Efficacy and Safety of Two Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Fillers in the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Nasolabial Folds: A 64-Week, Prospective, Multicenter, Controlled, Randomized, Double-Blinded, and Within-Subject Study

Effectiveness and Safety of Resilient Hyaluronic Acid (RHA) Dermal Fillers for the Correction of Moderate-to-Severe Nasolabial Folds in People of Color: Post Hoc Subgroup Analyses of US Pivotal Clinical Data

BACKGROUND

People of color (POC) are often underrepresented in clinical studies evaluating the safety and effectiveness of aesthetic products, including hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers, for which there is to date limited clinical data in POC.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the safety and effectiveness of a new line of dynamic resilient HA fillers (RHA; Revance, Nashville, TN) for treating moderate-to-severe nasolabial folds (NLFs) in POC vs non-POC.

METHODS

Post hoc subgroup analyses compared the efficacy and safety of POC vs non-POC subjects treated with RHA2, RHA3, or RHA4 for correction of moderate-to-severe NLFs in the pooled per-protocol population (N = 217) in 2 clinical trials. Evaluated population cohorts were classified by Fitzpatrick skin type (FST) (high FST [IV-VI] vs low FST [I-III]) and by subject-reported race (non-White vs White) relative to baseline at 6, 9, 12, and 15 months.

RESULTS

POC consistently showed greater improvement in wrinkle severity and higher responder rates compared with non-POC, which reached statistical significance at several measured time points. Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale scores and subject satisfaction ratings were similar for POC and non-POC and remained high throughout the course of the study. Treatment-related adverse event rates were generally lower for high FSTs vs low FSTs, with no reported cases of keloidal scarring.

CONCLUSION

The RHA line of dynamic fillers is well tolerated and effective for the correction of moderate-to-severe NLFs in POC and can be confidently used in this important and growing patient population.See the abstract translated into Hindi, Portuguese, Korean, German, Italian, Arabic, Chinese, and Taiwanese online here: https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjad251.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Adverse Events Associated with Hyaluronic Acid Filler Injection for Non-surgical Facial Aesthetics: A Systematic Review of High Level of Evidence Studies

BACKGROUND

Hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal fillers are widely used in aesthetic medicine. While generally safe, potential complications can arise.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to identify and classify potential complications linked to the use of HA dermal fillers, as informed by high-quality, low-risk-of-bias studies.

METHODS

This review follows the Cochrane review standards for clinical systematic reviews. This systematic review analyzed 48 high level of evidence studies on the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal fillers in non-surgical facial aesthetics and the adverse events that occurred.The inclusion criteria were randomized control studies on HA dermal fillers and their complications. Excluded were case reports, case series, observational studies, and other non-randomized research due to their inability to provide generalized conclusions and their inherent publication bias.

RESULTS

Adverse events were classified into three categories: expected reactions, product or technique-related adverse events, and severe adverse events. Most adverse events were short-lived injection site reactions, which resolved spontaneously. Specific HA fillers and injection techniques influenced the occurrence of adverse events, which generally resolved within weeks without treatment. Severe adverse events were rare, persisting for months and requiring active medical intervention.

DISCUSSION

This classification system can enhance understanding, prevention, and treatment of HA filler complications, and support patient education. The common complications were injection site reactions, with persistent symptoms treated with topical steroids, NSAIDs, or hyaluronidase. Severe complications included severe edema, angioedema and others, often necessitating specific treatments.

CONCLUSION

HA dermal fillers are generally safe and effective, with most adverse events being transient and mild to moderate in severity. Severe adverse events, although rare, do occur and are generally non-treatment related. Informed consent, patient education, and professional training are crucial for safe and successful outcomes. Level of Evidence II This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Best Practices for FACE-Q Aesthetics Research: A Systematic Review of Study Methodology

BACKGROUND

The FACE-Q Aesthetics module is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that evaluates perspectives on facial aesthetic treatments. Improper administration and poor study methodology can compromise the validity and interpretation of this PROM.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review sought to evaluate the administration and scoring of the FACE-Q Aesthetics scales within the literature.

METHODS

A search of Ovid Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science was performed on December 20, 2022, with the assistance of a health-research librarian (CRD42022383676). Studies that examined facial aesthetic interventions using the FACE-Q Aesthetics module as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included for analysis.

RESULTS

There were 114 studies included. The Face Overall (n = 52, 45.6%), Psychological (n = 45, 39.4%), and Social (n = 43, 37.7%) scales were most frequently reported. Errors in FACE-Q administration were identified in 30 (26.3%) studies. The most common error was the presentation of raw ordinal scores rather than the converted Q score (n = 23). Most studies reported a time horizon for their primary analysis (n = 76, 66.7%); however, only 4 studies provided a rationale for this selection. Sample size calculations for the primary outcome were rarely performed (n = 9, 7.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

There continues to be limitations in PROM administration and the quality of articles that report FACE-Q Aesthetic scale data. The authors suggest that future investigators using the FACE-Q refer to the User's Guide regarding administration and scoring of this scale, report a rationale for the study time horizon, and provide an a priori sample size calculation for the primary outcome of interest.

Adverse Events Reported From Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Filler Injections to the Facial Region: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Dermal filler injections are one of the most popular cosmetic procedures in the United States. Of the many options available, hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal fillers like Juvederm or Restylane are often used. Despite their use and popularity, adverse events are known to occur from these procedures. Although most outcomes may be mild and resolve over time, rare instances of severe complications cannot be ignored, as these effects may be irreversible. Healthcare practitioners and patients must be aware of these risks, as these cosmetic procedures can affect the patient's quality of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of adverse events (AEs) reported from the use of hyaluronic acid dermal fillers in the facial region. A systemized search of randomized controlled trials was conducted using Cochrane Central, Embase, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), and the Web of Science databases. After screening for eligibility and conducting a critical appraisal of the articles, 19 studies were retained for the final review. The meta-analysis results included different side effects by facial location, i.e., nasolabial fold (NLF) vs. other (midface, perioral line, and lip region). The midface includes the anteromedial cheek region, the zygomaticomalar region, and the submalar region. The adverse events were swelling, pain, erythema, bruising, lumps and bumps, firmness, tenderness, itching, and skin discoloration. A significant difference was found in the proportion of individuals experiencing swelling, lumps or bumps, and firmness at the nasolabial fold site versus the midface, perioral line, and lip region. There was no significant difference in the proportion of individuals experiencing pain, erythema, bruising, tenderness, itching, or skin discoloration at the nasolabial fold site versus the other sites. The study highlights the prevalence of common AEs that can result from HA dermal fillers like Juvederm or Restylane, thus emphasizing the importance of healthcare professionals explaining the risk and benefits to patients.

Efficacy and Safety of Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Fillers Injected with a Cannula: A Randomized, Evaluator-Blinded, Split-Face Controlled Study

Purpose

Cannulas are increasingly used for injecting hyaluronic acid fillers, as they are thought to improve patient comfort safety and treatment tolerability. This study aimed to demonstrate the non-inferiority of a Resilient Hyaluronic Acid 4 (RHA 4) filler injected with a cannula versus a needle for the treatment of moderate to severe nasolabial folds (NLF).

Patients and Methods

A total of 50 subjects were included in a randomized, evaluator-blinded, split-face trial. The NLF were injected with RHA 4 using a cannula on one side of the face and using a needle on the other side on Day 0. A touch-up could be performed 4 weeks later. The subjects were followed up for 12 weeks after the last injection, ie, injection on Day 0 or touch-up. Efficacy was evaluated using a Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS), the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), and patient-reported outcomes. Safety assessments included the injection-site pain, common treatment reactions (CTRs), and adverse events (AEs).

Results

Twelve weeks after the last injection, the efficacy of the cannula treatment was found to be non-inferior to that of the needle treatment, based on the WSRS score improvements. The other study endpoints showed the equivalent efficacy and safety of the two methods. No serious or unexpected AEs were reported.

Conclusion

RHA 4 may be effectively and safely injected into the NLF using a cannula or a needle, provided it is administrated by a trained practitioner.

The Use of the FACE-Q Aesthetic: A Narrative Review

INTRODUCTION

In the past decade there has been an increasing interest in the field of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) which are now commonly used alongside traditional outcome measures, such as morbidity and mortality. Since the FACE-Q Aesthetic development in 2010, it has been widely used in clinical practice and research, measuring the quality of life and patient satisfaction. It quantifies the impact and change across different aspects of cosmetic facial surgery and minimally invasive treatments. We review how researchers have utilized the FACE-Q Aesthetic module to date, and aim to understand better whether and how it has enhanced our understanding and practice of aesthetic facial procedures.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the literature. Publications that used the FACE-Q Aesthetic module to evaluate patient outcomes were included. Publications about the development of PROMs or modifications of the FACE-Q Aesthetic, translation or validation studies of the FACE-Q Aesthetic scales, papers not published in English, reviews, comments/discussions, or letters to the editor were excluded.

RESULTS

Our search produced 1189 different articles; 70 remained after applying in- and exclusion criteria. Significant findings and associations were further explored. The need for evidence-based patient-reported outcome caused a growing uptake of the FACE-Q Aesthetic in cosmetic surgery and dermatology an increasing amount of evidence concerning facelift surgery, botulinum toxin, rhinoplasty, soft tissue fillers, scar treatments, and experimental areas.

DISCUSSION

The FACE-Q Aesthetic has been used to contribute substantial evidence about the outcome from the patient perspective in cosmetic facial surgery and minimally invasive treatments. The FACE-Q Aesthetic holds great potential to improve quality of care and may fundamentally change the way we measure success in plastic surgery and dermatology.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Patient Comfort, Safety, and Effectiveness of Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Fillers Formulated With Different Local Anesthetics

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text.

Maximizing patient comfort during hyaluronic acid gel injection is a common concern that is usually addressed by selecting fillers with lidocaine.

Comparative Preclinical Study of Lidocaine and Mepivacaine in Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Fillers

Background: Hyaluronic acid-based filler injections are now well-established aesthetic procedures for the correction of skin tissue defects and volume loss. Filler injections are becoming increasingly popular, with a growing number of injections performed each year. Although classified as a minimally invasive procedure, the introduction of a needle or a canula may remain painful for the patient. A major improvement was achieved with the incorporation of local anesthetics into the formulation for pain relief. Methods: In this study, two well-known anesthetics, lidocaine and mepivacaine, were systematically compared to assess their influence on filler mechanical and biological features. The impact of each anesthetic was monitored in terms of gel rheological properties, stability, durability, and degradation. The release profiles of each anesthetic were also recorded. Finally, the pharmacokinetics of each anesthetic in rats were assessed. Results: For all the rheological and biological experiments performed, lidocaine and mepivacaine influences were comparable. The addition of either anesthetic into a soft-tissue filler showed no significant modifications of the stability, durability, and degradability of the gel, with similar release profiles and pharmacokinetics at an equivalent concentration. Conclusions: Substituting lidocaine with mepivacaine does not impact the properties of the gels, and thus both can be equally incorporated as anesthetics in soft-tissue fillers.

Rheologic and Physicochemical Characteristics of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers: Overview and Relationship to Product Performance

Injections with hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers for facial rejuvenation and soft-tissue augmentation are among the most popular aesthetic procedures worldwide. Many HA fillers are available with unique manufacturing processes and distinct in vitro physicochemical and rheologic properties, which result in important differences in the fillers' clinical performance. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the properties most widely used to characterize HA fillers and to report their rheologic and physicochemical values obtained using standardized methodology to allow scientifically based comparisons. Understanding rheologic and physicochemical properties will guide clinicians in aligning HA characteristics to the facial area being treated for optimal clinical performance.

Postmarket Safety Surveillance of Delayed Complications for Recent FDA-Approved Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Fillers

OBJECTIVE

To review postmarketing data for delayed (≥14 days post-treatment) adverse events (AEs) of interest (inflammatory and noninflammatory nodules, hypersensitivity, granulomas) for newer hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers FDA-approved within the last 5 years (2016-2020).

METHODS

Reports from the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database were extracted for HAREF, HADEF, HAKYS, HAVER, HAVLR, HAVOB, HARH2, HARH3, and HARH4 from January 2016 to January 2021. Keywords from event narratives were used to identify and categorize AEs and then verified through inclusion/exclusion criteria. Percentages are based on the total combined events of interest to provide an overall perspective of the events reported during the search period.

RESULTS

Of 585 MAUDE reports, there were 195 (33.3%) delayed AEs of interest. Of those, 71.8% were nodules (42.1% inflammatory and 29.7% noninflammatory), 21.5% hypersensitivity, and 6.7% granulomas. The combined total events of interest, ordered by frequency reported, were HAVLR (74.4%), HAVOB (12.3%), HADEF (5.1%), HARH4 (3.6%), HAREF (2.6%), and HARH2 (2.1%), with no reports for HARH3, HAVER, and HAKYS.

CONCLUSION

Although delayed nodules and inflammatory events are rare, reports for these events were extracted from the MAUDE database from 2016 to 2020 for HAVLR, HAVOB, HADEF, HARH4, HAREF, and HARH2 (most to least frequent).

Efficacy and safety of two hyaluronic acid fillers with different injection depths for the correction of moderate-to-severe nasolabial folds: A 52-week, prospective, randomized, double-blinded study in a Chinese population

BACKGROUND

Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are known to be effective for the correction of facial wrinkles and folds, but there is no clinical study that compares the efficacy of small-to-medium-particle HA fillers and large-particle HA fillers for the correction of nasolabial folds (NLFs). Moreover, injection depth also plays an important role in the correction of NLFs as well as improvement of facial aesthetics.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy, safety, and durability of a small-to-medium-particle HA filler, Restylane, and a large-particle HA filler, Yishumei, as well as the effect of injection depth in the correction of moderate-to-severe NLFs and facial aesthetics in a Chinese population.

METHODS

This 52-week, prospective, randomized, double-blind study enrolled 100 participants with moderate-to-severe NLFs. The participants were randomized to receive either Restylane (Group A) or Yishumei (Group B). Group A and Group B were further randomly divided into a superficial injection group (Group A1 & B1) and a deep injection group (Group A2&B2) according to injection depth. Improvement in the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) score and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) and participants' satisfaction were evaluated as endpoints. All adverse events were monitored throughout the study.

RESULTS

The treatments were well tolerated by all the participants. All four groups showed a reduction in their mean WSRS scores and GAIS scores by week 12. At week 24, the WSRS and GAIS scores did not change in Group A1 and A2, while participants in Group B1 and Group B2 had higher WSRS and GAIS scores than those in the previous weeks. By week 52, the WSRS scores in all the groups returned to almost baseline levels. The mean FACE-Q scores increased compared with the baseline scores in all groups through week 24. Most participants were satisfied with their treatment, and no meaningful differences were found between the fillers in terms of participant satisfaction. The most common adverse events were swelling, redness, and tenderness at the injection site, but they resolved spontaneously without treatment.

CONCLUSION

The two HA fillers had good therapeutic effect on NLFs in the early stage of treatment, but Restylane had a more prolonged effect. Moreover, compared with the superficial injection, the deep injection provided slight midface lifting and improved facial aesthetics.

Efficacy and Safety of a New Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Filler in the Correction of Moderate-to-Severe Dynamic Perioral Rhytides: A 52-Week Prospective, Multicenter, Controlled, Randomized, Evaluator-Blinded Study

BACKGROUND

The perioral region is highly mobile and subject to multifactorial changes during aging. Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Redensity (RHAR), an RHA filler, was developed with the aim of optimizing outcomes in dynamic facial areas.

OBJECTIVE

This randomized, blinded, multicenter clinical study aimed to demonstrate superiority of RHAR over no-treatment control for correction of moderate-to-severe dynamic perioral rhytides.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Blinded live evaluator assessments of efficacy included improvement in perioral rhytides severity using a proprietary scale (Perioral Rhytids Severity Rating Scale [PR-SRS]) and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. Subjects self-assessed their results with FACE-Q, a validated patient-reported outcome measure, and satisfaction scales. Safety was monitored throughout the study based on common treatment responses (CTRs) and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

The primary efficacy end point was achieved, with the treatment group showing statistically significant superiority over the control group at Week 8 (80.7% vs 7.8% responder rate by PR-SRS, p < .0001). Most patients (66%) were still responders at Week 52 (study completion). Most AEs were CTRs after perioral injection of a dermal filler, and none was a clinically significant treatment-related AE.

CONCLUSION

Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Redensity is effective and safe for the correction of dynamic perioral rhytides in all Fitzpatrick phototypes, with marked durability.

Injection techniques for midface volumization using soft tissue hyaluronic acid fillers designed for dynamic facial movement

Volume loss of the face occurs over time; thus, volume enhancement of the midface can counteract the effects of aging. Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are often used for facial revolumization for a more youthful appearance due to their favorable outcomes and safety profiles. A patient‐centric approach, in which dynamic facial expressions are considered, is needed for optimal aesthetic results. In addition, injectors must be familiar with midface anatomy, how it is affected by the aging process, and must also consider the rheological and physical properties of fillers, including their stretch and dynamic strength.

In this article, optimal injection techniques are described for a new range of HA‐based fillers for midface revolumization using a needle, cannula, or both. The layering technique involves product placement in both the deep and superficial fat compartments to achieve natural‐looking outcomes at rest and during motion.

The Resilient Hyaluronic Acid (RHA^®) line of fillers was designed to maintain their durability and integrity while adapting to the dynamic movements of the face. RHA 2 is applicable for superficial placement, whereas the balanced stretch and dynamic strength of RHA 3 render it more versatile. The novel rheological properties of RHA 4, with the highest dynamic strength and sufficient stretch, allow it to be injected superficially and into deep facial compartments.

Depending on patient characteristics, the appropriate RHA filler can be chosen to reach the goal of a natural, younger appearance and avoid overfilling.

A Prospective, Observational Registry Study to Evaluate Effectiveness and Safety of Hyaluronic Acid-Based Dermal Fillers in Routine Practice: Interim Analysis Results with One Year of Subject Follow-Up

Background

Monitoring the effectiveness, safety and emerging uses of hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers in their wide range of indications requires a holistic approach.

Purpose

To propose an observational study design aiming to gather real-world evidence (RWE) and continuously evaluate the performance and safety of marketed devices in routine practice.

Materials and Methods

A prospective, observational registry was initiated at six European sites. Investigators enrolled any subject receiving at least one injection with a target study device (TEOSYAL Deep Lines [HA_DL] and/or Global Action [HA_GA]). They followed their routine practice regarding injection technique, volume, and subject follow-up. Effectiveness was evaluated at 3 months using the global aesthetic improvement scale (GAIS). Safety was assessed based on common treatment reactions (CTR) and adverse events (AE).

Results

High quantity of RWE was collected following the initiation of this registry. In the first 158 subjects enrolled, 1220 injections were performed in more than 25 indications, including 679 with the target devices and 271 with devices of the same filler line. The primary objective was achieved, with 93.9% of treatments providing improvement at Month 3 according to the PI and subject. Post-injection CTR were mild to moderate and short-lived, and there was no clinically significant AE. More than 76% of treatments still provided some visible effect at month 12.

Conclusion

Based on RWE, HA_DL and HA_GL are effective and safe in their respective indications mostly distributed in the midface, perioral region, and lower face. Observational registries are a valuable asset in the context of post-market clinical follow-up.