Aesthetics investigates how the integration of polynucleotides is evolving
According to research by consulting company Rare. the proportion of clinics advertising polynucleotides (PNs) has fallen by 5% in the last year. The research used a random sample of around 13,000 UK aesthetic clinic websites, comparing advertised treatments year on year.1 Rare. notes that this reflects advertised services rather than actual treatment volumes and describes the trend as a “modest softening” rather than evidence of a category in decline.1
Aesthetics spoke to independent nurse prescriber and PN trainer Anna Baker and aesthetic practitioner Dr Steven Harris about how the sector is responding in practice.
Why are clinics taking different approaches?
From the same sample, Rare. shares that 13% of clinics had removed PNs from their websites, as opposed to only 8% adding them.1 Rare. notes that it cannot cleanly distinguish between a genuine market decline, clinics removing prescription-only products from their public pages in line with Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Agency advertising guidance, and measurement drift on its side during the same period.2
However, Dr Harris believes some clinicians’ caution around PNs reflects broader concerns within the aesthetics sector, particularly as clinicians are asking more questions about mechanisms, definitions, long-term outcomes and complications. He notes, “We need reproducible clinical evidence, objective outcome measures, meaningful long-term follow-up, independent studies and a plausible biological mechanism that can be demonstrated rather than assumed.”
Dr Harris does not offer PNs in his clinic, noting this is not due to ineffectiveness, but rather the current evidence base not meeting his threshold for adoption.
However, despite these stats, many practitioners do offer these treatments in clinic. Notably Baker, who has provided them for more than three years, says both patient demand and a measured evaluation process drove her clinic’s decision to introduce PNs.
“Our discerning patient database increasingly requested PNs,” she explains, adding, “The clinic initially trialled the treatment on a small number of patients in the periocular area before deciding whether to incorporate it more widely.”
What the shift means for the market
With 15% of UK aesthetic clinics still advertising PNs, the category remains an established part of the regenerative market rather than a passing trend, Rare. explains.1 However, ranking behind skin boosters at 34% and only narrowly ahead of biostimulators at 14%, the figures suggest PNs are settling into a more selective role rather than emerging as a dominant treatment category.1
For Dr Harris, the figures reflect the natural evolution of an emerging treatment category. “New treatments often experience an initial surge driven by marketing, education and social media. Over time, clinicians begin comparing outcomes with established treatments and become more selective about where a treatment genuinely adds value,” he says. Dr Harris also believes patient attitudes may be evolving. “Patients are becoming increasingly interested in evidence, not just novelty.”
More broadly, he sees the trend as part of a wider shift within medical aesthetics. “I believe the specialty has become more cautious, and I see that as a positive development. There is growing recognition that innovation and evidence are not the same thing,” adds Dr Harris.
However, Baker notes that the softening seen in the data is not necessarily being reflected at practice level. She says, “From our perspective, we have not witnessed a decline in requests or the number of PN that we offer.”
Navigating a more mature PN market
Aesthetics Journal reached out to manufacturers for a comment, and Croma and DermaFocus said the decline in advertising should not be interpreted as a drop in practitioner confidence, but rather as a sign of a maturing market, with practitioners increasingly incorporating it into combination plans.
As the category matures, practitioners believe greater attention is being paid to how PNs are selected, positioned and discussed with patients. Baker says, “Clinicians should ensure that products are appropriately licensed for use and that the brand has credible data to support the indications for use. They should also carefully consider the manufacturer process, including extraction and purification methods, and to source manufacturer approved training, which offers post-course support in the event of a potential complication.”
For practitioners, Dr Harris advises ensuring that marketing and patient communications accurately reflect the available evidence. “I think it’s more accurate to talk about tissue remodelling rather than regeneration. From a marketing point of view, I would avoid making claims about ‘regenerating’ or ‘restoring’ tissue unless we have evidence showing that this is genuinely happening,” he notes.
Dr Harris believes wider adoption will ultimately depend on the strength of the evidence base. “Training is particularly important here because practitioners need to understand the difference between a proposed mechanism and a proven clinical outcome, and between regeneration, repair and remodelling,” he explains.
Moving beyond initial implementation
Overall, the interviewees suggest that PNs are not disappearing from the UK aesthetics market, but moving into a more selective and clearly defined role. While some clinics appear to be stepping back from actively promoting the treatment, others continue to see value in it where patient demand, training and product choice align. As the category evolves, the practitioners believe its longer-term place in the market may depend less on novelty and more on evidence, education and precise positioning.