THE PDGF DEBATE

Claudia McGloin gives her views on the controversial rise of PDGF injections in the US

CLAUDIA MCGLOIN

Claudia McGloin is a registered nurse and holds dual registration in both the UK and Ireland. With more than 27 years’ nursing experience, McGloin is the clinical director and nurse practitioner at The New You Clinic in Sligo. She is one of Ireland’s leading platelet-rich plasma experts and has performed thousands of PRP treatments. She has shared her expertise on the international stage and in various publications.

Platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF) has long been recognised as one of the body’s most influential healing messengers. This powerful protein plays a vital role in stimulating cell growth, guiding tissue repair and orchestrating the early stages of wound healing. As science has advanced, PDGF has moved from being a subject of laboratory fascination to becoming a practical tool in medicine, particularly in areas such as skin regeneration, bone repair and recovery after injury.

PDGF naturally exists in several variations, such as PDGF-AA, PDGF-BB, and PDGF-AB, each binding to specific receptors on target cells. These receptors then ignite a cascade of cellular activity that promotes growth, migration and regeneration. Because of this, recombinant forms of PDGF, especially PDGF-BB, have been widely studied for decades and have a strong track record of safety when used appropriately in medical contexts.

Historically, PDGF’s use has centred on healing; repairing chronic wounds, aiding surgical recovery and supporting soft tissue and bone regeneration. In these settings, it is usually applied topically or as part of a controlled medical treatment. Recent research continues to support these applications, showing that PDGF can meaningfully enhance tissue repair without significant complications when used as approved.

As aesthetic medicine has grown, however, PDGF has attracted attention for its potential anti-ageing effects. Topical PDGF has been used to enhance results after microneedling, laser treatments, and other skin procedures. Early clinical results suggest improvements in texture, healing time and collagen stimulation. In these topical forms, PDGF appears to maintain a strong safety profile.

WHAT’S THE CONTROVERSY WITH PDGF?

The controversy begins when PDGF shifts from being applied to being injected.

In recent years, some cosmetic clinics in the United States have started offering injectable PDGF treatments, often marketed as a next-generation alternative to dermal fillers. These treatments are promoted for under-eye hollowing, general facial rejuvenation and even hair growth. On social media, PDGF injections have been hailed by some as a “bio-filler” that promises natural, regenerative results without the drawbacks of traditional fillers. However, this rapid rise in popularity has triggered significant concern among dermatologists, regulators and medical ethicists.

The core issue is simple: PDGF injections for cosmetic purposes are not FDA-approved.

While certain PDGF products are approved for wound healing in topical or gel forms, no PDGF formulation is currently authorised for injection into healthy tissue for aesthetic enhancement. Unlike traditional fillers, which must undergo extensive safety testing, many PDGF products being injected by aesthetics providers in the US are legally considered “unapproved” or “investigational” when used this way. This distinction is more serious than a typical “off-label” use. In some cases, it means the product’s injectable use falls entirely outside regulatory allowances.

Because injecting PDGF is still experimental, long-term safety data simply does not exist. Experts warn that a growth factor designed to stimulate cell division and tissue proliferation could, if misused or injected improperly, trigger unwanted side effects. Potential risks include prolonged swelling, excessive collagen deposition, lump formation, fibrosis or uneven texture, especially in delicate areas like the under-eye region.

Some patients have reported puffy under-eyes, fluid retention or persistent tissue irregularities after PDGF injections. Since these effects are not fully understood and there are no established reversal methods, complications can be difficult to treat. Furthermore, as many insurance providers do not cover providers who perform these unapproved procedures, patients may have limited recourse if something goes wrong.

Medical professionals are increasingly raising questions about the ethics of offering PDGF injections before safety studies and regulatory reviews have been completed. While innovation in aesthetics is always evolving, we cannot stress the importance of scientific evidence and patient safety. As of late 2025, the consensus among regulatory advisors is that PDGF injections should ideally take place only in controlled clinical trial environments not in routine cosmetic practice.

Despite this, demand continues to grow, creating a concerning disconnect between patient expectations, marketing claims, and the current state of scientific knowledge.

PDGF undeniably holds tremendous therapeutic potential. Its role in wound healing and tissue regeneration is well documented, and research continues to uncover new applications. However, the leap from medically approved topical use to elective cosmetic injection represents a major shift that requires far more study, oversight, and caution.

For now, individuals considering PDGF injections should be aware that the practice remains experimental in the US. While PDGF is a powerful biological tool, its injectable use in aesthetic medicine sits at the intersection of innovation, speculation, and regulatory uncertainty. Until more research emerges, PDGF injections remain a procedure where the risks and long-term consequences are not fully understood.