Long-term efficacy and safety of a hyaluronic acid dermal filler based on Tri-Hyal technology on restoration of midface volume.

INTRODUCTION: Art Filler Volume (AFV) is a hyaluronic acid (HA)-based filler formulated with "Tri-Hyal" technology, a unique combination of three sizes of HA chains. This study assessed AFV efficacy and safety over 18 months when used to restore midface volume. METHODS: During this open-label study, a maximum of 1.8 mL AFV was injected into each cheek area on Day 0 (D0). Subjects were evaluated at D21, when, if necessary, a retouch could be performed (maximum 1.2 mL per cheek). Subjects were evaluated at seven follow-up visits through to D540. The primary assessment was based on the evolution of the Medicis Midface Volume Scale (MMVS) grade on D21. Secondary outcomes were local and general adverse events, investigator- and subject-assessed Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale scores and changes in self-esteem. RESULTS: Of the 79 healthy Caucasians enrolled (mean age 54.8 years), 25 required a second injection. In the intention-to-treat population, mean overall MMVS scores improved significantly from D0 (3.2 ± 0.4) to D21 (1.8 ± 0.6) and D42 (1.7 ± 0.6) (all p < 0.0001). MMVS scores for each cheek also improved significantly, irrespective of retouch on D21: 22% of injections showed a persistent benefit at D540 without retouch. The most common adverse events were pain on palpation (19%), erythema (15%) and edema (13%); most were mild or moderate and resolved within 2 weeks. CONCLUSION: AFV produces a sustained objective and subjective midface volume restoration in female and male subjects, often without retouching, and was well tolerated.

PrabotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Adult Males With Moderate to Severe Glabellar Lines: Post-hoc Analyses of the Phase III Clinical Study Data.

BACKGROUND: Despite a growing interest among men in cosmetic procedures such as botulinum toxin, comparator clinical trial data in this population are limited. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the efficacy and safety of prabotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of males with moderate to severe glabellar lines. METHODS: Post-hoc analyses were performed on the subpopulation of male patients treated with either a single dose of 20 U prabotulinumtoxinA (n = 25) or 20 U onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 31) in the EVB-003 Phase III glabellar line clinical study. One key efficacy endpoint was the proportion of responders with a ≥1-point improvement from baseline at maximum frown on the 4-point Glabellar Line Scale. RESULTS: Compared with onabotulinumtoxinA-treated males, the percentages of responders who had a ≥1-point improvement on the Glabellar Line Scale at maximum frown were higher at all postbaseline time points for prabotulinumtoxinA-treated males (P > 0.05 at all visits) by an absolute overall mean difference of 10.1% across all visits. Similar trends were observed for efficacy endpoints based on global aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction. PrabotulinumtoxinA-treated males had a higher incidence of treatment-related headache and eyelid ptosis. CONCLUSIONS: The percentages of patients who met the definition of a responder were higher at almost all time points examined for prabotulinumtoxinA-treated males. Despite the high level of consistency across all measures, differences between the 2 treatment groups did not reach statistical significance. Further study is warranted to establish if these post-hoc analyses observations are reproducible in a larger male patient population.

European Multicenter Prospective Study Evaluating Long-Term Safety and Efficacy of the Polycaprolactone-Based Dermal Filler in Nasolabial Fold Correction.

BACKGROUND: Age-related changes affecting facial areas can be corrected using minimally invasive dermal fillers. The use of polycaprolactone-dermal filler (PCL-filler) in aesthetics is increasing. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of the PCL-filler, in a European, multicenter, prospective study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects (n = 90) with moderate/severe nasolabial folds (Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale [WSRS]: 3 to 4) were treated on Day 0 with a single injection of similar volume on each side; safety and efficacy assessments were performed over an 18-month period. In 1 of the 3 study centers, safety was evaluated at 30 months. RESULTS: At Month 12 (M12; primary endpoint), 84% of subjects showed a ≥1-point improvement on the WSRS (M6: 92%; M18: 64%). From the investigator/subject's evaluation, from Day 7 to M12, Global Aesthetic Improvement was reported for >90% of subjects, with the effect maintained for up to 18 months in >80% of patients. Subjects/investigators reported high satisfaction and skin quality improvement. Most of the immediate injection-site reactions disappeared after 2 to 4 days. No severe or unexpected adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the long-term safety and efficacy of the PCL-filler, with safety confirmed for up to 30 months.

Significantly Increased Patient Satisfaction Following Liquid Formulation AbobotulinumtoxinA Treatment in Glabellar Lines: FACE-Q Outcomes From a Phase 3 Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The FACE-Q patient-reported outcome assesses patient experiences/outcomes with aesthetic facial procedure. A recent trial of abobotulinumtoxinA (ASI, liquid formulation) was the first to our knowledge to assess satisfaction with FACE-Q after glabellar line (GL) injection. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate patient satisfaction with ASI for GL treatment employing 3 FACE-Q scales: facial appearance, psychological well-being, and aging appearance. METHODS: This was a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (NCT02353871) of ASI 50 units in adults with moderate-to-severe GL with 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Significantly greater least squares mean changes from baseline were associated with ASI treatment (N = 125) vs placebo (N = 59) for satisfaction with facial appearance at all visits until day 148 (5 months; P < 0.0001-0.0037), psychological well-being at all visits (P < 0.0001-0.0279), and aging appearance at all visits except day 148 (P < 0.0001-0.0409). Significant differences (ASI vs placebo) were observed at all visits for individual items: "how rested your face looks" (P < 0.0001-0.0415), "I feel okay about myself" (P = 0.0011-0.0399), and "I feel attractive" (P < 0.0001-0.0102). Maximal least squares mean (standard error) changes in aging appearance score were -1.4 (0.3; ASI) and -0.3 (0.4; placebo). Investigators' live assessment of GL at maximum frown significantly correlated with improvements in FACE-Q facial appearance and psychological scales (all patients: r = -0.41 and r = -0.36 [both P < 0.0001], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvements in patient satisfaction with aging, facial appearance, and, importantly, psychological well-being were demonstrated with ASI employing FACE-Q scales up to 5 to 6 months post-injection. Results support a long duration of efficacy with ASI and use of FACE-Q in future trials and clinical practice.

Liquid Formulation of AbobotulinumtoxinA: A 6-Month, Phase 3, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of a Single Treatment, Ready-to-Use Toxin for Moderate-to-Severe Glabellar Lines.

BACKGROUND: Safety and efficacy of botulinum toxin A for glabellar line (GL) treatment are well established. Currently approved formulations require reconstitution before injection. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to assess 6-month efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction of new ready-to-use abobotulinumtoxinA solution for injection (ASI) in patients with moderate-to-severe GL at maximum frown. METHODS: The authors conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (NCT02353871). Patients (N = 185) were randomized (2:1) to receive ASI 50 U or placebo. GL severity was evaluated at days 8, 15, 29, 57, 85, 113, 148, and 183 employing a 4-point scale for investigator's live assessment (ILA) and subject's self-assessment (SSA). Primary endpoint was ILA of GL at maximum frown at day 29, and secondary endpoints were ILA and SSA of GL at maximum frown (all time points), patient satisfaction with GL appearance, time to onset, and duration of action. RESULTS: Responder rates were significantly higher for ASI vs placebo (88.3% vs 1.4%; P < 0.0001) at day 29 by ILA and all time points by ILA (P < 0.0001-0.0441) and SSA (P < 0.0001-0.0036). Sixty percent of patients reported onset of treatment response on or before day 3 (P < 0.0001 vs placebo), and in 5% of patients, efficacy by ILA lasted 6 months (day 183; P = 0.0441 vs placebo). Patient satisfaction rates were significantly higher for ASI vs placebo at all visits (P < 0.0001). Safety was comparable with the known abobotulinumtoxinA profile. CONCLUSIONS: ASI was significantly efficacious for improving moderate or severe GL vs placebo by investigator and patient assessment. ASI was associated with high patient satisfaction, a long duration of action, and comparable safety profile to abobotulinumtoxinA.

A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Single-Dose, Phase III, Non-Inferiority Study Comparing PrabotulinumtoxinA and OnabotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Glabellar Lines in Adult Patients.

BACKGROUND: PrabotulinumtoxinA is a 900-kDa botulinum toxin type A produced by Clostridium botulinum. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of prabotulinumtoxinA compared to onabotulinumtoxinA and placebo for the treatment of glabellar lines. METHODS: This was a 150-day, multicenter, double-blind, controlled, single-dose Phase III study. Adult patients (n = 540) with moderate to severe glabellar lines at maximum frown as assessed by the investigator on the validated 4-point Glabellar Line Scale (0 = no lines, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe), who also felt that their glabellar lines had an important psychological impact, were enrolled. Patients were randomized 5:5:1 to receive a single treatment (0.1 mL injected into each of 5 glabellar sites) of 20 U prabotulinumtoxinA (n = 245), 20 U onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 246), or placebo (n = 49). The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of responders (patients with a Glabellar Line Scale score of 0 or 1 at maximum frown by investigator assessment) on day 30. RESULTS: Responder rates for the primary efficacy endpoint were 87.2%, 82.8%, and 4.2% in the prabotulinumtoxinA, onabotulinumtoxinA, and placebo groups, respectively. The absolute difference between prabotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA groups was 4.4% (95% confidence interval [-1.9, 10.8]). Given that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference was less than -10.0%, noninferiority of prabotulinumtoxinA vs onabotulinumtoxinA was concluded. Five patients (3 prabotulinumtoxinA, 1.2%; 1 onabotulinumtoxinA, 0.4%; 1 placebo, 2.0%) experienced serious adverse events, none of which were study drug related. CONCLUSIONS: A single treatment of 20 U prabotulinumtoxinA was safe and effective and noninferior to 20 U onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines.

Liquid Formulation of AbobotulinumtoxinA Exhibits a Favorable Efficacy and Safety Profile in Moderate to Severe Glabellar Lines: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo- and Active Comparator-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: In most countries, approved botulinum toxin type A formulations require reconstitution before injection. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a ready-to-use liquid formulation of abobotulinumtoxinA (abobotulinumtoxinA solution for injection, ASI) in subjects with moderate to severe glabellar lines (GL). METHODS: In this Phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study, 176 female subjects (aged 30 to 60 years) were randomized into five treatment groups: ASI 20, 50, or 75 U, reconstituted abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) 50 U, and placebo. GL severity was assessed at maximum frown using a 4-point grading scale. Responders were subjects with severity grade of moderate [2] or severe [3] at baseline improving to none [0] or mild [1], evaluated at each time-point by Investigator's Live Assessment (ILA) or Subject's Self-Assessment (SSA). Safety profiles were also determined. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar across groups. Responder rates on Day 29 by ILA were significantly greater for ASI 20, 50, and 75 U versus placebo (88.9%, 91.4%, and 87.9% vs. 0%, respectively; P < 0.0001). Similar results were observed by SSA. A greater proportion of responders was observed in ASI groups vs placebo from Day 8 to 113 for ILA and SSA (P < 0.001). AboBoNT-A responder rate on Day 29 for ILA was 77.1% (P < 0.1006 vs ASI 50 U); with comparable results by SSA. The ASI safety profile was comparable to that of aboBoNT-A. CONCLUSIONS: Ready-to-use liquid formulation of abobotulinumtoxinA was shown to be efficacious, with comparable results to reconstituted abobotulinumtoxinA, and to have a favorable safety profile in subjects with severe to moderate GL.

An 18-Month Follow-up, Randomized Comparison of Effectiveness and Safety of Two Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Treatment of Moderate Nasolabial Folds.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid (HA) filler injection is a popular nonsurgical aesthetic procedure. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and safety of 2 hyaluronic acid fillers (HAEC and HARES) for treatment of moderate nasolabial folds (NLFs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an evaluator- and subject-blinded split-face study. HAEC or HARES was randomly assigned to the left or right NLF at baseline. Retreatment was performed after 9 months; follow-up extended to 18 months after baseline (9 months after retreatment). Effectiveness assessments included the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) and subject preference. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs) and local tolerability symptoms recorded by subjects during 3 weeks after treatment. RESULTS: HAEC was noninferior to HARES measured as mean change from baseline in WSRS score at 6 months. Mean WSRS score change from baseline was similar between products up to 18 months. A majority of subjects (>70%) were still responders at 18 months (after retreatment at 9 months). The volume required at retreatment was approximately two-thirds of that at baseline. There was no difference in subject preference between products. Both fillers were well tolerated and associated with few treatment-related AEs. CONCLUSION: HAEC and HARES were effective and well tolerated for treatment of moderate NLFs.

The Emervel French survey: a prospective real-practice descriptive study of 1,822 patients treated for facial rejuvenation with a new hyaluronic acid filler.

BACKGROUND: Emervel consists of a range of 5 hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers (Touch, Classic, Lips, Deep, and Volume), with a fixed HA concentration (20 mg/mL), and various degrees of cross-linking and calibration. OBJECTIVES: To describe the current use of Emervel fillers in France. METHODS: Prospective multicenter, cross-sectional, real-practice, descriptive survey, including 1,822 patients injected with Emervel fillers for face rejuvenation by 58 French physicians between September 2010 and July 2011. The injection modalities were left to the respective physician's discretion. RESULTS: The physicians were dermatologists (52.3%), surgeons (43.8%), or general practitioners (14.1%). Nasolabial folds (NLF) with a mean severity 2.4 were mainly injected with Emervel Deep (51.0%) and Emervel Classic (36.0%) (mean volume: 1.0 mL), and primarily with the linear retrograde (LR) technique (89.3%). Marionette lines (ML), with a mean severity 2.6 were mainly injected with Emervel Deep (52.5%) and Emervel Classic (34.6%) (mean volume: 0.8 mL), and mainly with the LR technique (79.5%). More than 90% of patients had scores of 0 or 1 for erythema, bruising, edema, and pain. No serious adverse events were reported up to 15 months after the injection. CONCLUSION: These data could contribute to upcoming international consensus on optimal injection modalities of the Emervel range of HA fillers.

Efficacy and safety of a new hyaluronic acid dermal filler in the treatment of moderate nasolabial folds: 6-month interim results of a randomized, evaluator-blinded, intra-individual comparison study.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers such as Restylane(®) are frequently used for the correction of facial soft tissue defects. OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of a novel HA filler, Emervel(®) Classic, with those of Restylane in the treatment of moderate nasolabial folds. METHODS: This was a split-face, randomized and evaluator-blinded comparison study. Subjects were randomized to receive an injection of Emervel Classic or Restylane on their left or right side. Efficacy was evaluated based on the change in Wrinkle Severity Rating Score (WSRS) from baseline. Local tolerability was assessed based on subject diary, which recorded the severity of erythema, oedema/swelling, bruising, pain/tenderness and pruritus during the first 3 weeks after injection. RESULTS: The interim results 6 months after injection are reported. At week 24, the mean improvement in WSRS from baseline was 0.83 ± 0.51 for Emervel Classic, similar to that for Restylane (0.90 ± 0.57). A similar volume of both fillers was injected. Most local tolerability events were mild and transient. Erythema, oedema/swelling and pain/tenderness were significantly less severe and disappeared faster with Emervel Classic than with Restylane (at least p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Emervel Classic provides similar efficacy and better overall local tolerability compared with Restylane 6 months after treatment of moderate nasolabial folds.

A prospective multicenter study evaluating skin tolerance to standard hand hygiene techniques.

We performed a prospective multicenter study to assess the dryness and irritation of the hands in health care facilities, and to evaluate whether that disinfection with an alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) is better tolerated than classic handwashing with mild soap and water. Our study was conducted in 9 sites in the summer and winter. A team of investigators evaluated dryness and irritation. This study takes into account most of the individual and environmental risk factors (age, sex, use of a protective agent, constitutional factors, personal factors, external factors, institution, function, and number of consecutive working days). The results from the 1932 assessments collected show that traditional handwashing is a risk factor for dryness and irritation, whereas the use of ABHR causes no skin deterioration and might have a protective effect, particularly in intensive use. These results provide a strong argument to counter the rear-guard resistance to the use of ABHRs.