Patch Guide

What We Tested, but What We Still Won't Say

August 20, 2026

In August 2026, CLERIVY completed two one-week human use tests of the Hydrocolloid Pimple Patch at Cutis Biomedical Research Center in Seoul, Korea. One look at sensitive skin, the other at blemish-prone skin. Neither recorded a single adverse reaction. Here's how both studies were designed, what we publish from them, and why some of the data stays off this site.

Quick Facts

Question	Answer
What was tested	CLERIVY Hydrocolloid Pimple Patch. Testing on the Microdart Spot Patch is still underway.
Study 1	Sensitive skin, human use test. 23 women, once daily for one week. No adverse skin reactions.
Study 2	Blemish-prone skin, human use test. 22 people, once daily for one week. No increase in blemishes, no adverse reactions.
Who ran them	Cutis Biomedical Research Center (Seoul, Korea), August 2026
What we publish	Two statements, each one always with its footnote
What we don't publish	Measurement numbers and before-and-after photos. Research below.

What Exactly Did We Test?

One product: the CLERIVY Hydrocolloid Pimple Patch. Testing on the Microdart Spot Patch isn't finished. Until those reports come in and clear review, you won't find a single test-based statement about it on this site.

Study One: Sensitive Skin

The first study (report CBRC-E-260610-52) enrolled 23 women, ages 20 to 59. Their sensitive skin was classified by a lactic acid sting test, not by self-description. Each participant wore the patch once a day for one week, and every one of them completed every scheduled use. The study ran under institutional review board (IRB) oversight.

Study Two: Blemish-Prone Skin

The second study (report CBRC-E-260610-53) enrolled 22 people, ages 14 to 40, all with visible blemishes. They wore the patch once a day for one week, and again, everybody finished. The question it set out to answer was deliberately narrow: would wearing the patch make blemishes worse?

What Did the Sensitive-Skin Study Find?

Here's the statement we publish, word for word from our Testing & Claims page:

"Suitable for Sensitive Skin — and tested that way. In a one-week human use test, 23 women with clinically classified sensitive skin used the patch once daily. No adverse skin reactions were observed, and all 23 rated adhesion, hygiene, ease of use, and overall feel 'good' or 'very good.'*"

What Did the Blemish-Prone-Skin Study Find?

Again, the full published statement:

"Tested on blemish-prone skin. In a separate one-week study, 22 people with visible blemishes used the patch once daily. The study's question was whether the patch would increase blemishes — it did not, and no adverse reactions were observed.*"

*Human use test, Cutis Biomedical Research Center (Seoul, Korea), August 2026. Self-assessed after 1 week of once-daily use; sensitive skin classified by lactic acid sting test (n=23). Individual results vary. Study reports CBRC-E-260610-52 and CBRC-E-260610-53.

The asterisk goes wherever these statements go. A claim without its footnote is only half a claim.

Why Won't We Publish the Numbers or the Photos?

Both studies produced far more than those two statements: instrument readings, graded assessments, photos. None of it appears on our US pages, for two reasons.

The regulatory reason. Our patches are cosmetics. Under US rules, a cosmetic can't claim to treat, prevent, or cure a medical condition, and some of the scales and instruments used in studies like these were built to measure exactly that. Publishing those readings here would let the numbers make a claim the product itself doesn't make. Our packaging says as much. Rules vary from market to market, and this site follows the US ones.

The honesty reason. Each study followed one group of people for one week, with no comparison group. That design answers the questions it was built for: whether normal use causes adverse reactions, and whether the patch increases blemishes. It's a poor design for proving an effect. A percentage pulled from a one-week, single-group study looks far more conclusive than it is, and before-and-after photos have the same problem. Selected images tell selected stories. So we publish the summary the design actually supports: zero adverse reactions, and clear answers to the narrow questions each study asked. Nothing more.

Is This the Same as "Dermatologically Tested"?

No. That phrase comes from a different study, run by Advanced Science Laboratories, Inc., and it describes the scope of that testing and nothing else. It doesn't mean dermatologists recommend the product, and it doesn't mean the product treats acne or any other medical condition. The two human use tests in this article are separate studies, run by a different lab.

What These Studies Don't Show

They cover one product. Both studies tested the Hydrocolloid Pimple Patch. Testing on the Microdart Spot Patch is still in progress, and those results will go through the same review before we publish a single sentence about them.
One week, once a day. The studies say nothing about longer or more frequent use, and we won't stretch them past what they measured.
Zero reactions across 45 people isn't a promise. As with any skincare product, skin reacts differently from person to person. If irritation occurs, stop use.
They aren't treatment studies. Neither study set out to measure whether the patch changes how a blemish runs its course, and we don't claim that it does.

Sources

Human use test report CBRC-E-260610-52, Cutis Biomedical Research Center (Seoul, Korea), August 2026
Human use test report CBRC-E-260610-53, Cutis Biomedical Research Center (Seoul, Korea), August 2026
CLERIVY on-pack labeling (2026)
FDA, "Is It a Cosmetic, a Drug, or Both?" (consumer guidance)

CLERIVY Hydrocolloid Pimple Patch and Microdart Spot Patch are cosmetic products. They are not intended to treat, prevent, or cure acne or any other medical condition.

Last updated: August 20, 2026

Patch Guide