Longevity of effects of hyaluronic acid plus lidocaine facial filler

Using New Autologous Tissue Filler Improved Nasolabial Folds-Single-Armed Pilot Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of the new autologous tissue filler derived from autologous skin and hairs for correction of nasolabial folds.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The new injectable soft tissue filler is prepared from autologous fibroblasts and keratin gel. A total of 40 patients were enrolled in this single-armed pilot study, all of them received the new filler injection treatment for correction nasolabial folds. Following up with the patients, collection of their clinical features, including photographs, satisfaction, and information on adverse events at the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 12th, and 24th months after injection. The clinical efficacy of each patient was evaluated by masked evaluators and independent expert panels, based on the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) at different time points after the injection.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients completed the 24-months follow-up, obtaining at least 93.8% improvement, and 75% of them had significantly improved. Base on the self-satisfaction assessment (SSA) indicated that all of them were satisfied with the results. No adverse effects of filler injection treatment were observed during the follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of autologous keratin and fibroblasts as a new tissue engineering soft tissue filler has shown safety and long-term efficiency in correcting nasolabial folds, with high satisfaction and desirable result.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV

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 .

Monophasic versus biphasic hyaluronic acid filler for correcting nasolabial folds: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are the most popular dermal fillers for wrinkle correction and facial rejuvenation. Recently, there has been an interest toward classifying HA fillers based on the cross-linking properties into monophasic (MHA) and biphasic (BHA) fillers. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes between MHA and BHA fillers for the correction of nasolabial folds (NLFs).

METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared MHA filler to BHA filler for individuals with moderate-to-severe bilateral NLFs. We sought to evaluate the following outcomes: Wrinkle severity rating scale (WSRS), pain on visual analog scale (VAS), global aesthetic improvement scale (GAIS), and adverse events. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to represent continuous outcomes while risk ratio (RR) was used to represent dichotomous outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 11 RCTs that enrolled 935 participants deemed eligible. MHA filler revealed a significant improvement in the overall WSRS score and GAIS score compared to BHA filler (SMD = -0.38, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.27 and SMD = 0.34, 95% CI 0.24-0.45, respectively). No significant difference was noted between MHA and BHA fillers in terms of pain score or adverse events (SMD = -0.39, 95% CI -0.81-0.03 and RR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.89-1.12, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

MHA filler showed discernable cosmetic results and comparable effective and tolerability to BHA filler.

Evaluation of Lidocaine and Metabolite Pharmacokinetics in Hyaluronic Acid Injection

Lidocaine-incorporated hyaluronic acid injection (LHA) is considered a promising way to increase patient compliance. Various reviews and analyses have been conducted to verify that the addition of lidocaine had no effect on the product quality of hyaluronic acid injections. However, possible pharmacokinetic (PK) alterations of lidocaine and its active metabolites, monoethylglycylxylidide (MEGX) and glycylxylidide (GX), in hyaluronic acid injection have not been studied so far. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate lidocaine and its metabolite PK after 0.3% lidocaine solution or LHA injection and to investigate any changes in PK profiles of lidocaine and its active metabolites. To do this, a novel bio-analytical method for simultaneous determination of lidocaine, MEGX, and GX in rat plasma was developed and validated. Then, plasma concentrations of lidocaine and its active metabolites MEGX and GX following subcutaneous (SC) injection of 0.3% lidocaine solution or LHA with 0.3–1% lidocaine in male Sprague-Dawley rats were successfully determined. The obtained data were used to develop a parent-metabolite pharmacokinetic (PK) model for LHA injection. The half-life, dose-normalized C_max, and AUC_inf of lidocaine after SC injection of lidocaine solution and LHA did not show statistically significant difference. The PK characteristics of lidocaine after LHA administration were best captured using a two-compartment model with combined first-order and transit absorption and its clearance described with Michaelis–Menten and first-order elimination kinetics. Two one-compartment models were consecutively added to the parent model for the metabolites. In conclusion, the incorporation of lidocaine in hyaluronic acid filler injection did not alter the chemical’s pharmacokinetic characteristics.

A prospective, open label, multicenter, postmarket study evaluating Princess VOLUME Lidocaine for the correction of nasolabial folds

The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and performance of Princess VOLUME Lidocaine in nasolabial fold correction. In this prospective, open label, multicenter, postmarket study subjects received injections of Princess VOLUME Lidocaine into both NLF at Baseline (Day 0) and if considered necessary by the investigator, at Week 2 (touch-up treatment). This study was conducted in Austria at the Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Medical University of Graz, at the medical aesthetic center MÄZ WIEN, and at the medical aesthetic center Ordination Dr. Bartsch, Vienna. The 62 mainly female (95.2%) subjects had a median age of 52 years with two fully visible, approximately symmetrical NLFs, each scoring grade 2 or 3 on the nasolabial fold severity rating scale (NLF-SRS) developed by Croma-Pharma. The nasolabial fold severity was assessed by NLF-SRS and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) 4, 24, and 36 weeks later. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded throughout the investigation. With 95.1% of subjects showing an improvement of at least 1 grade of the NLF-SRS at 24 weeks after the treatment, the primary endpoint was achieved, and clinical performance was demonstrated. Princess VOLUME Lidocaine was well tolerated, with only mild AEs, mainly injection site reactions, reported. Subject satisfaction (≥93.5%) and GAIS scores (≥93.5% improvement) were high. Princess VOLUME Lidocaine was effective in reducing NLFs as shown by an improvement in the severity of NLFs by at least one grade in 95.1% of subjects at Weeks 4 and 24.

Safety and Effectiveness of VYC-17.5L for Long-Term Correction of Nasolabial Folds

BACKGROUND

Juvéderm Vollure XC (VYC-17.5L; Allergan plc, Dublin, Ireland) belongs to a family of hyaluronic acid gels based on the Vycross technology platform.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Vollure for correction of moderate to severe nasolabial folds (NLFs) over 18 months and after repeat treatment.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized study, patients (N = 123) received initial/touch-up treatment with Vollure in 1 NLF and control filler in the contralateral NLF. Patients received optional repeat treatment with Vollure after month 12, 15, or 18. Assessments included investigator-rated NLF Severity Scale responder rates (≥1-point improvement vs baseline), patient-assessed Appraisal of Nasolabial Folds scale of the FACE-Q questionnaire, and patient satisfaction (11-point scale).

RESULTS

Median volume of Vollure injected was 1.7 mL for initial/touch-up treatment combined and 0.6 mL for repeat treatment. The NLF Severity Scale responder rates were 93%, 85%, and 59% at months 6, 9, and 18 after initial/touch-up treatment and increased to 94% at 1 month after repeat treatment. Mean patient-reported FACE-Q scores significantly improved from baseline at all timepoints. Most patients were very satisfied with treatment at all timepoints from day 3 (75%) through month 18 (68%) and at 1 month after repeat treatment (94%). Common injection site responses after initial/touch-up and repeat treatment were firmness, swelling, and tenderness to touch; most were mild/moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Vollure was safe and effective for correction of moderate to severe NLFs, with results lasting 18 months in 59% of NLFs. Repeat treatment required one-third of the injection volume to achieve similar improvement in NLF severity as initial/touch-up treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Nonsurgical Rhinoplasty: Nasal Grid Analysis and Nasal Injecting Protocol

BACKGROUND

Nonsurgical rhinoplasty using injectable fillers improved skin quality and texture, cost-effectiveness, and quick recovery. The aim of this study was to provide a valid and customized protocol for injecting the nose with the aid of a nasal grid.

METHODS

From January of 2016 to October of 2017, 150 consecutive patients entered the trial. The mean patient age was 36 years (range, 16 to 60 years). The patients were divided into two arms: primary nasal defects (no previous surgery, n = 109) and secondary nasal defects (previous surgery, n = 41). The primary defect group included 43 male patients and 66 female patients, and the secondary nasal defect group included 14 male patients and 27 female patients. Within each arm, patients were stratified into three age group tiers: younger than 30 years, 30 to 45 years, and older than 45 years.

RESULTS

The grid became the reference for quantity and sequence of injection records. The overall complication rate was 1.82 percent, and a visual analogue scale ranging from 1 to 10 was implemented (with 10 being the most accurate correction). Of the patients evaluated, 98.350 percent scored 8 to 10, 0.825 percent scored 6 to 8, and 0.825 percent scored below 6.

CONCLUSIONS

Fillers can be either alternatives or complementary to plastic surgery. Nonsurgical rhinoplasty, with its avoidance of general anesthesia, splints, swelling, and bruising, represents a distinct advantage, allowing the patient to return to work as quickly as the same or the next day.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, IV.

Safety and Effectiveness of Repeat Treatment With VYC-15L for Lip and Perioral Enhancement: Results From a Prospective Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

VYC-15L (Juvéderm Volbella XC) is a nonanimal crosslinked hyaluronic acid (HA) gel with lidocaine.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate safety and effectiveness of repeat treatment with VYC-15L administered 1 year after treatment for lip and perioral enhancement.

METHODS

In this prospective multicenter study, 124 subjects with minimal, mild, or moderate lip fullness on the validated 5-point Allergan Lip Fullness Scale (LFS) who received initial/touch-up treatment with VYC-15L received repeat treatment with VYC-15L 1 year after initial treatment. Effectiveness endpoints included LFS responder rates (≥1-point improvement from baseline) and scores on the FACE-Q Satisfaction With Lips and Appraisal of Lip Lines scales at 1 month after repeat treatment. Subjects completed safety diaries for 30 days after repeat treatment.

RESULTS

LFS responder rates were 86.2%, 80.3%, and 65.3% at months 1 and 3 and 1 year, respectively, after initial/touch-up treatment. The responder rate improved to 94.3% 1 month after repeat treatment with VYC-15L and required less median volume vs initial/touch-up treatment (1.5 vs 2.6 mL). FACE-Q scores doubled from baseline at 3 months, remained high through 1 year, and doubled from baseline after repeat treatment. At 1 month after repeat treatment, 96.7% and 89.3% of subjects showed improvement over baseline in FACE-Q Satisfaction With Lips and Appraisal of Lip Lines, respectively. Severe injection site responses were less frequent after repeat treatment than initial/touch-up treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat treatment with VYC-15L at 1 year was safe and effective for lip and perioral enhancement, and required less product volume to achieve similar effectiveness to initial/touch-up treatment.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4

Hyaluronic acid, a promising skin rejuvenating biomedicine: A review of recent updates and pre-clinical and clinical investigations on cosmetic and nutricosmetic effects

Hyaluronic acid (HA) plays multifaceted role in regulating the various biological processes such as skin repairmen, diagnosis of cancer, wound healing, tissue regeneration, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulation. Owing to its remarkable biomedical and tissue regeneration potential, HA has been numerously employed as one of the imperative components of the cosmetic and nutricosmetic products. The present review aims to summarize and critically appraise recent developments and clinical investigations on cosmetic and nutricosmetic efficacy of HA for skin rejuvenation. A thorough analysis of the literature revealed that HA based formulations (i.e., gels, creams, intra-dermal filler injections, dermal fillers, facial fillers, autologous fat gels, lotion, serum, and implants, etc.) exhibit remarkable anti-wrinkle, anti-nasolabial fold, anti-aging, space-filling, and face rejuvenating properties. This has been achieved via soft tissue augmentation, improved skin hydration, collagen and elastin stimulation, and face volume restoration. HA, alone or in combination with lidocaine and other co-agents, showed promising efficacy in skin tightness and elasticity, face rejuvenation, improving aesthetic scores, reducing the wrinkle scars, longevity, and tear trough rejuvenation. Our critical analysis evidenced that application/administration of HA exhibits outstanding nutricosmetic efficacy and thus is warranted to be used as a prime component of cosmetic products.

Effectiveness and Safety of Hyaluronic Acid Gel with Lidocaine for the Treatment of Nasolabial Folds: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hyaluronic acid (HA) gel is a widely used dermal filler for the correction facial volume loss. The incorporation of lidocaine with HA provides a pain-relieving alternative for individuals considering facial rejuvenation. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the effectiveness and safety of HA with lidocaine (HAL) with that of HA without lidocaine for the treatment of nasolabial folds (NLFs).

METHODS

Studies were identified using the electronic databases PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science from inception up to January 2018. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected based on the inclusion criteria. Outcomes included 100-mm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score, Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale score and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 908 patients from 12 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. VAS score within 30 min after injection in the HAL group was much lower than that with just HA group (MD = - 28.83, 95% CI - 36.38 to - 21.28). There was no significant difference in effectiveness between the two products 24 months post-injection (MD = 0.13, 95% CI - 0.15 to 0.41). The main adverse events, such as swelling, erythema, bruising, itching and induration, also showed no significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

HAL is more effective for pain relief than HA alone, but both display similar effectiveness and safety for the correction of NLFs.

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 .

Safety and Effectiveness of the Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Filler VYC-17.5L for Nasolabial Folds: Results of a Randomized, Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Juvéderm Vollure XC (VYC-17.5L) belongs to a family of nonanimal hyaluronic acid (HA) gels based on the Vycross technology platform.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of VYC-17.5L for correction of moderate to severe nasolabial folds (NLFs) compared with a control HA dermal filler.

METHODS

In this double-blind study, 123 adults with 2 moderate or severe NLFs as measured on the 5-point photonumeric NLF severity scale (NLFSS) were randomized to VYC-17.5L in 1 NLF and control in the contralateral NLF. The coprimary effectiveness end points at Month 6 were difference in improvement in mean NLFSS score for VYC-17.5L versus control and NLFSS responder rate (≥1-point improvement) for VYC-17.5L.

RESULTS

The coprimary effectiveness end points were met. NLFSS scores improved by 1.4 with VYC-17.5L and by 1.3 with control; NLFSS responder rate with VYC-17.5L was 93.2%. More than three-quarters of subjects (82%) treated with VYC-17.5L were very satisfied at Month 6. Investigators reported that VYC-17.5L was smoother and more natural looking and easier to inject and mold than control. VYC-17.5L resulted in significantly fewer severe injection site responses than control.

CONCLUSION

VYC-17.5L was safe and effective for correcting moderate to severe NLFs, with results lasting through 6 months in 93% of subjects.

The efficacy and safety of a monophasic hyaluronic acid filler in the correction of nasolabial folds: A randomized, multicenter, single blinded, split-face study

BACKGROUND

The different rheological properties of hyaluronic acid (HA) filler reflect their specific manufacturing processes and resultant physicochemical characteristics. However, there are few researches about the relationship between product differences and clinical outcome when HA fillers are used for nasolabial folds (NLFs).

AIMS

This study sought to compare the rheological properties, efficacy and safety of a monophasic HA filler, and a well-studied biphasic HA filler, in the treatment of NLFs.

PATIENTS/METHODS

A total of 72 Korean subjects with moderate to severe NLFs were randomized to receive injections with monophasic HA or biphasic HA on the left or right side of the face. Efficacy was evaluated by the change in the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) at 2, 10, 18, 26, and 52 weeks. Safety was assessed on the basis of all abnormal reactions during the clinical test period. To compare the rheological characteristics of two cross-linked HA fillers, viscoelastic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

At week 26, the mean WSRS was 2.26±0.56 for the monophasic HA side and 2.24±0.54 for the biphasic HA side. Both treatments were well tolerated. The adverse reactions were mild and transient. Monophasic HA filler had lower elasticity and higher viscosity than biphasic HA filler.

CONCLUSION

Despite a number of different rheological properties, monophasic HA is noninferior to biphasic HA in the treatment of moderate to severe NLFs for 52 weeks. Therefore, monophasic HA provides an alternative option for NLFs correction.

Clinical Application of Earlobe Augmentation with Hyaluronic Acid Filler in the Chinese Population

BACKGROUND

Larger earlobes, which are a symbol of "richness" in traditional Chinese culture, are favored by Chinese patients. The objective of this paper is to investigate the application of earlobe augmentation with hyaluronic acid (HA) filler injection and its clinical effects in the Chinese population.

METHODS

A total of 19 patients (38 ears) who received earlobe augmentation with HA filler injections between March 2013 and March 2015 were included. The clinical effects, duration, and complications of these cases were investigated.

RESULTS

All patients who received earlobe HA injections showed immediate postoperative effects with obvious morphological improvement of their earlobes. The volume of HA filler injected into each ear was 0.3-0.5 ml. The duration of the effect was 6-9 months. Two of the 19 cases (3 ears) demonstrated mild bruising at the injection site, but the bruising completely disappeared within 7 days after the injection. No vascular embolism, infection, nodule, or granuloma complications were observed in the studied group.

CONCLUSION

The application of earlobe augmentation with HA filler injection is a safe, effective, simple procedure for earlobe shaping. It has an easy clinical application with good clinical prospects.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

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 .

A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Lidocaine-Containing Monophasic Hyaluronic Acid Filler for Nasolabial Folds

BACKGROUND

Hyaluronic acid dermal fillers are most frequently used for unwanted wrinkles. Recently, lidocaine has been incorporated into hyaluronic acid fillers to reduce injection discomfort.

METHODS

A randomized, multicenter, double-blind, intraindividual trial was designed to compare a new lidocaine-containing monophasic hyaluronic acid filler (Neuramis Deep Lidocaine) with a lidocaine-containing biphasic hyaluronic acid filler (Restylane Perlane-L) in moderate to severe nasolabial folds. Fifty-eight patients with moderate to severe nasolabial folds were randomized to an injection of Neuramis or Perlane-L in the left or right side of the face. Clinical efficacy and safety were assessed by blinded investigators, independent expert panels, and patients based on the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale at weeks 8, 16, and 24 after the injection.

RESULTS

Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale improvement from baseline with Neuramis (1.64 ± 0.74) was significantly greater than with Perlane-L (1.45 ± 0.54) at week 24 (p < 0.05). The mean Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale score at week 24 was 2.36 ± 0.55 for Neuramis and 2.00 ± 0.50 for Perlane-L (p < 0.05). However, the difference in pain reduction between Neuramis- and Perlane-L-treated sides was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficacy and safety of Neuramis are comparable to those of Perlane-L in Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale improvement for the management of nasolabial folds. Furthermore, the difference in pain reduction between the two fillers was not clinically significant.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, I.

Current Concepts in the Use of Voluma, Volift, and Volbella

BACKGROUND

Hyaluronic acids (HAs) are very popular temporary fillers with a very good safety record. Improvements and adaptations in clinical use are continuing.

METHODS

We have assessed the available literature to investigate the relatively new Vycross technology that uses a mixture of high- and low-molecular-weight HAs with a relatively low but varying HA concentration with enhanced cross-linking to produce a number of products that have differing clinical indications.

RESULTS

Voluma has the highest HA concentration at 20 mg/mL, a high G prime translating into lift capacity and cohesivity keeping the product capable to lift vertically adding structure, form, and volume, whereas Volbella has much lower concentration at 15 mg/mL, a lower G prime and cohesivity allowing it to be used in more a horizontal spreading fashion enabling a superficial approach to lips, lines, and more subtle depressions. Volift at 17.5 mg/mL HA is half way between the 2 other products, allowing more subtle lift capacity but retaining an element of spread making it a useful agent for the perioral region in general and in the treatment of fine lines.

CONCLUSION

A range of products has been released that allows different components of facial structure, volume, and lines to be adequately addressed.

Clinical data on injectable tissue fillers: a review

Treatment with injectable tissue fillers for aesthetic purposes is increasingly popular. In parallel with this success, questions related to the safety of these treatments and the products involved are being raised more prominently. To gain insight in the safety aspects of injectable tissue fillers, we performed a literature review to collect studies reporting clinical data of injectable tissue fillers. We found several case reports where serious complications after more than three years are described. However, there are only a limited number of well-defined prospective clinical studies available with follow-up periods longer than three years. Furthermore, causes of complications, that is, treatment or product related, are often not specified in literature. Considering the intended functional period of fillers in combination with the known occurrence of long-term complications, there is a need for well-defined prospective clinical studies. In order to be able to discriminate between product failure (a product safety issue) or application methodology (a physician expertise or training issue), better identification of observed complications and whether they are product or treatment related, is needed. For the safe use of the fillers it is important that treatment with injectable tissue fillers is performed by a trained physician, who knows the product specifications and its applications.

Comparative study of a new dermal filler Uma Jeunesse® and Juvéderm®

INTRODUCTION

Innovation in technology has resulted in the emergence of better, longer-lasting hyaluronic acid implants with fewer side effects. The new dermal implant Uma Jeunesse® was compared to Juvéderm® in this split-face study.

METHODS

Uma Jeunesse® is crosslinked with butanediol diglycidyl ether (BDDE) using a new crosslinking technology. Uma Jeunesse® and Juvéderm® Ultra 3 were injected in a split-face study on 17 healthy volunteers, whose ages ranged from 33-58 years. There were 14 women and three men with medium to deep nasolabial folds. All subjects randomly received either Uma Jeunesse® or Juvéderm®) Ultra 3 on one half of their face. Patients were followed up for 9 months.

RESULTS

Juvéderm® was easier to inject with lesser injection pain because of lidocaine, but late postinjection pain was much less with Uma Jeunesse® as compared to Juvéderm®. Overall rate of early and late complications as well as adverse events was lower with Uma Jeunesse® than Juvéderm(®) . After 9 months of follow-up, Uma Jeunesse® lasted in tissues for longer as compared to Juvéderm(®) even in patients injected for the first time (P<0.0001). Patient acceptability rate of Uma Jeunesse® was also much higher. Perception of pain during injection was lesser with Juvéderm® probably because of the presence of lidocaine.

CONCLUSION

The new dermal implant Uma Jeunesse® is a safe and patient-friendly product which resides in the tissues for longer with maintenance of aesthetic effect over and beyond 6 months, reaching 9 months in over 80% of patients, and Juvéderm® injection is less painful.