Two consults this week asked for “exosome facials,” and I’m noticing increased scrutiny on how these products are marketed and used in clinics. I’ve paused exosome add-ons for now and refocus education on evidence-based skin health — think microneedling with sterile HA and LED at 660/830 nm — curious if you’ve updated protocols or consent language, and what you’re telling clients who ask.
I paused “exosome boosts” and added a consent note that they’re investigational and “not FDA-approved,” plus a client script that we’ll revisit when there’s peer-reviewed data; I share the FDA notice (Public Safety Notification on Exosome Products | FDA). For clients chasing a boost, I swap in sterile HA with microneedling and 660/830 LED or a peptide serum — no pixie dust, just stuff we can document.
Switched to a 20‑second pivot script: “these are investigational and not FDA-approved; we’ll revisit when peer‑reviewed data and clear regs land,” then offer microneedling + sterile HA and 660/830 nm LED at the same price so it doesn’t feel like a downgrade. I also scrubbed “stem cell/exosome” from menus and added the FDA notice to consent: Public Safety Notification on Exosome Products | FDA. Caveat: if a vendor shows an IND or IRB-backed use with a COA, I’ll consider a small pilot with tighter documentation.