Business reacts to meta-analysis concluding collagen dietary supplements present no confirmed profit for pores and skin ageing

A scientific assessment and meta-analysis just lately revealed in The American Journal of Drugs had challenged broadly held assumptions about collagen supplementation and pores and skin well being.

The paper, authored by Korean researchers Seung-Kwon Myung, MD, PhD, and Yunseo Park, analyzed a set of randomized managed trials (RCTs) and concluded there may be “at present no scientific proof to help the usage of collagen dietary supplements to stop or deal with pores and skin ageing.”

Research overview

The assessment assessed 23 RCTs involving 1,474 individuals. Upon preliminary assessment, the researchers acknowledged that the pooled evaluation confirmed enhancements: Collagen supplementation was linked to measurable positive aspects in hydration, elasticity and a discount in wrinkles.

Nonetheless, subgroup analyses confirmed that trials not funded by pharmaceutical or complement corporations confirmed no profit, whereas these with {industry} backing reported constructive results, the researchers reported. Equally, when solely higher-quality research have been thought-about, no important influence was noticed throughout hydration, elasticity or wrinkles, they continued.

These discrepancies prompted the authors to query whether or not earlier meta-analyses had overstated collagen’s function in pores and skin well being. In distinction to these reviews, they concluded that “high-quality research revealed no important impact in all classes, whereas low-quality research revealed a major enchancment in elasticity.”

Market and scientific context

The researchers famous that collagen is a structural protein that makes up “over 90% of pores and skin mass and supplies its mechanical integrity.” With ageing, synthesis declines by “1%–1.5% yearly, inflicting deeper wrinkles and facial strains.”

The decline is compounded by lowered elastin and different molecules important to moisture retention and firmness, which is why supplementation has been promoted as a method to enhance hydration and elasticity, they defined.

Curiosity in collagen dietary supplements has grown quickly. The evaluation reported that the market “doubled in 4 years (2019–2022) and is projected to develop at over 6.5% yearly from 2023 to 2032 in North America,” and since 2014, scientific analysis and client adoption of collagen dietary supplements have “been gaining steady curiosity,” the researchers famous.

Earlier critiques have supported the class. In response to the authors, “two current meta-analyses of RCTs concluded that collagen dietary supplements improved pores and skin hydration and elasticity.” In distinction, their very own evaluation is the primary to seek out that funding supply and research high quality alter the general image, main them to report no confirmed scientific profit.

Business response

BioCell Know-how: Ingredient variability and analysis dynamics

For Douglas Jones, head of gross sales and advertising and marketing at BioCell Know-how, LLC, the research ignored the variety of collagen sorts and formulations utilized in trials.

He informed NutraIngredients that “collagen’s a generic time period… that describes a really numerous and vast number of completely different substances,” making broad comparisons problematic.

“In lots of regards… they’re evaluating apples and oranges after they simply lump every part collectively,” he stated.

He additionally pushed again on the suggestion that {industry} funding compromises analysis integrity.

“Most analysis that’s accomplished…on substances and merchandise are accomplished by the businesses that make them,” he defined, stressing that scientific trials are sometimes outsourced to impartial contract analysis organizations. “We don’t have affect.”

On scientific integrity, Jones stated, “the actual fact of the matter is the science is the science is the science is the science, and the info goes to be no matter it’s…typically you get an anticipated end result, and typically you don’t. I imply, that’s why scientific analysis is completed.”

CSA: Technical critique of misclassifications and knowledge errors

NI additionally spoke to the Collagen Stewardship Alliance (CSA), which targeted on the technical reliability of the meta-analysis. In its view, the paper’s conclusions about funding bias collapse underneath scrutiny as a result of the classification of {industry} involvement was usually incorrect.

For instance, Choi et al. (2014) was listed as industry-influenced regardless of having no direct funding, whereas different research with clear firm ties, akin to Sugihara et al. (2015) and Inoue et al. (2016), have been marked as impartial. As CSA famous, if two-thirds of “impartial” trials are the truth is commercially supported, then the subgroup evaluation loses its credibility.

CSA additionally documented a collection of knowledge reporting errors that have an effect on dose, supply and period. Yoon et al. (2014) recorded 0.75 g/day, although individuals really consumed 3 g.

Lin et al. (2021) reported a 50 g dose, whereas the precise consumption was nearer to five.5 g. Seong et al. (2024) reported 2.5 g/day, however the unique article solely exhibits 2 g. Even research durations have been misstated: Bolke et al. (2019) was described as lasting 16 weeks when, the truth is, the intervention lasted solely 12 weeks.

Taken collectively, CSA argued, these errors not solely distort the quantitative evaluation but in addition elevate questions in regards to the assessment’s total reliability.

On the problem of research high quality, they emphasised that “industry-funded research usually are not essentially of decrease high quality than non-industry-funded research,” mentioning that on this meta-analysis, “nearly all of the industry-funded research scored 3 to five out of 5” on the Jadad scale, which evaluates randomization, blinding and participant follow-up.

GROW: Framing, interpretation and the larger image

NI additionally spoke with the Gelatin Producers of the World (GROW), who took subject with each the framing and execution of the Myung meta-analysis. Whereas the group acknowledged that it “welcomes rigorous, impartial scientific scrutiny,” it cautioned that “this paper comprises methodological flaws and interpretive inconsistencies that threat distorting the scientific report, deceptive readers and undermining credible analysis within the discipline.”

GROW first pointed to what it characterised as contradictory summary messaging. The summary itself, they famous, confirmed that collagen dietary supplements “present important advantages in enhancing pores and skin hydration, elasticity and wrinkles when all research are thought-about.”

But the authors later concluded that there’s “no scientific proof” to help collagen use for pores and skin ageing, which GROW argued “creates a complicated and contradictory narrative.”

The group additionally highlighted issues in the best way the subgroup evaluation was carried out, saying it “is predicated on unclear, unpublished standards” and that “the tactic for categorizing research into ‘excessive’ and ‘low’ high quality just isn’t disclosed, nor are validated instruments (akin to CONSORT, Cochrane, or GRADE) used or cited.”

With out transparency, GROW maintained, “such subgroup interpretations can’t function a reputable foundation for dismissing a major physique of proof.”

On the problem of funding, GROW rejected the paper’s implication that business involvement mechanically undermines analysis integrity.

“Dismissing research with {industry} funding as inherently biased discredits the work of famend analysis establishments and impartial scientists,” the group acknowledged. “Funding alone doesn’t compromise scientific integrity when correct methodology and peer assessment are adopted.”

Methodological inconsistencies, GROW added, additional weaken the evaluation. It famous that a number of research labeled as ‘impartial’ (e.g., Sugihara et al., 2015; Genovese et al., 2017; Kim et al., 2018) had business affiliations.

Additionally they identified that the meta-analysis did not differentiate between pure collagen peptides and multi-ingredient blends, that the research included “range by completely different uncooked supplies, dosage, period and topical or oral administration,” and that 17 of the 23 trials have been carried out in Asia with decrease reported every day doses (round 3 g/day) that will not mirror international consumption patterns.

Due to this fact, GROW stated, the assessment’s conclusions have been “drawn from small, unbalanced subgroups.”

Most significantly, GROW emphasised that the assessment doesn’t exist in isolation. Different meta-analyses, akin to De Miranda et al. (2021), discovered “statistically important enhancements in pores and skin hydration, elasticity and wrinkle discount, at every day doses of two.5 to 10 g of hydrolyzed collagen.” The group famous that Pu et al. (2023) and Dewi et al. (2023) likewise demonstrated “pores and skin enhancing results of collagen.”

GROW additionally concluded that “the advantages of collagen peptides for pores and skin are well known, not simply in analysis literature however by well being authorities all over the world.”

They famous that Meals Requirements Australia, Korea’s Ministry of Meals and Drug Security, Well being Canada, the Shopper Affairs Company Japan and the Brazilian Well being Regulatory Company (ANVISA) have formally acknowledged skin-related claims for collagen dietary supplements, lending weight to a world scientific consensus that collagen peptides are helpful for pores and skin well being.

Supply: The American Journal of Drugs, 2025, ISSN 0002-9343, doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2025.04.034, “Results of Collagen Dietary supplements on Pores and skin Ageing: A Systematic Evaluate and Meta-Evaluation of Randomized Managed Trials” Authors: Seung-Kwon Myung, Yunseo Park