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.

Comparative clinical study for the efficacy and safety of two different hyaluronic acid-based fillers with Tri-Hyal versus Vycross technology: A long-term prospective randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid-based fillers have an immediate volumizing effect for the treatment of dermal contour deformities and to smooth dermal depressions formed by the loss of volume. A previous study on 2016-2018 has shown the efficacy and safety of the HA-based filler ART FILLER® Volume on the midface only, but not in a comparative manner. METHODS: In this context, an 18 months prospective randomized single-blind study of the non-inferiority of ART FILLER® Volume versus the reference product Juvéderm Voluma® was performed on the midface, temple, and jawline, and non-comparative study on the chin. The efficacy and the longevity were evaluated for the selected face areas via dedicated clinical scoring systems after a single filler injection without any re-touch or re-injection. The short- and long-term adverse effects were also recorded. RESULTS: The observations confirmed the non-inferiority of ART FILLER® Volume versus the reference product on the different injected areas. For both fillers, the beneficial effects on volumes restoration were maintained 18 months post-injection; however, these effects were diminished among the time. Furthermore, injections of Art Filler® Volume were well tolerated by the subjects and showed less acute side effects compared with the reference product that may be explained by a lower induction of inflammation.

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.

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.

Repeated Full-Face Aesthetic Combination Treatment With AbobotulinumtoxinA, Hyaluronic Acid Filler, and Skin-Boosting Hyaluronic Acid After Monotherapy With AbobotulinumtoxinA or Hyaluronic Acid Filler.

BACKGROUND: Full-face aesthetic treatment involving several treatment modalities may improve facial aesthetic outcome. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical outcomes and patient perceptions of monotherapy with either abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) or hyaluronic acid (HA) filler followed by full-face combination treatments of ABO, HA filler, and skin-boosting HA (RSB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects aged 35 to 50 years were randomized to monotherapy with 50 s.U ABO in the glabella or ≤1 mL HA filler in the nasolabial folds (NLFs)/cheeks. At Month 6 and Month 12, all subjects received combination treatment with ≤50 s.U ABO in the glabella, ≤2 mL HA filler in the NLFs/cheeks (and other facial areas as applicable), and ≤1 mL RSB (additional RSB treatment at Month 7). Assessments included global facial aesthetic appearance and improvement, first impression, perceived age, wrinkle severity, satisfaction questionnaires, and adverse events. RESULTS: Repeated full-face combination treatment with ABO, HA filler, and RSB was associated with considerably higher levels of aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction than monotherapy with ABO or HA filler. Improvement rate of glabellar lines was increasing with each treatment. CONCLUSION: Repeated combination treatment achieved greater change in global facial aesthetic appearance than monotherapy. Aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction was high and increased with each treatment. All treatments were well tolerated.

Effective and Safe Repeated Full-Face Treatments With AbobotulinumtoxinA, Hyaluronic Acid Filler, and Skin Boosting Hyaluronic Acid

Background: It is important to study full-face aesthetic combination treatments to establish well-founded individual treatment plans. Objective: To evaluate clinical outcome and perception of treatment with either abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) or hyaluronic acid (HA) filler followed by repeated combined treatment with ABO, HA filler, and Restylane® Skinboosters (RSB). Methods & Materials: This study was conducted at four sites in Sweden, France, and Brazil and included subjects aged 35-50 years with mild/moderate nasolabial folds and moderate/severe upper facial lines. Monotherapy was ≤125 s.U ABO in at least two upper facial indications with optional touch-up or ≤1 mL HA filler in nasolabial folds/cheeks. At months 6 and 12, both cohorts received ≤125 s.U. ABO in upper facial lines with optional touch-up, ≤2 mL HA filler in nasolabial folds/cheeks (and other facial areas as applicable), and ≤1 mL RSB. Assessments included global facial aesthetic appearance and improvement, first impression, perceived age, wrinkle severity, satisfaction questionnaires, and adverse events. Results: Repeated full-face treatment with ABO, HA filler, and RSB was associated with better aesthetic outcome and higher levels of satisfaction than treatment with ABO or HA filler alone. However, even modest volumes of HA filler achieved good aesthetic outcomes and high satisfaction. Treatment of several indications was well tolerated. Conclusion: Aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction was high and increased with each treatment. All treatments were well tolerated. These data may be used as support when establishing individual treatment plans. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18(7):682-689.

Efficacy, Safety, and Subject Satisfaction After AbobotulinumtoxinA Treatment of Upper Facial Lines.

BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxins are the treatment of choice for wrinkles in the upper third of the face. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and subject satisfaction of abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) for treatment of upper facial lines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects aged 35 to 50 years with moderate-to-severe upper facial lines were included in this study. Subjects received a maximum of 125 s.U. ABO in at least 2 indications with optional touch-up after 2 weeks. Assessments included wrinkle severity, global aesthetic improvement, subject satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs) 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. RESULTS: At Month 1, 100, 94, and 93% of subjects were responders in dynamic glabellar, lateral canthal, and forehead lines, respectively. All subjects were improved 1 month after treatment, and the majority of the subjects were still improved after 6 months. After treatment, most subjects were satisfied with the appearance of their face, felt better about themselves, and agreed that the treatment made them look the way they feel. Seven subjects (22%) had 8 ABO-related AEs (mild-moderate); headache was most commonly reported (9%). CONCLUSION: AbobotulinumtoxinA effectively treated upper facial lines, with high patient satisfaction. Treatment was generally well-tolerated.

Efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA for treating crow's feet lines alone or in combination with glabellar lines: a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: This was the second study in a Phase 3 program treating crow's feet lines (CFL) with onabotulinumtoxinA. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA treatment of CFL alone or with glabellar lines (GL). METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, repeat treatment, 7-month study randomized subjects with moderate-to-severe CFL and GL (maximum contraction) to onabotulinumtoxinA 44 U (CFL: 24 U, GL: 20 U; n = 305), onabotulinumtoxinA 24 U (CFL: 24 U, GL: placebo; n = 306), or placebo (n = 306). Coprimary end points were investigator-assessed and subject-assessed proportion of subjects achieving a CFL Facial Wrinkle Scale Grade of 0 or 1 (maximum smile; Day 30, Cycle 1). Additional efficacy end points and safety/adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. RESULTS: All primary and secondary end points were achieved; statistically significant differences favored onabotulinumtoxinA (p < .001, all comparisons vs placebo). Investigator and subject responder rates were: CFL, 54.9% and 45.8%; CFL + GL, 59.0% and 48.5%; and placebo, 3.3% (both), respectively. Responder rates on other end points also significantly favored onabotulinumtoxinA treatments. Most AEs were mild or moderate. Two subjects discontinued: 1 serious AE unrelated to treatment (myocardial infarction) and 1 treatment-related AE (injection site pain). CONCLUSION: OnabotulinumtoxinA was effective and well tolerated for treating moderate-to-severe CFL alone or in combination with GL.