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

MSTA
Your future
starts here.

Cosmacure

Also known as: cosmacure, cosmacure xt73, cosmacure hpt78, XT73

Cosmacure is a UK business-to-business professional skincare brand — the trading name of Medical Skincare Developments (UK) Limited, incorporated January 2026 — selling two bio-cellulose post-treatment sheet masks, XT73 Clinical Restorative and HPT78 Clinical Firming, to approved aesthetic clinic partners only.

Evidence status

Manufacturer-supported

No independent clinical trial or third-party evaluation of Cosmacure XT73 or HPT78 was located; the brand's only research paper is an unsigned in-house narrative review with no original product data and several citation mismatches. Generic biocellulose-mask and ingredient evidence does not establish post-procedure performance of these finished products. Publisher conflict: Cosmacure and MSTA/Skinipedia share directors or owners, which is disclosed and does not alter the evidential standard.

What Cosmacure is, and the products available#

Publisher disclosure: Cosmacure is owned by Medical Skincare Developments (UK) Limited. Its directors and persons with significant control are Jordan Peter Stevenson and Kirsty Stevenson; Kirsty is MSTA's founder and training director, and MSTA publishes Skinipedia. The brand is assessed here to the same evidential standard as every competitor.[2, 16]

Cosmacure is the trading name of Medical Skincare Developments (UK) Limited, company 16974832, incorporated in England and Wales on 20 January 2026. The company is registered for wholesale of perfume and cosmetics and has £100 issued share capital. Its first accounts are not due until October 2027, so the register establishes identity and control rather than business scale.[1, 3][1]

Jordan Peter Stevenson and Kirsty Stevenson are the company's two directors and persons with significant control, each holding more than 25% but no more than 50% of shares and voting rights. Kirsty Stevenson is also named by MSTA as its founder and training director. Neither public website disclosed the link at the research date; Skinipedia does so here.[2][2, 16]

The public range contains two bio-cellulose face-and-neck masks, sold in boxes of five or 20. XT73 Clinical Restorative was listed from February 2026 and HPT78 Clinical Firming from April.[5]

XT73's stated actives are low- and high-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid, panthenol, beta-glucan, niacinamide at 4%, Centella asiatica and allantoin. HPT78 is stated to contain Matrixyl 3000, epidermal growth factor, acetyl hexapeptide-3, DMAE, GABA, hydrolysed collagen and elastin, stabilised vitamin C and niacinamide.[5]

No full INCI is published publicly. Apart from 4% niacinamide, concentrations are absent; HPT78's growth-factor source, form and amount are unstated.[4, 5]

Use of Cosmacure in aesthetic practice#

Cosmacure is a closed business-to-business channel for registered medical professionals, qualified aesthetic practitioners and licensed clinics, with discretionary account approval and trade prices excluding VAT. These are commercial terms, not a GB regulatory tier.[3]

The masks are cosmetics under assimilated Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, not devices. A UK Responsible Person must hold a Cosmetic Product Safety Report and Product Information File, notify OPSS and provide compliant labelling including an ingredient declaration. “Medical-grade” and “professional-only” do not alter that framework, and UKCA or CE marking is not applicable.[7, 9][7, 9]

Claims must have adequate, verifiable evidence held by the Responsible Person under assimilated Regulation (EU) No 655/2013. That evidence need not be public, so absence from a website is not proof that a safety file does not exist; equally, an online claim is not substantiated merely because it is published.[8]

SCPN has no searchable public register. Product notification and the Responsible Person cannot be checked externally, so the practical evidence is the current pack and documentation supplied to the clinic.[7, 9]

Post-treatment masks fall outside the five JCCP modalities. The underlying procedure may have a standard; the adjunct mask does not.[10]

Contraindications and cautions#

XT73 is advertised for “every patient, every treatment type, every skin type—with no contraindications”. No public safety assessment, tolerability data or full INCI accompanies that absolute claim. Without a complete ingredient list, a practitioner cannot screen known allergy or sensitisation.[5, 6]

Barrier-breached use requires more, not less, product clarity. HPT78 is positioned immediately after microneedling while channels are open to maximise peptide and growth-factor access. That is a manufacturer protocol supported by mechanism and in-house reasoning, not by a clinical study of the product used in that setting.[5, 6]

The exact product instructions, full INCI, safety assessment, procedure-device directions and insurer requirements govern. Unexplained growth-factor identity, active concentration or product status should be resolved before use.

Clinical uses and the evidence behind them#

Cosmacure product evidence

No independent trial, case series or third-party evaluation of XT73 or HPT78 was identified. The only published brand document is the unsigned “Clinical Protocols Series No. 1” from April 2026. It contains no original study, participants or measurements on either product and no funding or conflict statement.[6]

Bio-cellulose as a category

Bio-cellulose masks have some human cosmetic data. One programme included 69 healthy Caucasian women aged 25–64 across three split-face substudies, using three different masks on intact skin for four to eight weeks. The anti-ageing mask reduced roughness and wrinkle breadth after two months and all were well tolerated. The subgroup sizes were not stated.[11]i

This supports bio-cellulose as a tolerable delivery substrate in those tested products and conditions. It does not establish Cosmacure performance or immediate post-procedure safety.

Ingredient evidence and citation transfer

Some background claims are reasonable. Tanno's work found increased ceramide biosynthesis in cultured keratinocytes and reduced TEWL in dry skin after topical nicotinamide, though it did not test Cosmacure or erythema.[6, 15]

Several other citations do not support the attached statement. Alster and Tanzi is a keloid review with no percutaneous-penetration data. Blanes-Mira tested 10% acetyl hexapeptide and did not study Matrixyl 3000. Pavicic tested 0.1% hyaluronic-acid creams around the eyes of 76 women with intact skin over 60 days; it measured hydration, elasticity and wrinkles, not TEWL or post-procedure recovery.[12, 13][6, 14]

The relevant ingredient signals remain plausible, but the unsupported endpoints and settings should not travel to XT73 or HPT78.

Selecting a Cosmacure product#

Selection starts with the complete current INCI, Responsible Person, safety documentation, intended use and product instructions. Public marketing gives insufficient information to assess allergy and gives no concentration for most actives.[4, 5, 7, 9]

XT73 and HPT78 should then be distinguished by their actual formula and stated purpose. Generic evidence for niacinamide, hyaluronic acid, peptides or bio-cellulose does not establish the complete mask's outcome.

For immediate post-procedure use, the underlying device or treatment instructions and Cosmacure's named protocol both matter. The absence of product-level evidence means the clinic should not convert mechanism into a guaranteed recovery, penetration or TEWL claim.

Skinipedia does not publish a substitute post-procedure protocol.

Adverse effects and their management#

Expected local reactions

A wet occlusive mask may cause transient cooling, tingling or erythema, while individual ingredients may irritate or sensitise. No product trial supplies a reliable incidence.

Barrier-breached application

Freshly treated skin may change penetration and reaction severity. The cited keloid review does not quantify this, and the intact-skin hyaluronic-acid study does not establish post-procedure tolerability.[13, 14]

Escalation

Persistent erythema, swelling, blistering, infection, delayed healing, progressive pigment change or suspected allergy requires removal, cessation and appropriate assessment. The mask, lot, full ingredients, procedure and timing should be recorded.

Referral and scope boundaries#

A mask does not treat infection, dermatitis, impaired healing or another medical complication. Those presentations require appropriate referral.

Significant post-procedure pain, spreading erythema, discharge, fever, visual symptoms or unexpected tissue injury belongs with an appropriately qualified clinician. Any suspected cosmetic-product incident also enters the Responsible Person and regulatory reporting route.

Mechanism of action#

Bio-cellulose acts as a close-fitting serum carrier and occlusive interface. Humectants and soothing ingredients may support hydration; peptides and growth-factor claims depend on molecular identity, stability, concentration and delivery.

The HPT78 statement that open microchannels maximise growth-factor access is plausible as a penetration hypothesis but untested for this product. Greater access also cannot be assumed to mean greater benefit or safety.[5, 6]

Commonly misstated claims#

“Cosmacure masks have published clinical evidence”

The published item is a narrative paper with no Cosmacure participants or outcome measurements.[6]

Supported statement: Cosmacure publishes an in-house ingredient rationale; no product trial was identified.

“The cited study proves Matrixyl 3000”

Blanes-Mira studied acetyl hexapeptide, not the two peptides in Matrixyl 3000.[6, 12]

Supported statement: one HPT78 peptide family has separate cosmetic evidence, but that citation does not validate Matrixyl 3000 or HPT78.

“Hyaluronic acid is proven to reduce post-procedure TEWL”

Pavicic studied periocular intact skin and did not measure TEWL.[6, 13]

Supported statement: 0.1% HA creams improved selected hydration and wrinkle outcomes on intact periocular skin.

“No contraindications means it is safe for everyone”

That is an absolute marketing statement without public tolerability data or a full ingredient list.[5, 6]

Supported statement: product-specific screening requires the complete INCI and safety directions.

Areas of remaining uncertainty#

  • The Responsible Person and SCPN status are not publicly searchable; this means clinics need the documents from the supplier.
  • Manufacturer, production location and supply chain are undisclosed; this limits traceability assessment.
  • HPT78's growth-factor identity, source and concentration are not stated; this prevents stability, origin and dose appraisal.
  • No product tolerability data exist for freshly needled or lasered skin; this prevents quantifying added risk or benefit.
  • The “world's first” claim has no public priority evidence; this prevents responsible repetition.[4, 7]

Frequently asked questions#

Is Skinipedia independent of Cosmacure?

No. Cosmacure's owners are connected to MSTA, which publishes Skinipedia. That relationship is disclosed and the same evidence standard is applied.[2, 16]

Are the masks medical devices?

No. They are cosmetics in GB and require cosmetic compliance, not UKCA marking.[7, 9]

Has either mask been clinically tested?

No product trial or third-party clinical evaluation was identified. The brand paper contains no original product data.[6]

Does XT73 truly have no contraindications?

That cannot be established publicly without a full INCI and safety evidence.[4, 5, 6]

What post-treatment protocol applies?

The current manufacturer and procedure-device instructions govern. Skinipedia does not publish a generic substitute.

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. Companies House, register entry for MEDICAL SKINCARE DEVELOPMENTS (UK) LIMITED, company number 16974832 (accessed 1 August 2026).Tier 1Supports: Private limited company, status Active, incorporated 20 January 2026, registered office 71-75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London WC2H 9JQ. SIC 46450 'Wholesale of perfume and cosmetics'. Filing history contains one entry only: NEWINC incorporation, 20 January 2026, 'Statement of capital on 2026-01-20', capital GBP 100. First accounts made up to 31 January 2027, due 20 October 2027; first confirmation statement date 19 January 2027, due 2 February 2027. Scope limit: no accounts have been filed, so nothing about turnover, headcount or solvency can be verified from the register.
  2. Companies House, officers and persons with significant control, MEDICAL SKINCARE DEVELOPMENTS (UK) LIMITED, company number 16974832 (accessed 1 August 2026).Tier 1Supports: Two officers, zero resignations: Jordan Peter Stevenson (director, appointed 20 January 2026, British, resident UK) and Kirsty Stevenson (director, appointed 20 January 2026, British, resident UK), both at the Shelton Street correspondence address. PSC register lists the same two individuals, each notified 20 January 2026 with 'Ownership of shares – More than 25% but not more than 50%' and voting rights at the same level. Scope limit: the register shows no corporate parent, so any group relationship to other Stevenson-run companies is not evidenced here.
  3. Cosmacure, 'Terms & Conditions' (last updated 24 April 2026) and 'Terms of Service / Privacy Policy', cosmacure.com (accessed 1 August 2026).Tier 4Supports: Verbatim: 'These Terms & Conditions ... govern your use of the Cosmacure website at cosmacure.com ... and the purchase of products and services from Medical Skincare Developments (UK) Limited, trading as Cosmacure'. Privacy policy verbatim: 'We are Medical Skincare Developments (UK) Limited, a company registered in England and Wales under company number 16974832.' States B2B-only supply, verbatim: 'Cosmacure operates exclusively as a business-to-business (B2B) supplier. Our products are sold solely to: Registered medical professionals ... Qualified aesthetic practitioners ... Licensed aesthetic clinics'. Verbatim: 'Account applications are reviewed by our team and approval is at our sole discretion'; 'Access to trade pricing and the ability to place orders requires an approved Cosmacure Partner account'; 'All prices displayed on the Site are exclusive of VAT unless otherwise stated'; 'As a B2B supplier, consumer distance-selling regulations do not apply to your purchases'; returns only for damaged/defective, incorrect or out-of-date goods, requests 'within 7 days of receipt', and no returns of opened or used product; governed by the laws of England and Wales. Liability clause verbatim and in full: 'Cosmacure provides clinical protocols as guidance only. We accept no liability for any adverse outcomes resulting from the misapplication of products or protocols.' Scope limit verified 1 August 2026: there is no shipping page on the site (both /pages/shipping and /policies/shipping-policy return HTTP 404); the Terms offer UK next-day delivery on qualifying orders and state that 'Delivery terms for orders to Ireland and other territories will be confirmed at checkout', so supply is not restricted to the UK and Ireland, and no clinic-address-only delivery rule is published.Funding / interest: Published by Medical Skincare Developments (UK) Limited, the vendor of the products described. Wholly commercial source.
  4. Cosmacure, homepage and 'About Us — Cosmacure Biotechnologies', cosmacure.com (accessed 1 August 2026).Tier 4Supports: Homepage verbatim: 'Introducing the Cosmacure™ BioCellulose Post-Treatment Clinical Face Masks. The world's first face & neck mask'; 'Our masks are the world's first clinically-engineered treatment masks designed to cover the full face and neck as a single, unified treatment zone'; 'Medical-grade actives held in a bio-cellulose matrix'. About page: trading style 'Cosmacure Biotechnologies'; range described as exactly two products (XT73, HPT78); 'Cosmacure products are not sold to the public'; 'Everything Cosmacure produces is backed by clinical evidence. We publish our research'. Scope limit: no priority evidence, patent, filing date or third-party verification is offered for the 'world's first' claim, and 'medical-grade' is used without definition.Funding / interest: The brand's own marketing site. Wholly commercial source.
  5. Cosmacure, product pages for 'XT73: Clinical Restorative Masks' and 'HPT78: Clinical Firming Masks', cosmacure.com (accessed 1 August 2026).Tier 4Supports: Two SKUs only, each in Box of 5 and Box of 20 (Shopify product feed lists no other products; store data shows XT73 published 26 February 2026 and HPT78 published 10 April 2026). XT73 stated actives: low-MW hyaluronic acid (5–50 kDa), high-MW hyaluronic acid, panthenol, beta-glucan (β-1,3/1,6), 'Niacinamide (Vitamin B3, 4%)', Centella asiatica extract, allantoin. HPT78 stated actives: Matrixyl 3000 (palmitoyl tripeptide-1 and palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7), epidermal growth factor, acetyl hexapeptide-3 (Argireline), DMAE, GABA, hydrolysed collagen and elastin, stabilised vitamin C and niacinamide. Protocol: XT73 within 5 minutes of treatment, 20–30 minutes contact; HPT78 20–25 minutes, including 'applied immediately post-treatment — including directly after microneedling, while the open microchannels give the peptide and growth-factor complex maximum access'. XT73 marketed verbatim as 'appropriate for every patient, every treatment type, every skin type — with no contraindications'. HPT78 candidacy grid excludes significant barrier disruption, Fitzpatrick IV–VI with elevated PIH risk, ablative or aggressive peel within 72h, active dermatitis/rosacea/eczema, known peptide sensitivity. Scope limits verified by inspection on 1 August 2026: no full INCI declaration, no concentrations other than niacinamide 4%, no EGF source or concentration, no shelf life, no batch or manufacturing information, and no country of origin appear anywhere on the public product pages.Funding / interest: The brand's own product marketing. Wholly commercial source; all efficacy statements are vendor claims.
  6. Cosmacure Research, 'Maximising Post-Treatment Outcomes Through Clinical Activation Protocols', Clinical Protocols Series No. 1, April 2026, cosmacure.com (accessed 1 August 2026).Tier 4Supports: The brand's entire published evidence base: the research index states '1 paper published'. The paper is a narrative review of post-treatment skin physiology and of ingredient literature, presented in journal format with abstract, numbered sections and a 10-item reference list. It reports no original study, no trial and no data of any kind on XT73 or HPT78 — no n, no measurements, no adverse-event reporting. No named author, no funding statement and no conflict-of-interest statement appear. Reference list as published, ten items: Alster & Tanzi 2003; Blanes-Mira et al. 2002; Blanes-Mira et al. '2009'; Eming et al. 2007; Gehring 2004; Pastar et al. 2014; Pavicic et al. 2011; Singer & Clark 1999; Tanno et al. 2000; Vetvicka & Vetvickova 2014. Citation contexts verified by reading the body text on 1 August 2026: Alster & Tanzi is cited in the barrier-disruption section behind 'Studies of post-laser and post-needling skin demonstrate significantly enhanced penetration'; Blanes-Mira 2002 is cited for Matrixyl 3000, behind 'Controlled studies demonstrate increased procollagen synthesis and measurable clinical improvements in skin firmness and elasticity with regular application'; Blanes-Mira '2009' is cited for Argireline; Pavicic 2011 is cited behind 'Clinical studies demonstrate that HA of this molecular weight significantly improves post-procedure skin hydration and reduces TEWL duration'; Tanno 2000 is cited for barrier lipid restoration and for erythema reduction. Citation-integrity finding: reference 3 is printed as 'Blanes-Mira, C., et al. (2009). Peptide mimetics of SNAP-25 inhibit SNARE complex assembly and regulated exocytosis. Biochemistry, 43(22), 6952–6958', and no such paper exists. The title corresponds to Blanes-Mira C et al., 'Small peptides patterned after the N-terminus domain of SNAP25 inhibit SNARE complex assembly and regulated exocytosis', J Neurochem 2004;88(1):124–35, PMID 14675156 — so the journal, year, volume and page range as printed are all wrong, not merely the year.Funding / interest: Written and published by the vendor about its own products. No disclosure statement present, which is itself a finding.
  7. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 November 2009 on cosmetic products (recast), as assimilated in Great Britain, legislation.gov.uk.Tier 1Supports: The operative framework for cosmetic products placed on the GB market: Article 4 responsible person; Article 5 obligations of responsible persons; Article 10 safety assessment; Article 11 product information file; Article 13 notification; Article 19 labelling (including the ingredient list); Article 20 product claims. Scope limit: this is a product-safety regime with no pre-market approval and no 'medical-grade', 'clinical-grade' or 'professional-only' regulatory tier — those are marketing terms, not legal categories. Cosmetics are not medical devices and carry no UKCA or CE marking on this basis.
  8. Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 laying down common criteria for the justification of claims used in relation to cosmetic products, Annex (common criteria), as assimilated in Great Britain, legislation.gov.uk.Tier 1Supports: Six common criteria: legal compliance, truthfulness, evidential support, honesty, fairness, informed decision-making. Evidential support requires that claims, whether explicit or implicit, be supported by 'adequate and verifiable evidence regardless of the types of evidential support used', with studies that are relevant, well designed and ethically conducted, and with the standard of evidence matched to the nature of the claim — particularly where failure of efficacy would raise a safety concern. Truthfulness requires that where a specific ingredient is claimed, 'the ingredient shall be deliberately present', and that ingredient claims must not imply properties the finished product does not have. Scope limit: the duty sits with the responsible person; the regulation does not require evidence to be published, only held.
  9. Office for Product Safety and Standards, 'Submit cosmetic product notifications' (SCPN) service, GOV.UK (accessed 1 August 2026).Tier 1Supports: Service purpose verbatim: 'Notify the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) about cosmetic products available to consumers in Great Britain (GB)'; 'You need to notify OPSS about every cosmetic product available to consumers in GB.' Access requires a GOV.UK One Login. Scope limit verified 1 August 2026: the service exposes no public search or lookup of submitted notifications, so a practitioner cannot independently confirm that any given product — including Cosmacure's — has been notified, nor identify its responsible person, from outside the system.
  10. Joint Council for Cosmetic Practitioners (JCCP), 'Treatments' — modalities covered by the JCCP register, jccp.org.uk (accessed 1 August 2026).Tier 1Supports: Five recognised modalities: botulinum toxins; dermal fillers; skin rejuvenation (described as micro-needling and peels); lasers and light (LIPLED); hair restoration surgery. Page states these 'are simply the treatments that we regulate currently according to a set of prescribed practice standards' and that scope may expand. Scope limit: post-treatment topical adjuncts, including sheet masks, are not one of the five, so no JCCP or CPSA benchmark competence standard governs their selection or use.
  11. Perugini P, Bleve M, Redondi R, Cortinovis F, Colpani A. In vivo evaluation of the effectiveness of biocellulose facial masks as active delivery systems to skin. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Mar;19(3):725-735. PMID 31301106.Tier 3Supports: 69 healthy Caucasian female volunteers aged 25–64, split across three separate sub-studies of three differently formulated biocellulose masks (anti-aging, lifting, cell renewal), applied split-face three times weekly for 4–8 weeks. Results: masks 'very well tolerated'; significant decrease in skin roughness and wrinkle breadth and improved dermal homogeneity and firmness after 2 months with the anti-aging mask; significant improvement in firmness and elasticity after 1 month with the lifting mask; mild exfoliating action with the cell-renewal mask. Scope limits: healthy intact skin, not post-procedure skin; cosmetic instrumental endpoints, not wound healing, erythema or TEWL after a clinical procedure; approximately 23 subjects per sub-study; different products from Cosmacure's.Funding / interest: Affiliations verified on the PubMed record 1 August 2026: Perugini (Department of Drug Sciences, University of Pavia AND Etichub s.r.l., academic spin-off of Pavia University), Bleve (Etichub s.r.l.), Colpani (iBeauty, Brembate di sopra) — commercial cosmetic interests in the mask products evaluated. Redondi (University of Bergamo) and Cortinovis (ASST Papa Giovanni XXIII) are non-commercial. No conflict-of-interest declaration is displayed on the PubMed record.
  12. Blanes-Mira C, Clemente J, Jodas G, et al. A synthetic hexapeptide (Argireline) with antiwrinkle activity. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2002 Oct;24(5):303-10. PMID 18498523.Tier 3Supports: The paper Cosmacure cites in support of Matrixyl 3000. It is about acetyl hexapeptide Ac-EEMQRR-NH2 (Argireline). Verbatim: 'skin topography analysis of an oil/water (O/W) emulsion containing 10% of the hexapeptide on healthy women volunteers reduced wrinkle depth up to 30% upon 30 days treatment.' Mechanism work shows inhibition of neurotransmitter release by interference with SNARE complex formation. Scope limits: sample size of the human topography arm is not stated in the abstract; the work is largely mechanistic; there is no data whatsoever on palmitoyl tripeptide-1, palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7, procollagen I/III or fibronectin.Funding / interest: Argireline is a commercial cosmetic ingredient, so the paper carries a commercial interest in the peptide it evaluates, and it is published in an industry-facing journal. Scope limit on this disclosure, checked 1 August 2026: the PubMed record displays only one affiliation for the author group — Centro de Biología Molecular y Celular, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Alicante — and no conflict-of-interest or funding statement. Individual co-author employers, including any ingredient-house affiliation, could not be verified from the record and are not asserted here.
  13. Pavicic T, Gauglitz GG, Lersch P, et al. Efficacy of cream-based novel formulations of hyaluronic acid of different molecular weights in anti-wrinkle treatment. J Drugs Dermatol. 2011 Sep;10(9):990-1000. PMID 22052267.Tier 2Supports: 76 female subjects aged 30–60 with periocular wrinkles applied one of five 0.1% hyaluronan formulations (50, 130, 300, 800, 2000 kDa) twice daily for 60 days to one periocular area, with vehicle control around the other eye, randomised. All HA creams significantly improved hydration and overall elasticity (R2) versus placebo; only the 130 kDa and 50 kDa groups significantly reduced wrinkle depth (Ra, Rz) at 60 days. Indexed by PubMed with the publication type 'Randomized Controlled Trial', which is why it is typed as an RCT here. Scope limits, load-bearing for this entry and verified against the abstract on 1 August 2026: intact skin showing periocular wrinkling, not post-procedure skin; the measured endpoints are skin hydration, skin elasticity and wrinkle morphometry — transepidermal water loss was NOT measured and TEWL is not mentioned anywhere in the abstract; cream vehicle, not a mask; women only; 60 days, so nothing about the hours-to-days window after a procedure.Funding / interest: No funding or conflict-of-interest statement is retrievable from the PubMed record and the full text was not accessed. The record displays a single affiliation for the author group — Department of Dermatology and Allergology, Ludwig Maximilians University, Munich. No commercial affiliation is shown on the record, and none is asserted here; the position is unverified rather than clean.
  14. Alster TS, Tanzi EL. Hypertrophic scars and keloids: etiology and management. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2003;4(4):235-43. PMID 12680802.Tier 4Supports: The paper Cosmacure cites for enhanced penetration of topicals through post-laser and post-needling skin. It is a narrative review of the aetiology and management of hypertrophic scars and keloids — radiation, pressure therapy, cryotherapy, intralesional corticosteroid, interferon, fluorouracil, silicone dressings, pulsed-dye laser, surgical excision. It contains no percutaneous absorption data, no TEWL data and no measurement of active penetration in treated skin.
  15. Tanno O, Ota Y, Kitamura N, Katsube T, Inoue S. Nicotinamide increases biosynthesis of ceramides as well as other stratum corneum lipids to improve the epidermal permeability barrier. Br J Dermatol. 2000 Sep;143(3):524-31. PMID 10971324.Tier 3Supports: An example of a citation Cosmacure uses fairly. Cultured normal human keratinocytes incubated with 1–30 µmol/L nicotinamide for 6 days showed dose-dependent 4.1–5.5-fold increases in ceramide biosynthesis, 7.4-fold glucosylceramide and 3.1-fold sphingomyelin, with increased serine palmitoyltransferase activity and LCB1/LCB2 mRNA; free fatty acid synthesis rose 2.3-fold and cholesterol 1.5-fold. Topical nicotinamide increased stratum corneum ceramide and free fatty acid levels and decreased TEWL in dry skin. Scope limits: cell culture plus a small in-vivo dry-skin arm (n and concentration not stated in the abstract); nothing about post-procedure skin, erythema or hyperpigmentation.Funding / interest: All authors were employees of Kanebo Ltd, Basic Research Laboratory — a cosmetics manufacturer.
  16. MSTA, 'About' page naming the academy's leadership, mstauk.com (accessed 1 August 2026).Tier 4Supports: Names Kirsty Stevenson as Founder and Training Director of MSTA, a Liverpool-based skincare training academy, alongside Jemma Hesketh (Lead Training Educator), Keji Sadiku (Training Educator) and Zoe Goldston (Course Operations Manager). Used here only to evidence the personnel overlap between MSTA — which publishes Skinipedia — and the company that owns Cosmacure. Scope limit: the page does not mention Cosmacure or any corporate relationship; the overlap is established by name-matching against the Companies House register, not by any disclosure on either website.Funding / interest: MSTA's own website. MSTA publishes Skinipedia, so this source and this entry share a publisher.

Continue learning with MSTA#

Skinipedia is written by the educators at MSTA, the medic-led skincare training academy in Liverpool.