Long-Term Efficacy and Tolerability of a Medium G' HA Filler with Tri-Hyal Technology on the Rejuvenation of the Mobile Facial Zone.

Purpose: Injectable hyaluronic acid-based fillers are commonly used for the correction of skin contour irregularities and to smooth skin depressions formed by volume loss during the aging process. These fillers are particularly efficient to restore perioral skin depressions/wrinkles or to correct topographical anomalies. The European directives require a continuous evaluation of the performance of these medical devices, particularly for CE marked products. Methods: An 18-month prospective randomized single-blind study for the efficacy and safety of ART FILLER Universal (AFU) was performed on the lips, the nasolabial folds, and the marionettes lines. The evaluations were performed on 153 subjects enrolled in this study. The efficacy, the longevity, and the safety were evaluated for the injected areas via area specific clinical scoring after a single injection with the filler and with no re-touch. Results: We showed here that filler injection induced potent improvements of volume restoration after a single injection on all the treated areas. These beneficial properties of the filler were significant 3 weeks after injection and during the whole study period. Moreover, injections of the filler were well tolerated by the subjects. The recorded adverse events are routinely seen with HA fillers for face volume corrections, and most of these local reactions resolved within 14 days. Conclusion: AFU was well tolerated and showed a continuous efficacy for at least 18 months, in exploratory analyses.

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.

A prospective multicenter clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of a hyaluronic acid-based filler with Tri-Hyal technology in the treatment of lips and the perioral area.

BACKGROUND: Age-related changes of facial soft tissue cause clinical signs of facial aging such as lip atrophy, marionette lines, and an accentuated nasolabial fold. These changes can be modified using dermal fillers. AIMS: To evaluate efficacy, longevity, and safety of a cross-linked hyaluronic acid-based filler with Tri-Hyal technology in the treatment of lips, nasolabial folds, and marionette lines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective, multi-center trial evaluated injections of three different areas (lips, nasolabial fold alone, or with marionette wrinkles) with a soft tissue filler containing 25 mg/ml cross-linked hyaluronic acid and 0.3% lidocaine. Primary endpoint was the aesthetic correction 3 weeks after one injection session without touch-up. Follow-up was 18 months. Assessments were performed using the Global Aesthetic Score (GAS), clinical scoring based on photographic scales, high-frequency ultrasound imaging, and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). RESULTS: In total, 100 subjects were injected. GAS improved significantly for all treatment indications at 3 weeks (p < 0.0001). Success rates were highest for nasolabial folds (98.4%), followed by marionette lines (94.4%) and lips (73.5%). After 18 months post-injection, success was observed in 91%, 88%, and 33% of subjects injected into nasolabial folds, marionette lines, and lips, respectively. GAIS scored highest for nasolabial folds (SGAIS: 71%; IGAIS: 40%), followed by marionette lines (SGAIS: 56%; IGAIS: 33%) and lips (SGAIS: 30%; IGAIS: 22%) at 18 months follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The filler demonstrated high efficacy and safety in all indications. Regional differences in longevity were evident. Thus, the necessity of regional retreatments should be discussed with patients before injection.

Objective 18-month Comparison of the Tolerability of 2 Dermal Fillers Formulated with Tri-Hyal Technology.

The first phase of this study showed that ART FILLER Universal filler (AFU; FILORGA Laboratories) and ART FILLER Fine lines (AFFL) were non-inferior to JUVÉDERM Ultra 3 (Allergan) and FIRST LINES PureSense (Teoxane), respectively. The clinical benefits of AFU and AFFL on nasolabial folds and crow's feet persisted until at least Day 180. This article reports results from an open-label extension phase that assessed the tolerability and efficacy of AFU and AFFL for up to 18 months based on clinical evaluation and ultrasound high-frequency imaging. METHODS: Eligible subjects were enrolled at D180 and assessed on D270, D360, and D540. The primary outcome measured was local tolerability. Secondary outcomes measured included: proportion of subjects in whom the severity of nasolabial folds and crow's feet remained at least 1 point below the baseline measurement (Lemperle scale); general safety; Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale scores by subjects and investigators; wrinkle volumes; and skin thickness by high-frequency ultrasound. RESULTS: Adverse events were consistent with the product information and the initial study. No serious adverse events were recorded. In exploratory analyses, wrinkle correction with AFU and AFFL is sustained for at least 18 months: 48.4% and 98.3% of subjects respectively still showed at least a 1-point decrease in the mean Lemperle score compared with the baseline. The benefits were sustained irrespective of whether subjects received additional injections. Modifications in wrinkle volume and skin thickness at D540 were statistically significant compared with the baseline. CONCLUSION: AFU and AFFL were well tolerated and, in exploratory analyses, showed a sustained efficacy for at least 18 months.

Prospective, Split-Face, Randomized, Long-Term Blinded Objective Comparison of the Performance and Tolerability of Two New Hyaluronic Acid Fillers.

BACKGROUND: There are requirements for long-term, objective comparisons of hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal fillers. OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy and tolerability of ART FILLER Universal (AFU) and ART FILLER Fine lines (AFFL) with the existing HA fillers for the treatment of nasolabial folds and crow's feet. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective, randomized, rater- and patient-blind, split-face comparison of AFU with JUVEDERM Ultra 3 (JUV) and AFFL with FIRST LINES PureSense (FLPS). The severity of nasolabial folds and crow's feet was assessed by independent blinded evaluators using the Lemperle scale at baseline, day (D) 30/D45, D90, and D180. Tolerability, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), wrinkle volumes, and skin thickness and density were also measured at D30/D45, D90, and D180. RESULTS: At D30 and D180 respectively, 61 and 57 patients were assessed. Scores for nasolabial folds and crow's feet showed statistically significant improvements at D30, D90, and D180. AFU and AFFL were noninferior to JUV and FLPS, respectively. Most patients showed GAIS improvements, maintained until at least D180 and significant increases of collagen synthesis in crow's feet and nasolabial folds. Treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: AFU and AFFL are noninferior to comparators. The methodology used represents a novel approach to augment existing clinical assessment of HA fillers.