PRP or polynucleotides under the eyes?

Two treatments get suggested for tired looking under-eyes more often than any others at the moment: platelet rich plasma, usually shortened to PRP, and polynucleotides. They are frequently talked about as though they were interchangeable. They are not. They work through different biology, they suit different skin, and both have real limits worth understanding before you book anything.

What each one actually is

PRP starts with your own blood. A small sample is drawn, spun in a centrifuge so the platelets separate from the red cells, and the platelet rich portion is injected into the skin beneath the eye. Platelets are not only clotting cells. When they activate they release growth factors, among them platelet derived growth factor, transforming growth factor beta and vascular endothelial growth factor. Those signals recruit fibroblasts, the cells that build collagen. The proposed benefit follows from that mechanism: slightly thicker, better quality skin over the following weeks. You can read more about how we use PRP and PRF across the face and scalp.

Polynucleotides are short chains of DNA fragments, most commonly purified from salmon or trout. Injected into the dermis they do two things. Physically they hold water and form a soft, gel-like scaffold, which is why the area can look a little plumper early on. Biologically they bind adenosine A2A receptors, which dampens inflammatory signalling and supports fibroblast activity. A 2026 narrative review in the Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery sets out that pathway alongside effects on collagen synthesis, pigment regulation and barrier repair. The intended benefit, again, is skin quality rather than volume.

First, what is actually making your under-eyes dark

This question matters more than the choice between the two treatments, because it decides whether either can help you at all. A 2016 review in the Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology sorts periorbital darkness into four groups: pigmented, a brown hue from melanin; vascular, a blue, pink or purple hue where superficial vessels show through thin skin; structural, a shadow cast by the tear trough, volume loss or laxity; and mixed, which is the commonest presentation of all.

Neither PRP nor polynucleotides bleaches melanin, and neither fills a hollow. Both act on the skin itself: thickness, texture, hydration, fine crepe lines. So if your darkness is mostly shadow, a skin treatment will not correct it, and the honest options are carefully placed filler or, where there is significant laxity or fat pad herniation, a surgical opinion. If it is mostly pigment, topical treatment and consistent sun protection will do more. Where these two treatments earn their place is thin, crepey, dull under-eye skin, and the vascular component showing through it.

What the evidence shows for polynucleotides

Better than you might expect for a treatment this new, and still thin. A 2026 review in the Journal of Clinical Medicine looking specifically at under-eye rejuvenation found polynucleotide studies reporting roughly 37 to 39 per cent wrinkle reduction over 16 to 28 weeks, with measurable gains in elasticity, hydration and surface roughness, and side effects limited mostly to injection site redness, swelling and bruising. That review is also blunt about the caveats: sample sizes are typically 30 people or fewer, follow up rarely extends past six months, formulations and protocols vary between products, and direct comparisons against other treatments are scarce.

The Journal of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery review cites a 2024 systematic review that found inconsistencies across the evidence base, along with an absence of standardised dosing, limited long term safety data and variable batch to batch quality. Put plainly: the mechanism is well described, the early results are encouraging, and the long term picture is not yet in.

What the evidence shows for PRP under the eyes

Thinner, and it is worth saying so directly. A 2021 review in the Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology could find only three studies of intradermal PRP for periorbital pigmentation. Two showed meaningful improvement against baseline at three to six months. In comparative arms, PRP came out behind combined chemical peeling, and no better than carboxytherapy. Those studies used four to seven sessions at roughly two week intervals, which is a greater commitment than most people expect when they enquire.

A broader 2024 review of PRP across aesthetic dermatology reported consistently positive findings but flagged the central problem: preparation methods differ so much between studies that results are difficult to compare, and larger randomised trials with standardised protocols are still needed.

None of that makes PRP pointless. It has a longer track record in hair loss than around the eyes, it introduces no manufactured material, and tolerance across the studies was good. It does mean that anyone promising you a specific outcome from it is going well beyond what has been demonstrated.

How the choice is usually made

In practice the decision at a consultation turns on a few things.

Polynucleotides tend to suit thin, crepey, dehydrated under-eye skin, and people prone to puffiness in whom a filler would be a poor idea. Improvement is gradual over weeks rather than immediate, and published protocols generally run three to four sessions spaced two to four weeks apart, with maintenance afterwards.

PRP tends to appeal to people who would rather nothing manufactured were injected at all, and it is a reasonable option for general skin quality where expectations are modest. It requires a blood draw at every visit, and the session count in the published studies is higher.

Addressing the structural or pigment component alongside either one is usually more sensible than expecting a single treatment to do everything. Our under-eye treatments page sets out the full range we assess against.

Who these treatments do not suit

Polynucleotides are derived from fish, so a fish allergy must be declared and may rule them out. They are not appropriate for anyone under 18, in pregnancy or breastfeeding, with an active infection at the injection site, with an autoimmune condition, or with epilepsy. Long term safety data for them does not yet exist.

PRP is not appropriate if you have a platelet or clotting disorder, take anticoagulant medication, are significantly anaemic, have an active infection, or have a history of malignancy in the area. Its effect in active autoimmune disease is unclear.

Neither suits anyone expecting one session to change how they look, and neither is something our clinical team would recommend without seeing you, because the assessment rather than the product decides whether either will help. The eyelid area bruises readily, so swelling and bruising for several days after either treatment is common rather than unusual. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling.

If you are not sure which applies to you

That is the thing to settle first, and it costs nothing. Our free 30 minute consultation exists for this: we look at the area in proper light, do the stretch test, photograph it so there is a record to compare against, and tell you plainly if we think neither treatment is the answer for you. Book a free consultation online.

Nova Beauty Clinic, East Finchley, London.