In Vivo Models for the Study of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers: A Review.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid (HA) filler application is one of the most frequent minimally invasive aesthetic procedures used worldwide. Its properties and characterization, performance, effects in other tissues, and response to complication treatments have been studied in several animal models. This review aims to categorize animal models considering the advantages and disadvantages regarding the purpose of the study. METHODS: Literature research was made using MEDLINE via PubMed by two reviewers using keywords "hyaluronic acid" "filler" and "animal model". Full-text articles published in English and with an in vivo animal model were included for data extraction. RESULTS: The rat model was the most common animal used to evaluate properties or characteristics and degradation of HA fillers. Rabbits were preferred for evaluating HA embolism treatments; however, anatomical names of the arteries differ in some studies. Mice and rats used as vascular occlusion model are challenging due to the size of the vessels and viscosity of the filler. CONCLUSION: There is a wide variability of options of in vivo animal models to evaluate HA fillers. The animal characteristics, laboratory resources, and HA properties should be considered in accordance with the objective of the study, when choosing the ideal model. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. 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 .

Comparative Safety of Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To find the safety of long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) compared to each other, and/or placebo in the treatment of schizophrenia (SCZ) and/or schizoaffective disorder (SZA). METHODS: We performed a systematic review and a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the safety of LAIs versus other LAIs or placebo in adults diagnosed with SCZ or SZA. The primary outcomes were treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs), serious treatment emergent adverse events (STEAEs), and deaths. The secondary outcomes included treatment discontinuations due to adverse events and all-cause discontinuations. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs were included (n=7,908). There were no significant differences between LAIs and placebo in the risk of presenting TEAEs. LAIs had a significant lower risk of presenting STEAEs except for aripiprazole. No significant differences in deaths were found. LAIs showed a significant protective effect against all-cause discontinuation, except for haloperidol. Only aripiprazole had a significantly lower risk of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events. CONCLUSION: We found no significant differences in the risk of presenting TEAEs between LAIs and placebo. The majority of LAIs had a significantly lower risk of presenting STEAEs than placebo. Development of international guidelines for the report of safety outcomes related to antipsychotics especially for LAIs in clinical trials could minimize report and interpretation biases and improve the accuracy of posterior meta-analysis.