A 2025 study in the journal Cureus tested a copper tripeptide scar gel in women with acne scars and reported smoother skin and a lower scar score after 45 days[1]. It is the only clinical study of a copper tripeptide product on acne scars that we found. It is also a good example of how much a study can report without being able to say what caused the change.
This page goes through the design, the numbers, a roughness figure that does not add up and the authors’ own limitations. The short version is that the study had no control group and the gel contained four active ingredients.
Key Takeaways
- The study enrolled 32 women with acne scars, 30 completed it, and it lasted 45 days with twice-daily use and no control group[1].
- The gel combined copper tripeptide-1, L-carnitine L-tartrate, alpha-glucosyl hesperidin and sodium hyaluronate, so no effect can be attributed to the copper peptide alone[1].
- The dermatologist-rated Manchester Scar Scale fell from a mean of 6.87 to 5.03 over 45 days[1].
- The abstract reports roughness as decreasing by more than 100%, but the paper’s own data show the roughness score rising, a contradiction the paper does not resolve[1].
- Two authors are employed by the manufacturer, the product’s brand is in the title, and the authors list their own design as a key limitation[1].
The Product, and What Is Not Known About It
The test product was ThriveCo Scar Fader Gel with Scarcede, a proprietary blend of copper tripeptide-1, L-carnitine L-tartrate, alpha-glucosyl hesperidin and sodium hyaluronate[1]. Copper tripeptide-1 is the cosmetic label for GHK-Cu, though the paper gives no sequence for it. The paper also gives no concentration for any of the four ingredients.
Because the blend is proprietary and the study used the finished gel, this is a test of a product, not of the peptide. The paper’s introduction describes the four ingredients as working synergistically, but it did not test them apart or in pairs[1].
Who Was Studied and How
The paper describes an open-label, interventional, prospective, real-world evidence study with a single group. It was run at a contract research organization in Ahmedabad, India, and registered with the Clinical Trials Registry of India[1]. Open-label means the participants and the assessors knew what was being used. Single group means every participant received the gel and nobody received anything else for comparison.
Thirty-two women aged 18 to 60 were enrolled, and 30 completed the study[1]. Their mean age was about 33, all were Asian, and all had acne scars. The exclusion criteria bar prior scar treatments, although two participants later reported prior experience with scar treatments[1].
The gel was applied twice a day, and participants visited on day 1, around day 21 and around day 45[1]. The paper does not describe the type of acne scars, such as shallow or deep, or how old the scars were. Those details matter, because old, deep scars behave very differently from recent marks.
The Main Result: The Manchester Scar Scale
The primary measure was the Manchester Scar Scale, scored by a dermatologist. The mean score was 6.87 at baseline, 6.42 on day 21 and 5.03 on day 45. Both changes were reported as statistically significant[1].
The abstract reports these as reductions of 7.17% and 26.57% in scar appearance[1]. Computed directly from the three mean scores, the changes work out to about 6.5% and 26.8%. The paper does not explain the small gap, though it may come from averaging each person’s change separately.
The first number deserves attention. By day 21 the scar score had moved by less than half a point on the scale, and it is a score assigned by a dermatologist in an open-label study, where the paper does not describe any blinding. The change from day 21 to day 45 is larger, which fits a gradual effect, but it also fits time passing.
Smoothness, Roughness and Scaliness
Skin texture was measured with a Visioscan imaging device. Smoothness scores fell from 286.43 to 191.25 on day 21 and 156.74 on day 45, and the paper treats that fall as improving smoothness[1]. Scaliness fell from 1.27 to 0.63 and then 0.41[1].
The reported percentages for these two measures, 33.08% and 44.56% for smoothness and 39.71% and 58.92% for scaliness, do not match percentages computed from the means in the same paper[1]. The gap is modest for smoothness and larger for scaliness. As with the scar score, the method behind the percentages is not described.
These instrument readings are objective in the sense that a machine takes them. They are still unblinded repeated measures on a single group. The study could not separate the active ingredients from the gel base, from hydration or from the passage of time.
The Roughness Figure That Does Not Add Up
The abstract says skin roughness decreased by 100.86% at day 21 and 161.62% at day 45[1]. A quantity that cannot go below zero cannot fall by more than 100%. Something is wrong with that sentence.
The results section shows why. The mean roughness score was 1.29 at baseline, 2.11 on day 21 and 2.74 on day 45, which is an increase, described in the text as a 1.63-fold and 2.12-fold elevation that signifies reduced roughness[1]. The paper does not explain the direction of that scale or how a rising score became a fall of more than 100%.
This may be a labeling or reporting error, and it may be that a higher score on that instrument means smoother skin. The paper does not say, so a reader cannot tell. What can be said is that the headline roughness result in the abstract is not interpretable as written, and that the rest of the paper’s percentages deserve the same caution.
The Photographs and the Safety Claim
The paper illustrates the scar improvement with photographs of one participant, subject number 010, at baseline, day 21 and day 45. The text describes the scars going from severe to moderate to negligible[1]. One participant’s photographs show that a good result occurred in one person, not what typically happens.
No local or systemic adverse effects were reported[1]. That is a useful finding for a small study of 30 women over 45 days, but it is not a basis for general safety claims, and the paper does not describe how adverse events were collected.
What the Authors Say Themselves
The discussion lists the limitations plainly. The design is single-arm and open-label with no control, placebo or comparator, so effects such as reduced scaliness and roughness cannot be attributed solely to the treatment. There is no blinding or randomization, the sample is small, and 45 days is short. The authors also note that environment, diet and hormones were not accounted for[1].
The conclusions section is more confident than that discussion. It calls the gel a safe and effective solution for managing dermal scars[1]. A study that cannot attribute an effect to its treatment cannot support that wording.
Funding and Authorship
The disclosures state that no financial support was received from any organization for the work. Two authors are employed by NovoBliss Research, the organization that ran the study, and a third reports personal fees from it. Two other authors are employed by Anveya Living, the maker of the gel, and the acknowledgments thank the company for collaborative support[1].
Studies like this are common for cosmetic products and the paper reports the relationships openly. It means the study is a company-linked evaluation of the company’s own gel, not independent research. The same group of authors and the same company also published a scalp regimen study, which raises the same questions.
Where It Fits With the Rest of the Scar Evidence
We found no other clinical study of a copper tripeptide product on acne scars. The site’s acne scar overview and its page on TGF-beta and scar research set out the mechanistic background, and none of that was tested here. The page on stretch marks covers a neighboring skin-remodeling question.
The paper’s introduction also says copper tripeptide-1 makes wound healing proceed three times faster. That figure is not something this study measured. The same figure appears in the abstract of a 1994 diabetic ulcer trial, which tested a wound gel on a debrided ulcer, a very different setting from a cosmetic gel on a scar.
Reading It Fairly
In 30 women who used a four-ingredient gel twice daily for 45 days, dermatologist scar scores and instrument texture readings moved in the direction the manufacturer would want, with no adverse effects reported[1]. That is a reasonable pilot-level observation for a product company to publish.
It is not evidence that copper peptides remodel acne scars. There was no control group, the scores were not blinded, one headline figure contradicts the data beneath it, and the maker employs authors. Persistent or worsening scarring is a matter for a dermatologist, who can offer treatments with controlled trials behind them.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a copper peptide gel fade acne scars?
One 45-day, single-group study of a four-ingredient gel found lower scar scores in 30 women. It had no control group and the gel contained other ingredients, so the result cannot be attributed to the copper peptide.
How big was the scar gel study?
It enrolled 32 women with acne scars and 30 completed it. Participants used the gel twice a day for 45 days, and the study had no control, placebo or comparison group.
What did the Manchester Scar Scale show?
The mean score was 6.87 at baseline, 6.42 on day 21 and 5.03 on day 45, rated by a dermatologist in an open-label study. The abstract reports reductions of 7.17% and 26.57%.
Why is the roughness result confusing?
The abstract says roughness decreased by 100.86% and 161.62%, which is impossible for a positive measure. The results section shows the roughness score rising from 1.29 to 2.74 and calls that an improvement without explaining the scale.
Is the study independent?
No. The authors report no outside funding, but some are employed by the gel’s manufacturer and by the contract research firm that ran the study, and the company is thanked for its support.
References
- Patel MN, et al. Efficacy and Safety Assessment of ThriveCo Scar Fader Gel With Scarcede™ in the Treatment of Skin Scars. Cureus (2025). PMID 41001334
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Content is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice; consult a qualified healthcare provider before starting any supplement. As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.