Rejuran Injections: What Polynucleotide 'Salmon DNA' Skin Boosters Can and Can't Do
Start with our pillar guide: Dermal Fillers for Ozempic Face: What the Evidence Shows (and Doesn't), or browse all Aesthetic Treatments articles.
Rejuran is a brand of polynucleotide injections, DNA fragments usually taken from salmon, made by the Korean company PharmaResearch. A Sephora skincare line now uses the same name, but it's a different product. Small, short studies suggest these injections may improve fine lines around the eyes, texture and hydration in the short term. In the FDA databases we checked, we found no clearance or approval listing for Rejuran or other polynucleotide injectables. Evidence: Limited.
Search "rejuran" and most results are shopping pages for creams and serums. This page covers the rejuran injection, a polynucleotide skin booster given in clinics. We read the published abstracts, checked FDA's public device databases and noted who wrote or paid for each study. Where a paper has company ties, we say so next to the claim.
Key takeaways
- A 2026 systematic review of 6 studies around the eyes called the findings "preliminary" and found no study that followed patients beyond 6 months (Ahuja et al., 2026).
- No study in that review followed patients beyond 6 months, and every cohort was Korean or Thai.
- Much of the literature has manufacturer ties, and a pivotal Rejuran trial was retracted.
- Data on PN entering a blood vessel come from rabbits only (Boonpethkaew et al., 2026).
What is Rejuran? The short answer
Rejuran is a brand of injectable polynucleotides (PN) made by PharmaResearch, a South Korean company. PN are chains of DNA fragments, usually purified from salmon. Clinics inject them as a "skin booster," a loose term for injectables meant to improve skin quality rather than add volume. Evidence: Limited.
How PN might work is still a theory. An international expert panel writing specifically about Rejuran proposed that PN forms a "hydrophilic, scaffold-like matrix" in the skin. The panel suggested possible roles in hydration, deeper support, barrier repair in rosacea and eczema, and scars (Rho et al., 2026). That paper is expert opinion, not a trial. 4 of its authors sit on PharmaResearch's advisory board, and 2 are employed by PharmaResearch. Evidence: Expert opinion.
Rejuran isn't the only PN brand. PN-HPT, from the Italian company Mastelli, appears in several studies below, and results from one brand may not carry over to another.
Are Rejuran injections the same as Rejuran skincare at Sephora?
No. The Rejuran name is also on creams and serums sold at Sephora and other retailers. Those are topical cosmetics, while a rejuran injection is a clinic treatment. In the abstracts we reviewed, we found no trials of the Rejuran cosmetics line, so the injection results on this page don't tell you what the creams do. Evidence: Very limited.
Clinics often market the injection as a "rejuran skin booster" or "rejuran healer." These are product-line names, not separate research categories, and we can only speak to what the studies below tested.
You'll also see PDRN (polydeoxyribonucleotide). PDRN and PN are both DNA fragments, and a 2025 review notes the names are often used interchangeably (Marques et al., 2025). Several authors of that review are employed by or consult for LOUNA Regenerative/Louna Aesthetics, Albomed and LAM Biotechnologies/TEC-PHARMA; the remaining authors declare no conflicts. For PDRN serums and how topical salmon DNA compares, see our PDRN and salmon DNA skincare guide.
A survey asked 235 Korean dermatologists how they use PN injectables, and the authors found "surprisingly little guidance" on their use (Rho et al., 2024). PharmaResearch Products Co., Ltd. funded the survey, which measured practice patterns, not results. Evidence: Practice survey.
What does the research show on Rejuran and polynucleotide injections?
The clearest summary is the 2026 systematic review of PN injections around the eyes (Ahuja et al., 2026). It included 6 studies, 5 of them randomized split-face trials, where one side of the face gets PN and the other gets a comparison. This review included a trial that was later retracted, so we don't quote its pooled numbers. Every cohort was Korean or Thai, no study followed patients beyond 6 months, and the authors wrote that the findings "should be regarded as preliminary." The review's authors declared no conflicts and no funding. Evidence: Limited.
A 2025 systematic review of PN across the face found "nine studies, of low and moderate quality" with 219 patients. It reported promising results for wrinkles, texture and elasticity, alongside "limited consensus regarding their optimal use" (Lampridou et al., 2025). One author is an R&D board member for Mastelli, and another is a key opinion leader and trainer for Dermafocus, a PN-HPT distributor. The authors state that Mastelli and Dermafocus were not involved. Evidence: Limited.
The individual studies are small:
- In a double-blind split-face trial of 27 people, PN and non-crosslinked hyaluronic acid (HA) around the eyes were "not significantly different" on satisfaction and global improvement scores. PN had higher improvement rates for elasticity, hydration, roughness and pore volume (Lee et al., 2022). Funding is not stated in PubMed. Evidence: Limited.
- In a single-arm study, 28 of 30 enrolled people completed treatment, and crow's-feet scores improved versus baseline at 18 weeks. Melanin didn't change (Kim et al., 2022). With no control group, the treatment effect can't be separated from other factors. Funding is not stated in PubMed. Evidence: Very limited.
- A 5-woman case series reported improvements in pores and skin thickness, with "no serious side effects" (Park et al., 2016). Funding is not stated in PubMed. Evidence: Very limited.
- A letter on PN plus HA injections for facial redness has no abstract, so we can only report its topic (Lee et al., 2024). 2 of its authors are advisory members of PharmaResearch. Evidence: Very limited.
| Study | Design and size | What it found | Company ties | Evidence label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahuja 2026 | Systematic review, 6 studies | Findings "preliminary"; no follow-up beyond 6 months; pooled numbers not quoted because it included a retracted trial | None declared | Limited |
| Lampridou 2025 | Systematic review, 9 studies, 219 patients | Promising; "limited consensus" | Mastelli board member; Dermafocus trainer | Limited |
| Lee 2022 | Split-face RCT vs HA, n=27 | No significant difference on main scores | Not stated in PubMed | Limited |
| Kim 2022 | Single-arm, 28 completers | Crow's feet better than baseline at 18 weeks | Not stated in PubMed | Very limited |
| Kim 2018 | RCT vs saline, 42 neck scars, all had laser | Lower scar scores with PN | Not stated in PubMed | Limited |
| Kim 2026 | Split-face vs saline after RF, 25 women | Pores, wrinkles and water loss better; elasticity unchanged | No financial interest stated | Limited |
| Park 2026 | Case series, 8 patients | All improved; no adverse events | PharmaResearch CMO and KOL authors | Very limited |
Does Rejuran help scars or skin after laser or RF?
A few studies test PN alongside other procedures. They're narrow, and none shows what PN does for the face on its own.
In a double-blinded randomized trial of 42 people with thyroidectomy scars, every patient also had fractional laser. Those who got PN had lower Vancouver Scar Scale scores than those who got saline (2.09 vs 4.01, where lower is better) and lower scar height. No keloids or adverse events were reported (Kim et al., 2018). This study was about a fresh surgical scar on the neck, not cosmetic facial treatment. Funding is not stated in PubMed. Evidence: Limited.
A split-face study of 25 women used Rejuran on one side and saline on the other right after fractional radiofrequency (RF microneedling). At 6 weeks, the PN side had larger gains in pore and wrinkle scores. Water loss through the skin (TEWL) fell only on the PN side, from 8.19 to 3.85, and patients reported redness fading faster. There was no difference in dermal thickness or elasticity (Kim, 2026). The single author stated no financial interest. The full text doesn't describe blinding or randomization, and PN always went on the right side, so bias is possible. Evidence: Limited.
A retrospective case series of 8 patients used Rejuran for wound and scar problems after surgery. All 8 improved on photo and physician ratings, with no adverse events, and the authors said prospective studies are needed (Park et al., 2026). One author is PharmaResearch's Chief Medical Officer, and 3 are PharmaResearch key opinion leaders. Evidence: Very limited.
How many Rejuran sessions do studies use, and how long do results last?
Studies describe a series of treatments rather than a single visit. In the 27-person split-face trial above, participants had 3 injections 2 weeks apart. In a single-arm study of 30 Asian adults using PN-HPT, treatments were given at 0, 4 and 8 weeks. The average global improvement score at 6 months was about 3.3 to 3.6 out of 5. No adverse events were reported, and there was no control group (Lim et al., 2024). Mastelli, the maker of PN-HPT, paid the article's publication charges, and one author is an R&D board member at Mastelli and has received grants from Allergan. Evidence: Very limited.
An 8-expert consensus on PN-HPT gave recommendations for the face, eye area, neck, hands and scalp (Cavallini et al., 2021). It is expert opinion about a different brand, and the board members' past sponsors include Mastelli, which also paid the board's secretarial and logistics costs and the publication charges. Evidence: Expert opinion.
How long do results last? We don't know. The 2026 periorbital review found no study that followed patients beyond 6 months (Ahuja et al., 2026). Evidence: Limited.
These schedules describe what researchers did, not what any one person should do. Ask your clinician about the number of sessions, the spacing, the product and whether PN suits your skin.
What are the side effects of Rejuran injections?
In the small studies we reviewed, side effects were mostly mild and short-lived. The 2025 review above described mild, transient side effects, and the 2026 periorbital review described a favorable safety profile through 6 months. No serious adverse events were reported in these small studies up to 6 months, but small, short studies can miss rare problems. Evidence: Limited.
Like any injection, PN can cause bruising, swelling, redness or tenderness at the treated spots.
The biggest open question is blood vessels. With fillers, accidental injection into an artery is a known serious risk. A rabbit study injected 3 PN products (Rejuran S, Rejuran HB Plus and Conjuran) into an ear artery and compared them with saline and HA (Boonpethkaew et al., 2026). PN caused a temporary blockage. The team saw "no visible transparent emboli" at 24 hours and no signs of tissue damage from lost blood flow in the rabbits. The authors declared no competing interests. This is an animal study, and we don't know how this translates to people. Evidence: Animal only.
PN is usually made from fish DNA, so people with a fish allergy should raise it before treatment. Our PDRN guide covers the allergy question. If you are pregnant, have a health condition or have reacted to injectables before, ask your clinician.
Is Rejuran FDA-approved in the US?
In FDA's public device databases we checked (510(k) and PMA), we found no clearance or approval listing for Rejuran or other polynucleotide injectables. We searched those listings in November 2026, and they can change. This is a search of public databases, not a statement from FDA about any product.
For contrast, Skinvive, an HA skin booster from Allergan, has a PMA listing (P110033) in the same databases.
If a US clinic offers Rejuran or "salmon DNA" injections, ask which product it is, who makes it and where it was sourced.
How does Rejuran compare with Skinvive, Profhilo and HA filler?
These treatments get grouped together, but they inject different things and aim at different goals. Skin boosters such as Rejuran, Skinvive and Profhilo target skin quality. Dermal fillers mainly add volume. Biostimulators aim to prompt the body's own collagen. For more on those, see our Sculptra vs Radiesse comparison.
| Treatment | Category | What's injected | In the FDA databases we checked | PN comparison data in our sources | Evidence label |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rejuran | PN skin booster | Polynucleotides, usually from salmon | No clearance or approval listing found | Reference point | Limited |
| Skinvive | HA skin booster | Hyaluronic acid | PMA listing (P110033) | No head-to-head trial in the abstracts we reviewed | Very limited |
| Profhilo | HA skin booster | Hyaluronic acid | Not part of our check | No head-to-head trial in the abstracts we reviewed | Very limited |
| Non-crosslinked HA | HA injectable | Hyaluronic acid | Varies by product | 1 split-face RCT, n=27: no significant difference on main scores | Limited |
| PCL filler | Filler | Polycaprolactone | Varies by product | Head-to-head trials exist, but we don't quote the 2026 review's pooled figures | Limited |
Many people search for Rejuran under the eyes. Fine lines and hollows are different problems, and our under-eye hollows guide covers options for volume loss. A page on polynucleotides under the eyes is planned.
Who funds Rejuran and polynucleotide research?
Much of the PN literature comes from authors tied to the companies that make it. Among the papers we reviewed, 4 have links to PharmaResearch, the maker of Rejuran: the expert panel, the redness letter, the 8-patient case series and the dermatologist survey. Another 3 have links to Mastelli, the maker of PN-HPT: the 2025 review, the PN-HPT consensus and the 30-person single-arm study. Company ties don't make a study wrong, but they are a reason to want more trials from groups without them. Evidence: Limited.
A pivotal Rejuran trial, a widely cited phase III study, has been retracted. We don't cite it, and none of its findings appear on this page. We also found 3 other related papers in our searches that have been retracted, and we don't cite any of them. One of those, a trial comparing a polycaprolactone filler with Rejuran, was included in the 2026 Ahuja review, so we use that review only for its "preliminary" conclusion and its note that no study followed patients beyond 6 months.
Where the evidence stops
- No study in the main periorbital review followed patients beyond 6 months.
- Nearly all trials enrolled small Korean or Thai cohorts, and several had no control group.
- Many papers have manufacturer ties, and a pivotal Rejuran trial was retracted.
- Blood-vessel safety data come from one rabbit study.
- In the abstracts we reviewed, we found no trials of the Rejuran cosmetics line.
- How PN works in skin is proposed, not established.
FAQ
What is Rejuran made of?
Rejuran is made of polynucleotides, which are fragments of DNA usually purified from salmon. An expert panel with ties to the manufacturer proposed that they form a water-attracting, scaffold-like matrix in the skin, but that mechanism is proposed, not established. Different brands use different products, so ask your clinician exactly what they use.
Is Rejuran the same as the Rejuran skincare at Sephora?
No. Rejuran injections are polynucleotide injectables given in clinics, while the Rejuran skincare sold at Sephora is a topical cosmetics line. In the abstracts we reviewed, we found no trials of the Rejuran cosmetics line, so results from injection studies don't tell you what the creams and serums do.
Does Rejuran work?
Research suggests polynucleotide injections may improve crow's feet, skin texture and hydration in the short term. A 2026 systematic review of 6 studies called the findings preliminary, and none of its studies followed patients beyond 6 months. Most studies are small, come from Korea and Thailand, and many are tied to manufacturers.
Is Rejuran FDA-approved?
In FDA's public device databases we checked (510(k) and PMA), we found no clearance or approval listing for Rejuran or other polynucleotide injectables. That is a search of public listings, not a statement from FDA, and listings can change. If a US clinic offers Rejuran, ask what product it is and where it was sourced.
How long does Rejuran last?
We don't know. In a 2026 systematic review, no study followed patients beyond 6 months, so there is no published data on results after that point. Ask your clinician what follow-up they plan.
What are Rejuran side effects?
In the small studies we reviewed, side effects were mostly mild and short-lived, and no serious adverse events were reported up to 6 months. Like any injection, it can cause bruising, swelling or redness. In a rabbit study, polynucleotide injected into an artery caused a temporary blockage, and we don't know how this translates to people. If you have a fish allergy, raise it with your clinician before treatment.
Rejuran vs Skinvive: what's the difference?
Rejuran contains polynucleotides, while Skinvive is a hyaluronic acid skin booster. In FDA's public device databases we checked, Skinvive has a PMA listing, while we found no clearance or approval listing for Rejuran. In the abstracts we reviewed, we found no head-to-head trials of the two. See our Skinvive guide.
How many Rejuran sessions do studies use?
Studies have used a series of treatments, such as 3 injections 2 weeks apart in one trial and sessions at 0, 4 and 8 weeks in another. These are research schedules, not a recommendation for any one person. How many sessions, if any, suit you is a question for your clinician.
References
- Ahuja et al., 2026. Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum. Systematic review of polynucleotide injections for periorbital rejuvenation. Authors report no conflicts and no funding. PubMed 42979324
- Boonpethkaew et al., 2026. Scientific Reports. Rabbit ear-artery study of intra-arterial polynucleotide injection. Authors report no competing interests. PubMed 42457753
- Rho et al., 2026. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology. International expert opinion on Rejuran polynucleotides. Four authors are on the PharmaResearch advisory board and two are PharmaResearch employees; PharmaResearch makes Rejuran. PubMed 41939258
- Marques et al., 2025. Biomolecules. Narrative review of PDRN and PN definitions. Several authors are employed by or consult for LOUNA Regenerative/Louna Aesthetics, Albomed and LAM Biotechnologies/TEC-PHARMA; remaining authors declare no conflicts. PubMed 39858543
- Rho et al., 2024. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. Survey of Korean dermatologists on polynucleotide injectables. Funded by PharmaResearch Products Co., Ltd. (grant listed in PubMed). PubMed 38093498
- Lampridou et al., 2025. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. Systematic review of polynucleotides in facial rejuvenation. One author is an R&D board member for Mastelli and one is a key opinion leader and trainer for Dermafocus, a distributor of Mastelli's PN-HPT; they state neither company was involved and no grants were received. PubMed 39645667
- Lee et al., 2022. Journal of Dermatological Treatment. Randomized split-face trial of PN vs non-crosslinked HA around the eyes. Funding and conflicts not stated in PubMed. PubMed 32248707
- Kim et al., 2022. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Single-arm study of PN for crow's feet. Funding and conflicts not stated in PubMed. PubMed 35357558
- Park et al., 2016. Dermatologic Therapy. Case series of PN injections in 5 women. Funding and conflicts not stated in PubMed. PubMed 26814448
- Lee et al., 2024. Skin Research and Technology. Letter on PN plus HA intradermal injections for facial erythema (no abstract). Two authors are advisory members of PharmaResearch. PubMed 39258788
- Kim et al., 2018. Lasers in Surgery and Medicine. Randomized trial of PN for thyroidectomy scars with fractional laser. Funding and conflicts not stated in PubMed. PubMed 29574803
- Kim, 2026. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open. Split-face study of Rejuran after fractional radiofrequency microneedling. The author reports no financial interest. PubMed 42808113
- Park et al., 2026. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Retrospective case series of Rejuran for post-surgical wound and scar problems. One author is Chief Medical Officer of PharmaResearch and three are PharmaResearch key opinion leaders. PubMed 42162207
- Lim et al., 2024. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology. Single-arm study of PN-HPT in Asian adults. Mastelli paid the article charges; one author is an R&D board member for Mastelli and reports grants from Allergan. PubMed 38371328
- Cavallini et al., 2021. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. Expert consensus on PN-HPT. Board members' past sponsors include Mastelli Srl, the patent holder and producer of PN-HPT; Mastelli also paid the board's secretarial and logistics costs and the publication charges. PubMed 32799391