or financial conflict. Scope limits, and they are severe for this entry: the review pools animal and human studies, pools three different cell sources, pools injected and topical routes, and includes no product-specific data. Only 15 of 101 studies concerned rejuvenation, and the review does not report a pooled effect size for them. Nothing here is evidence about AnteAGE.
  11. Davies OG, Williams S, Goldie K. The therapeutic and commercial landscape of stem cell vesicles in regenerative dermatology. J Control Release. 2023 Jan;353:1096-1106. PMID 36535543.Tier 4Supports: Narrative review of MSC-derived extracellular vesicles in dermatology and cosmetic science. Notes that clinical trials of MSC-EVs exist for wound healing and cutaneous ulcers, and that 'multiple commercial MSC-EV sources marketed for topical application in cosmetic medicine' have emerged. States plainly that 'regenerative EV therapeutics remain in their infancy and pertinent questions regarding product standardisation, potency and the regulatory landscape surrounding the development of these promising nano-therapeutics must be addressed to ensure safe and effective clinical adoption'. Scope limits: narrative, not systematic; no risk-of-bias assessment, no pooled data, no named-product evaluation. Tier 4.Funding / interest: Authors declared no conflicts of interest. Disclosed for even-handedness: two authors are at Loughborough University; the third, K Goldie, is affiliated to European Medical Aesthetics Ltd, a London commercial aesthetics practice, so the author group is not wholly outside the aesthetics industry.
  12. Maguire G. The safe and efficacious use of secretome from fibroblasts and adipose-derived (but not bone marrow-derived) mesenchymal stem cells for skin therapeutics. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2019 Aug;12(8):E57-E69. PMID 31531174; PMCID PMC6715117.Tier 4Supports: Single-author narrative review arguing that adipose-derived stem cell and fibroblast secretome have safety and efficacy advantages over bone-marrow-derived stem cell and platelet products for skin, and that confusion is prevalent among providers and end-users about stem-cell-derived topical products. Critically, and missed on the first pass: this paper NAMES AnteAGE in its full text. Verbatim from PMC6715117: 'We must also consider that tumor cells and mesenchymal stem cells migrate from the primary tumor site to the bone marrow, and therefore, using BMSCs and their secretome for therapeutic development or for skin care products (AnteAGE®; Irvine, California) might be compromised by a cancer phenotype, as well as the likelihood of inducing inflammation, overproliferation, fibrosis, and replicative stress.' It is therefore the one indexed publication that names the brand, and it names it adversely. Scope limits: no systematic search, no data extraction, no quantitative synthesis; the passage above is a theoretical mechanistic argument, not a tested finding, and it is made by a direct commercial competitor. Tier 4, and not neutral.Funding / interest: Declared: 'No funding was provided for this study. Dr. Maguire is a part-owner of NeoGenesis, Inc.' NeoGenesis sells fibroblast- and adipose-derived secretome skincare — i.e. this is a competitor of AnteAGE arguing that the cell source AnteAGE uses is the wrong one. Weight accordingly.
  13. US Food and Drug Administration. Public Safety Notification on Exosome Products. 6 December 2019 (accessed 2 August 2026).Tier 1Supports: FDA states verbatim: 'There are currently no FDA-approved exosome products.' The notification informs 'the public, especially patients, health care practitioners, and clinics, of multiple recent reports of serious adverse events experienced by patients in Nebraska who were treated with unapproved products marketed as containing exosomes', reported via CDC and worked jointly with the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. It adds that certain clinics 'including some that manufacture or market violative "stem cell" products, are now also offering exosome products to patients' and 'deceive patients with unsubstantiated claims'. Scope limits and a hard one for UK readers: this is US law and US enforcement. FDA approval, clearance or absence of either has NO legal effect in the United Kingdom, and cannot be cited for or against a product's GB status. The Nebraska events concerned injected products, not topical cosmetic use. VERIFICATION CAVEAT (2 August 2026): this source could not be re-fetched on the adversarial pass. Every fda.gov URL attempted — the cited page, the parent 'Safety & Availability (Biologics)' index, and https://www.fda.gov/ itself — returned HTTP 404 to our fetcher, and archive.org is not reachable from this environment. That is a fetcher-level block, not evidence the notification has been withdrawn, but it means the quoted wording and the date have NOT been independently confirmed on this pass. Treat the quotation as unverified until re-checked.
  14. Department of Health and Social Care. Licensing of non-surgical cosmetic procedures — consultation document, 'The licensing of non-surgical cosmetic procedures in England'. Published 2 September 2023; consultation outcome published 7 August 2025. Applies to England (accessed 2 August 2026).Tier 1Supports: The 2023 consultation proposed a three-tier model. Verbatim: 'Green: procedures with the lowest risk of complications. All practitioners are eligible to perform licensed procedures where they meet agreed standards. We propose this includes, but is not limited to, the following procedures: microneedling; mesotherapy; intense pulsed light (IPL) and light emitting diode (LED) therapies; chemical peels that involve destruction only into viable epidermis (the outermost layer of the skin); "no-needle" fillers...'. Amber: 'procedures with medium risk of complications', where non-healthcare professionals must be licensed and have oversight by a named regulated healthcare professional. Red: highest risk, restricted to regulated healthcare professionals with CQC oversight. The consultation outcome page published 7 August 2025 — not the 2023 consultation document — is where the response figure appears: the consultation 'received over 11,800 responses, with the majority agreeing with the proposals put forward in the consultation'. Scope limits, stated explicitly, and one of them corrected on adversarial re-check: this is a PROPOSAL, and no licensing scheme is in force in England. The August 2025 government response does NOT assign individual procedures to tiers; more than that, it does not carry the green/amber/red model forward in that form — it describes a structure of higher-risk procedures to be regulated by the CQC and lower-risk procedures to be subject to local authority licensing, states that further work is needed to determine which procedures sit where, and commits to a further public consultation on that classification. The green/amber/red tiering and the placement of microneedling and mesotherapy in 'green' are therefore 2023 consultation proposals that have been overtaken, not the current government position. It applies to England, not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.
  15. Aesthetics Journal. 'Investigation reports human derived exosomes in UK clinics', 17 November 2025, reporting a 5 News undercover investigation (accessed 2 August 2026).Tier 4Supports: Trade-press report of a 5 News investigation: 50 clinics were contacted across Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow, London and Liverpool; 40 disclosed which exosome product brand they used; approximately 25% admitted using products derived from human stem cells, sourced from umbilical cords or fat cells. Most clinics offered plant-based or salmon-derived serums. Quoted verbatim, a Department for Business and Trade spokesperson: 'Cosmetics containing exosomes from humans are banned in the UK. Although we have not seen an increase in reports of non-compliance, we urge anyone with concerns to contact their local Trading Standards department or Citizens Advice.' Scope limits, and they matter: this is journalism reported second-hand by a trade title, not a peer-reviewed study. The sample was a convenience sample of clinics that agreed to answer; the products were self-reported by clinic staff, not laboratory-tested; and this article names no brands. The DBT quote is a departmental statement to journalists, not published statutory guidance.
  16. Non-surgical Procedures and Functions of Medical Reviewers (Scotland) Act 2026 (2026 asp 13), schedule 1 and section 24(2).Tier 1Supports: Schedule 1 expressly names microneedling and injectable procedures as specified non-surgical procedures. The relevant paragraphs were not in force at Royal Assent and commencement is staged. Scotland only.
  17. Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 (anaw 2), section 57 'What is a special procedure?'. In force 29 November 2024 by S.I. 2024/1248.Tier 1Supports: Section 57 names exactly acupuncture, body piercing, electrolysis and tattooing as special procedures. Microneedling is not one of those four. Wales only.