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.

Lactation Outcomes in More Than 3500 Women Following Primary Augmentation: 5-Year Data From the Breast Implant Follow-Up Study.

BACKGROUND: Women with breast implants may have concerns about their ability to successfully breast-feed. The Breast Implant Follow-up Study (BIFS-001) is a large, 10-year observational study evaluating the performance and safety of Natrelle round silicone gel-filled breast implants. OBJECTIVES: This analysis compared lactation outcomes in women enrolled in BIFS-001 who gave birth after they underwent primary augmentation with Natrelle round silicone implants or saline implants. METHODS: At baseline and annually after surgery (>5-year visit window), patients completed questionnaires regarding pregnancy and lactation. Comparisons were made using summary statistics and odds ratios with 90% confidence intervals (OR [90% CI]). RESULTS: A total of 4679 subjects gave birth at least once after primary augmentation for a total of 5736 live births during the study (silicone, 3695 births; saline, 2041 births). Of these, 3715 (79.4%) women breast-fed at least 1 child, resulting in 80.0% (silicone) and 75.9% (saline) of babies being breast-fed. The most common complication was insufficient milk production, which was reported for 19.6% (silicone) and 19.8% (saline) of single births (OR, 0.94 [0.83, 1.06]). Complications occurred at similar rates in each group when evaluated by incision type, implant size, pocket location, and age. CONCLUSIONS: In this large group of women who gave birth after primary breast augmentation with Natrelle round silicone implants or saline implants, most were able to breast-feed their infants without complications. Lactation complications were comparable between the silicone and saline cohorts, and the incidence was comparable to reports in the general population of women who breast-feed.

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.

Performance of intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) as a reliability index under various distributions in scale reliability studies.

Many published scale validation studies determine inter-rater reliability using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). However, the use of this statistic must consider its advantages, limitations, and applicability. This paper evaluates how interaction of subject distribution, sample size, and levels of rater disagreement affects ICC and provides an approach for obtaining relevant ICC estimates under suboptimal conditions. Simulation results suggest that for a fixed number of subjects, ICC from the convex distribution is smaller than ICC for the uniform distribution, which in turn is smaller than ICC for the concave distribution. The variance component estimates also show that the dissimilarity of ICC among distributions is attributed to the study design (ie, distribution of subjects) component of subject variability and not the scale quality component of rater error variability. The dependency of ICC on the distribution of subjects makes it difficult to compare results across reliability studies. Hence, it is proposed that reliability studies should be designed using a uniform distribution of subjects because of the standardization it provides for representing objective disagreement. In the absence of uniform distribution, a sampling method is proposed to reduce the non-uniformity. In addition, as expected, high levels of disagreement result in low ICC, and when the type of distribution is fixed, any increase in the number of subjects beyond a moderately large specification such as n = 80 does not have a major impact on ICC.

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.

Safety and Effectiveness of VYC-15L, a Hyaluronic Acid Filler for Lip and Perioral Enhancement: One-Year Results From a Randomized, Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: VYC-15L (Juvéderm Volbella XC) is a nonanimal crosslinked hyaluronic acid (HA) gel with lidocaine. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of VYC-15L for lip and perioral enhancement versus a nonanimal stabilized HA with lidocaine (Restylane-L; NASHA). METHODS: This prospective multicenter study randomized 225 adults with minimal, mild, or moderate lip fullness on the validated 5-point Allergan Lip Fullness Scale (LFS) to treatment with VYC-15L or NASHA; optional touch-up was administered 30 days later. Subjects were followed for 1 year. The primary effectiveness end point was noninferiority of VYC-15L versus NASHA by mean change in LFS score from baseline to Month 3. RESULTS: The primary end point was met. At Month 3, LFS responder rates were 80.3% for VYC-15L versus 70.8% for NASHA. LFS responder rates exceeded 60% through 1 year with VYC-15L. Perioral lines severity improved for 65.4% and 66.2% of VYC-15L subjects at Month 3 and Year 1, respectively. At Month 3, 96.1% and 88.2% of subjects reported improvement in FACE-Q Satisfaction With Lips and Satisfaction With Lip Lines, respectively. Severe injection site responses were reported less frequently with VYC-15L than NASHA. CONCLUSION: VYC-15L was safe and effective for lip and perioral enhancement, with treatment effects lasting through 1 year.

Development and Validation of a Photonumeric Scale for Evaluation of Volume Deficit of the Hand.

BACKGROUND: A validated scale is needed for objective and reproducible comparisons of hand appearance before and after treatment in practice and clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and validation of the 5-point photonumeric Allergan Hand Volume Deficit Scale. METHODS: The scale was developed to include an assessment guide, verbal descriptors, morphed images, and real-subject images for each grade. The clinical significance of a 1-point score difference was evaluated in a review of image pairs representing varying differences in severity. Interrater and intrarater reliability was evaluated in a live-subject validation study (N = 296) completed during 2 sessions occurring 3 weeks apart. RESULTS: A score difference of ≥1 point was shown to reflect a clinically significant difference (mean [95% confidence interval] absolute score difference, 1.12 [0.99-1.26] for clinically different image pairs and 0.45 [0.33-0.57] for not clinically different pairs). Intrarater agreement between the 2 validation sessions was almost perfect (mean weighted kappa = 0.83). Interrater agreement was almost perfect during the second session (0.82, primary end point). CONCLUSION: The Allergan Hand Volume Deficit Scale is a validated and reliable scale for physician rating of hand volume deficit.

Development and Validation of a Photonumeric Scale for Assessment of Chin Retrusion.

BACKGROUND: A validated scale is needed for objective and reproducible comparisons of chin appearance before and after chin augmentation in practice and clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and validation of the 5-point photonumeric Allergan Chin Retrusion Scale. METHODS: The Allergan Chin Retrusion Scale was developed to include an assessment guide, verbal descriptors, morphed images, and real subject images for each scale grade. The clinical significance of a 1-point score difference was evaluated in a review of multiple image pairs representing varying differences in severity. Interrater and intrarater reliability was evaluated in a live-subject validation study (N = 298) completed during 2 sessions occurring 3 weeks apart. RESULTS: A difference of ≥1 point on the scale was shown to reflect a clinically meaningful difference (mean [95% confidence interval] absolute score difference, 1.07 [0.94-1.20] for clinically different image pairs and 0.51 [0.39-0.63] for not clinically different pairs). Intrarater agreement between the 2 live-subject validation sessions was substantial (mean weighted kappa = 0.79). Interrater agreement was substantial during the second rating session (0.68, primary end point). CONCLUSION: The Allergan Chin Retrusion Scale is a validated and reliable scale for physician rating of severity of chin retrusion.

Development and Validation of a Photonumeric Scale for Evaluation of Facial Skin Texture.

BACKGROUND: A validated scale is needed for objective and reproducible comparisons of facial skin roughness before and after aesthetic treatment in practice and in clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and validation of the 5-point photonumeric Allergan Skin Roughness Scale. METHODS: The scale was developed to include an assessment guide, verbal descriptors, morphed images, and real subject images for each grade. The clinical significance of a 1-point score difference was evaluated in a review of image pairs representing varying differences in severity. Interrater and intrarater reliability was evaluated in a live-subject validation study (N = 290) completed during 2 sessions occurring 3 weeks apart. RESULTS: A score difference of ≥1 point was shown to reflect a clinically meaningful difference (mean [95% confidence interval] absolute score difference 1.09 [0.96-1.23] for clinically different image pairs and 0.53 [0.38-0.67] for not clinically different pairs). Intrarater agreement between the 2 validation sessions was almost perfect (weighted kappa = 0.83). Interrater agreement was almost perfect during the second rating session (0.81, primary end point). CONCLUSION: The Allergan Skin Roughness Scale is a validated and reliable scale for physician rating of midface skin roughness.

Development and Validation of a Photonumeric Scale for Evaluation of Facial Fine Lines.

BACKGROUND: A validated scale is needed for objective and reproducible comparisons of facial fine lines before and after treatment in practice and clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and validation of the 5-point photonumeric Allergan Fine Lines Scale. METHODS: The Allergan Fine Lines Scale was developed to include an assessment guide, verbal descriptors, morphed images, and real subject images for each scale grade. The clinical significance of a 1-point score difference was evaluated in a review of multiple image pairs representing varying differences in severity. Interrater and intrarater reliability was evaluated in a live subject validation study (N = 289) completed during 2 sessions occurring 3 weeks apart. RESULTS: A score difference of ≥1 point was shown to reflect a clinically significant difference (mean [95% CI] absolute score difference, 1.06 [0.92-1.21] for clinically different image pairs and 0.50 [0.38-0.61] for not clinically different pairs). Intrarater agreement between the 2 live subject validation sessions was almost perfect (weighted kappa = 0.85). Interrater agreement was substantial during the second rating session (0.76, primary end point). CONCLUSION: The Allergan Fine Lines Scale is a validated and reliable scale for physician rating of severity of superficial fine lines.

Development and Validation of a Photonumeric Scale for Evaluation of Volume Deficit of the Temple.

BACKGROUND: A validated scale is needed for objective and reproducible comparisons of temple appearance before and after aesthetic treatment in practice and clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and validation of the 5-point photonumeric Allergan Temple Hollowing Scale. METHODS: The scale was developed to include an assessment guide, verbal descriptors, morphed images, and real subject images for each grade. The clinical significance of a 1-point score difference was evaluated in a review of image pairs representing varying differences in severity. Interrater and intrarater reliability was evaluated in a live-subject validation study (N = 298) completed during 2 sessions occurring 3 weeks apart. RESULTS: A score difference of ≥1 point was shown to reflect a clinically significant difference (mean [95% confidence interval] absolute score difference, 1.1 [0.94-1.26] for clinically different image pairs and 0.67 [0.51-0.83] for not clinically different pairs). Intrarater agreement between the 2 validation sessions was almost perfect (mean weighted kappa = 0.86). Interrater agreement was almost perfect during the second session (0.81, primary endpoint). CONCLUSION: The Allergan Temple Hollowing Scale is a validated and reliable scale for physician rating of temple volume deficit.

Development and Validation of a Photonumeric Scale for Evaluation of Transverse Neck Lines.

BACKGROUND: A validated scale is needed for objective and reproducible comparisons of horizontal neck lines before and after treatment in practice and clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and validation of the 5-point photonumeric Allergan Transverse Neck Lines Scale. METHODS: The Allergan Transverse Neck Lines Scale was developed to include an assessment guide, verbal descriptors, morphed images, and real subject images for each scale grade. The clinical significance of a 1-point score difference was evaluated in a review of multiple image pairs representing varying differences in severity. Interrater and intrarater reliability was evaluated in a live-subject rating validation study (N = 297) completed during 2 sessions occurring 3 weeks apart. RESULTS: A difference of ≥1 point on the scale was shown to reflect a clinically significant difference (mean [95% confidence interval] absolute score difference, 1.22 [1.09-1.35] for clinically different image pairs and 0.57 [0.42-0.72] for not clinically different pairs). Intrarater agreement between the 2 live-subject rating validation sessions was substantial (mean weighted kappa = 0.78). Interrater agreement was substantial during the second rating session (0.73, primary end point). CONCLUSION: The Allergan Transverse Neck Lines Scale is a validated and reliable scale for rating of severity of neck lines.

Development and Validation of a Photonumeric Scale for Evaluation of Static Horizontal Forehead Lines.

BACKGROUND: A validated scale is needed for objective and reproducible comparisons of static forehead lines before and after treatment in practice and clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and validation of the 5-point photonumeric Allergan Forehead Lines Scale. METHODS: The Allergan Forehead Lines Scale was developed to include an assessment guide, verbal descriptors, morphed images, and real subject images for each scale grade. The clinical significance of a 1-point score difference was evaluated in a review of multiple image pairs representing varying differences in severity. Interrater and intrarater reliability was evaluated in a live-subject validation study (N = 295) completed during 2 sessions occurring 3 weeks apart. RESULTS: A difference of ≥1 point on the scale was shown to reflect a clinically significant difference (mean [95% confidence interval] absolute score difference, 1.06 [0.91-1.21] for clinically different image pairs and 0.38 [0.26-0.51] for not clinically different pairs). Intrarater agreement between the 2 live-subject validation sessions was almost perfect (mean weighted kappa = 0.87). Interrater agreement was almost perfect during the second rating session (0.86, primary end point). CONCLUSION: The Allergan Forehead Lines Scale is a validated and reliable scale for physician rating of static horizontal forehead lines.

Development and Validation of a Photonumeric Scale for Evaluation of Infraorbital Hollows.

BACKGROUND: A validated scale is needed for objective and reproducible comparisons of infraorbital hollows (i.e., tear troughs) before and after treatment in practice and clinical studies. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and validation of the 5-point photonumeric Allergan Infraorbital Hollows Scale. METHODS: The scale was developed to include an assessment guide, verbal descriptors, morphed images, and real subject images for each grade. The clinical significance of a 1-point score difference was evaluated in a review of image pairs representing varying differences in severity. Interrater and intrarater reliability was evaluated in a live-subject validation study (N = 297) completed during 2 sessions occurring 3 weeks apart. RESULTS: A score difference of ≥1 point was shown to reflect a clinically significant difference (mean [95% confidence interval] absolute score difference, 0.90 [0.79-1.02] for clinically different image pairs and 0.33 [0.19-0.46] for not clinically different pairs). Intrarater agreement between the 2 validation sessions was substantial (mean weighted kappa = 0.79). Interrater agreement was substantial during the second rating session (0.70, primary end point). CONCLUSION: The Allergan Infraorbital Hollows Scale is a validated and reliable scale for physician rating severity of hollowing in the infraorbital area.

Safety and Effectiveness of Hyaluronic Acid Injectable Gel in Correcting Moderate Nasolabial Folds in Chinese Subjects.

BACKGROUND: The hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal filler, Juvéderm® Ultra, which employs Hylacross® technology, produces a gel with a smooth consistency and has demonstrated effectiveness in correcting nasolabial folds (NLFs) in Caucasian populations. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Juvéderm Ultra vs Restylane® for the correction of moderate NLFs in Chinese subjects. METHODS: In this double-blind randomized study, adult Chinese subjects with moderate NLFs received Juvéderm Ultra (24 mg/mL) in 1 NLF and Restylane injectable gel (20 mg/mL) in the other NLF. NLFs were evaluated using the validated 5-point photonumeric Allergan NLF Severity Scale (NLFSS); scores ranged from 0 ("no wrinkle") to 4 ("very deep wrinkle"). Response was defined as ≥1-point improvement at 6 months. Investigator-assessed responder rate (primary outcome), NLF mean improvement, and subject-assessed responder rate and preference were assessed. RESULTS: Among the 104 subjects who completed the study, median initial volumes (mL) were 0.8 (range, 0.2-1.4) for Juvéderm Ultra and 0.8 (0.3-1.5) for Restylane; median touch-up volumes were 0.3 (0.1-0.5) and 0.3 (0.1-0.5), respectively. At 6 months, investigator-assessed responder rates were 87.3% for both products, indicating that Juvéderm Ultra was noninferior to Restylane; mean improvement in NLFSS scores from baseline was 1.0 for both products. At 6 months, Juvéderm Ultra and Restylane subject-assessed responder rates were 86.3% and 79.4%, respectively, and mean improvement in NLFSS scores from baseline was 1.2 and 1.0, respectively. Among subjects who expressed a preference, 57.9% preferred Juvéderm Ultra. For both products, the most commonly reported treatment site responses were swelling, firmness, and tenderness; treatment site responses were generally mild or moderate in severity. Juvéderm Ultra had fewer severe responses than Restylane. CONCLUSIONS: Juvéderm Ultra is noninferior to Restylane and is a safe and effective treatment for correcting moderate NLFs in Chinese subjects.

Low Risk of Skin and Nipple Sensitivity and Lactation Issues After Primary Breast Augmentation with Form-Stable Silicone Implants: Follow-Up in 4927 Subjects.

BACKGROUND: Natrelle 410 implants (Allergan, Inc., Irvine, CA) are approved in the United States for breast augmentation, reconstruction, and revision. OBJECTIVES: To assess the risk of nipple and skin sensation changes and lactation issues in subjects receiving implants for primary breast augmentation and ascertain whether differences based on incision site exist. METHODS: We used 410 Continued Access study data to assess safety and effectiveness of devices implanted via inframammary or periareolar incision sites. Subjects were evaluated preoperatively and at 4 weeks, 6 months, and annually up to 10 years postoperatively. Lactation issues and nipple and skin sensation changes (hypersensitivity/paresthesia, loss of sensation) were assessed. RESULTS: The inframammary and periareolar cohorts comprised 9217 and 610 implanted devices, with mean follow-up of 4.1 years (range, 0-10.1 years) and 4.8 years (range, 0-10.1 years), respectively. In the inframammary cohort, risk of first occurrence of nipple sensation changes was 0.3% (95% CI: 0.2-0.5) at week 4 and month 6, and 0.4% (0.3-0.7) at year 10. Risk of skin sensation changes was 0.0% (95% CI: 0.0-0.2) at week 4, 0.1% (0.0-0.2) at month 6, and 0.1% (0.0-0.3) at all subsequent time points. No nipple or skin changes occurred in the periareolar cohort. Incidence of lactation issues was similar to that reported in postpartum women who did not have breast implants. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the risk of nipple or skin sensation changes and lactation issues is low and provide long-term safety and effectiveness data on subjects receiving implants for primary breast augmentation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 3: Therapeutic.

Duration of effect by injection volume and facial subregion for a volumizing hyaluronic acid filler in treating midface volume deficit.

BACKGROUND: Juvéderm Voluma XC (VYC-20L) is approved in the United States for correction of age-related volume loss in the midface region in adults. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the effects of VYC-20L in 3 midface subregions based on injection volumes. METHODS: In this single-blind controlled trial, subjects with midface volume deficit received VYC-20L in ≥1 of 3 facial subregions (zygomaticomalar, anteromedial cheek, and submalar), with touch-up treatment available 30 days later. Responders achieved ≥1-point improvement on the Mid-Face Volume Deficit Scale (MFVDS), analyzed by facial subregion and stratified by injection volume quartiles. Subject satisfaction and safety were assessed. RESULTS: The treatment arm comprised 235 subjects aged 35 to 65 years. Month 6 MFVDS responder rates were 75.5% for zygomaticomalar, 83.2% for anteromedial cheek, and 76.9% for submalar subregions. Higher responder rates were observed with increasing injection volume quartiles for each subregion. Similar median injection volumes (≈2.0 mL total) of VYC-20L provided correction durations of 15 to 24 months: 24 months for anteromedial cheek, 19 months for zygomaticomalar, and 15 months for submalar subregions. Subject satisfaction was high across injection volume quartiles. No unanticipated treatment-site adverse reactions occurred. CONCLUSION: VYC-20L is effective at restoring midface volume, with high subject satisfaction and an acceptable safety profile.

Volumizing Hyaluronic Acid Filler for Midface Volume Deficit: Results After Repeat Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Juvéderm Voluma XC (VYC-20L; hyaluronic acid gel) is approved in the United States for correction of age-related midface volume deficit (MVD). OBJECTIVE: Assess safety and effectiveness of VYC-20L after repeat treatment. METHODS: Subjects with MVD underwent optional repeat treatment 12 to 24 months after initial treatment if correction was lost or at 24 months regardless of loss of correction (n = 167). Investigators rated outcomes on the Mid-Face Volume Deficit Scale (MFVDS) and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). Subject-rated outcomes were the GAIS, overall satisfaction with facial appearance, achievement of treatment goal, and Self-Perception of Age questionnaire. Subjects recorded treatment-site responses in 30-day diaries. RESULTS: Mean injection volume for repeat treatment (3.13 mL) was approximately half the mean total injection volume for initial/touch-up treatment (6.8 mL). After repeat treatment, effectiveness was demonstrated on all investigator-rated and subject-rated measures, consistent with results observed after initial treatment. The percentage of subjects improving by ≥1 point on the MFVDS was 82.8% and 91.1% at 6 and 12 months after repeat treatment, respectively. The incidence, severity, and duration of common treatment-site responses were lower after repeat versus initial treatment. CONCLUSION: Repeat treatment with VYC-20L was well tolerated and resulted in high levels of effectiveness and subject satisfaction.

Safety and Effectiveness of the Hyaluronic Acid Filler, HYC-24L, for Lip and Perioral Augmentation.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid gels are increasingly used for augmentation of the lips. OBJECTIVE: To assess the safety and effectiveness of Juvéderm Ultra XC, a 24 mg/mL hyaluronic acid gel containing 0.3% (wt/wt) lidocaine (HYC-24L), for augmentation of the lips. METHODS: This ongoing, multicenter, single-blind study randomized 213 subjects to the treatment group (n = 157) or concurrent no-treatment control group that received delayed treatment (n = 56). The primary effectiveness endpoint was the responder rate (≥1 point improvement from baseline) based on the blinded evaluating investigator's assessment of the subject's overall lip fullness (or fullness of the eligible lip) using the validated Allergan 5-point Lip Fullness Scale. To meet this endpoint, the treatment group had to have a responder rate ≥60% and significantly greater than the treatment control group at Month 3. RESULTS: The primary endpoint was met, with a 79.1% responder rate for the treatment group and 26.1% for the treatment control group (p < 0.0001). More than half of subjects (56.4%) maintained treatment response for 12 months. Common injection site responses were swelling, bruising, and firmness; most were of mild or moderate severity. CONCLUSION: HYC-24L is safe and effective for aesthetic lip augmentation, with results lasting up to 1 year.

Lip and Perioral Enhancement: A 12-Month Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Juvéderm® Volbella® with Lidocaine is a hyaluronic acid filler suited for lip enhancement. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Juvéderm Volbella with Lidocaine versus non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid with lidocaine (Restylane-L®). METHODS: This study randomized 280 subjects desiring lip enhancement to Juvéderm Volbella with Lidocaine or Restylane-L. Investigators rated outcomes using Allergan's Lip Fullness Scale (LFS), Perioral Lines Severity Scale, and Oral Commissures Severity Scale. Independent central reviewers (ICRs) assessed 3-dimensional photographs using these scales. Noninferiority of Juvéderm Volbella with Lidocaine to Restylane-L was based on ICR assessment of LFS responders (≥ 1-point improvement from baseline) at month 3. Subjects were evaluated up to 12 months and after repeat treatment. RESULTS: Juvéderm Volbella with Lidocaine was noninferior to Restylane-L at 3 months. Investigator assessments showed significant improvements in lip fullness (P ≤ .03), perioral lines (P ≤ .04), and oral commissures (P ≤ .03) with Juvéderm Volbella with Lidocaine versus Restylane-L at months 6 to 12. There was less acute swelling and fewer severe injection site responses with Juvéderm Volbella with Lidocaine. Safety and effectiveness of repeat treatment with Juvéderm Volbella with Lidocaine was comparable to initial treatment, regardless of initial filler. CONCLUSIONS: Juvéderm Volbella with Lidocaine is safe and effective for lip and perioral enhancement, with effectiveness lasting up to 12 months.