Efficacy of a New Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Filler on Nasolabial Folds Correction: A Prospective, Comparative, Double-Blinded Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid-based dermal fillers are the cornerstones of wrinkle correction and facial contour redefinition. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of EST LF compared with RES L for the treatment of nasolabial folds (NLFs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective, split-face, randomized, investigator and subject-blinded trial, 45 subjects with moderate-to-severe symmetrical NLFs were randomized to EST LF on one side of the face and RES L on the other side and were followed up for 9 months. The primary end point was change in WSRS score from the baseline to Month 1 (M1). Secondary end points included changes in WSRS score at other time points, aesthetic improvement, wrinkle volume quantification, adverse events, and local tolerance. RESULTS: The efficacy difference between EST LF and RES L at M1 was in favor of EST LF (-0.16, CI, -0.28 to -0.03]), demonstrating its noninferiority. Considering other time points, significant differences were observed at 3 and 6 months for EST LF , assessed with WSRS, GAIS, or NLF volume quantification. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: EST LF is effective and well tolerated for the treatment of NLFs.

International Consensus Recommendations on the Aesthetic Usage of Ready-to-Use AbobotulinumtoxinA (Alluzience).

Alluzience (abobotulinumtoxinA RTU; Ipsen, Paris, France and Galderma SA, Lausanne, Switzerland) is the first ready-to-use (RTU) botulinum toxin type A liquid solution approved for the treatment of glabellar lines in Europe. In this article, the authors provide consensus recommendations on the aesthetic usage of abobotulinumtoxinA RTU. Members of the International Board on Alluzience convened to develop consensus on the treatment of glabellar lines as well as other facial wrinkles based on their own extensive experience. Consensus recommendations were developed to provide practical guidelines for injection of abobotulinumtoxinA RTU. General guidance on proper assessment, treatment planning, and patient education is provided, as well as specific injection guidelines per indication. Indications covered include glabellar lines, crow's feet, horizontal forehead lines, lateral eyebrow lift, lower eyelid wrinkles, bunny lines, drooping nasal tip, perioral wrinkles, drooping mouth corners, masseter hypertrophy, hollow cheek lines, dimpled chin, and platysmal bands. These guidelines provide a practical framework to support routine injection of facial muscles with Alluzience.

Investigating the Anatomic Location of Soft Tissue Fillers in Noninflammatory Nodule Formation: An Ultrasound-Imaging-Based Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Noninflammatory nodules may be persistent to dissolve. To evaluate the possible reasons, a case series of ultrasound images and medical data of patients who were prospectively referred with noninflammatory nodules were evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 27 patients with nodules but without signs of inflammation were included. All cases were assessed with an 18-MHz linear ultrasound device. Exact location of the filler material was noted. Relations with clinical data were analyzed using chi-square tests. RESULTS: Early onset of complaints (<2 weeks) was found in 16 patients and late onset (>2 weeks) in 11. All patients had multiple nodules. In all cases, the filler nodule was found to be located inside the fascia. Extension to the subcutaneous tissue was seen in 8 cases and to the deeper planes in 5. In 14 cases, the filler material was completely located inside layers of the fascia, and migration was observed in 5 cases. DISCUSSION: Accumulation of filler material in the superficial musculoaponeurotic system or fascia may be an important cause for the occurrence of persistent noninflammatory nodules, either by initial faulty injection technique or by later accumulation through the pathway generated with a needle or cannula. Ultrasound-guided injections are helpful to dissolve the nodule.

Picosecond lasers in cosmetic dermatology: where are we now? An overview of types and indications.

Q-switched lasers have undeniably revolutionized the field of laser dermatology since four decades ago. Just as the first-generation laser emits its photonic signal in a few nanoseconds, the picosecond laser delivers pulse widths of at least ten times shorter. These devices offer a powerful tool for treating a wide range of skin conditions with a minimal downtime for visible improvement. For the current study, a literature research was performed on the dermatological applications of picosecond laser. The literature searched on this topic between 1999 and 2023 accessible through various platforms produce a result of 62 articles. The included studies have discussed the application of picosecond laser technology in tattoo removal, treatment of epidermal and dermal pigmentation, and collagen remodeling. After sifting the data from the articles into tables, the results were discussed in detail. The study shows a lot of evidence towards the efficacy of picosecond laser, yet it draws attention to its downsides.

PrabotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Adult Males With Moderate to Severe Glabellar Lines: Post-hoc Analyses of the Phase III Clinical Study Data.

BACKGROUND: Despite a growing interest among men in cosmetic procedures such as botulinum toxin, comparator clinical trial data in this population are limited. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the efficacy and safety of prabotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of males with moderate to severe glabellar lines. METHODS: Post-hoc analyses were performed on the subpopulation of male patients treated with either a single dose of 20 U prabotulinumtoxinA (n = 25) or 20 U onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 31) in the EVB-003 Phase III glabellar line clinical study. One key efficacy endpoint was the proportion of responders with a ≥1-point improvement from baseline at maximum frown on the 4-point Glabellar Line Scale. RESULTS: Compared with onabotulinumtoxinA-treated males, the percentages of responders who had a ≥1-point improvement on the Glabellar Line Scale at maximum frown were higher at all postbaseline time points for prabotulinumtoxinA-treated males (P > 0.05 at all visits) by an absolute overall mean difference of 10.1% across all visits. Similar trends were observed for efficacy endpoints based on global aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction. PrabotulinumtoxinA-treated males had a higher incidence of treatment-related headache and eyelid ptosis. CONCLUSIONS: The percentages of patients who met the definition of a responder were higher at almost all time points examined for prabotulinumtoxinA-treated males. Despite the high level of consistency across all measures, differences between the 2 treatment groups did not reach statistical significance. Further study is warranted to establish if these post-hoc analyses observations are reproducible in a larger male patient population.

Repeated Full-Face Aesthetic Combination Treatment With AbobotulinumtoxinA, Hyaluronic Acid Filler, and Skin-Boosting Hyaluronic Acid After Monotherapy With AbobotulinumtoxinA or Hyaluronic Acid Filler.

BACKGROUND: Full-face aesthetic treatment involving several treatment modalities may improve facial aesthetic outcome. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical outcomes and patient perceptions of monotherapy with either abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) or hyaluronic acid (HA) filler followed by full-face combination treatments of ABO, HA filler, and skin-boosting HA (RSB). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects aged 35 to 50 years were randomized to monotherapy with 50 s.U ABO in the glabella or ≤1 mL HA filler in the nasolabial folds (NLFs)/cheeks. At Month 6 and Month 12, all subjects received combination treatment with ≤50 s.U ABO in the glabella, ≤2 mL HA filler in the NLFs/cheeks (and other facial areas as applicable), and ≤1 mL RSB (additional RSB treatment at Month 7). Assessments included global facial aesthetic appearance and improvement, first impression, perceived age, wrinkle severity, satisfaction questionnaires, and adverse events. RESULTS: Repeated full-face combination treatment with ABO, HA filler, and RSB was associated with considerably higher levels of aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction than monotherapy with ABO or HA filler. Improvement rate of glabellar lines was increasing with each treatment. CONCLUSION: Repeated combination treatment achieved greater change in global facial aesthetic appearance than monotherapy. Aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction was high and increased with each treatment. All treatments were well tolerated.

A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Single-Dose, Phase III, Non-Inferiority Study Comparing PrabotulinumtoxinA and OnabotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Glabellar Lines in Adult Patients.

BACKGROUND: PrabotulinumtoxinA is a 900-kDa botulinum toxin type A produced by Clostridium botulinum. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of prabotulinumtoxinA compared to onabotulinumtoxinA and placebo for the treatment of glabellar lines. METHODS: This was a 150-day, multicenter, double-blind, controlled, single-dose Phase III study. Adult patients (n = 540) with moderate to severe glabellar lines at maximum frown as assessed by the investigator on the validated 4-point Glabellar Line Scale (0 = no lines, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe), who also felt that their glabellar lines had an important psychological impact, were enrolled. Patients were randomized 5:5:1 to receive a single treatment (0.1 mL injected into each of 5 glabellar sites) of 20 U prabotulinumtoxinA (n = 245), 20 U onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 246), or placebo (n = 49). The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of responders (patients with a Glabellar Line Scale score of 0 or 1 at maximum frown by investigator assessment) on day 30. RESULTS: Responder rates for the primary efficacy endpoint were 87.2%, 82.8%, and 4.2% in the prabotulinumtoxinA, onabotulinumtoxinA, and placebo groups, respectively. The absolute difference between prabotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA groups was 4.4% (95% confidence interval [-1.9, 10.8]). Given that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference was less than -10.0%, noninferiority of prabotulinumtoxinA vs onabotulinumtoxinA was concluded. Five patients (3 prabotulinumtoxinA, 1.2%; 1 onabotulinumtoxinA, 0.4%; 1 placebo, 2.0%) experienced serious adverse events, none of which were study drug related. CONCLUSIONS: A single treatment of 20 U prabotulinumtoxinA was safe and effective and noninferior to 20 U onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines.

Effective and Safe Repeated Full-Face Treatments With AbobotulinumtoxinA, Hyaluronic Acid Filler, and Skin Boosting Hyaluronic Acid

Background: It is important to study full-face aesthetic combination treatments to establish well-founded individual treatment plans. Objective: To evaluate clinical outcome and perception of treatment with either abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) or hyaluronic acid (HA) filler followed by repeated combined treatment with ABO, HA filler, and Restylane® Skinboosters (RSB). Methods & Materials: This study was conducted at four sites in Sweden, France, and Brazil and included subjects aged 35-50 years with mild/moderate nasolabial folds and moderate/severe upper facial lines. Monotherapy was ≤125 s.U ABO in at least two upper facial indications with optional touch-up or ≤1 mL HA filler in nasolabial folds/cheeks. At months 6 and 12, both cohorts received ≤125 s.U. ABO in upper facial lines with optional touch-up, ≤2 mL HA filler in nasolabial folds/cheeks (and other facial areas as applicable), and ≤1 mL RSB. Assessments included global facial aesthetic appearance and improvement, first impression, perceived age, wrinkle severity, satisfaction questionnaires, and adverse events. Results: Repeated full-face treatment with ABO, HA filler, and RSB was associated with better aesthetic outcome and higher levels of satisfaction than treatment with ABO or HA filler alone. However, even modest volumes of HA filler achieved good aesthetic outcomes and high satisfaction. Treatment of several indications was well tolerated. Conclusion: Aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction was high and increased with each treatment. All treatments were well tolerated. These data may be used as support when establishing individual treatment plans. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019;18(7):682-689.

Efficacy, Safety, and Subject Satisfaction After AbobotulinumtoxinA Treatment of Upper Facial Lines.

BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxins are the treatment of choice for wrinkles in the upper third of the face. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and subject satisfaction of abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) for treatment of upper facial lines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects aged 35 to 50 years with moderate-to-severe upper facial lines were included in this study. Subjects received a maximum of 125 s.U. ABO in at least 2 indications with optional touch-up after 2 weeks. Assessments included wrinkle severity, global aesthetic improvement, subject satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs) 1, 3, and 6 months after treatment. RESULTS: At Month 1, 100, 94, and 93% of subjects were responders in dynamic glabellar, lateral canthal, and forehead lines, respectively. All subjects were improved 1 month after treatment, and the majority of the subjects were still improved after 6 months. After treatment, most subjects were satisfied with the appearance of their face, felt better about themselves, and agreed that the treatment made them look the way they feel. Seven subjects (22%) had 8 ABO-related AEs (mild-moderate); headache was most commonly reported (9%). CONCLUSION: AbobotulinumtoxinA effectively treated upper facial lines, with high patient satisfaction. Treatment was generally well-tolerated.

The Use of a Self-Occluding Topical Anasthetic in Daily Practice: A Non-Interventional Study.

INTRODUCTION: A variety of topical anesthetic creams are available to reduce pain associated with dermatological procedures. Pliaglis is a self-occluding eutectic mixture of lidocaine and tetracaine. STUDY OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the post-marketing safety profile of Pliaglis and efficacy in terms of pain reduction, product satisfaction, and daily practice use prior to pre-defined dermatological procedures. METHODS: A prospective, non-interventional study conducted at 44 sites in four European countries; 581 patients were treated prior to dermatological procedures such as pulsed-dye laser therapy, laser-assisted hair removal, non-ablative laser resurfacing, dermal filler injections, and vascular access. Efficacy was assessed by patients and investigators and included pain intensity (visual analogue scale [VAS]), satisfaction, and adequacy of pain relief. Safety was evaluated by adverse event (AE) reporting. RESULTS: In 75% of the performed procedures, patients scored the pain experienced during the procedure as ≤30 mm on the VAS and most were very satisfied or satisfied with the pain reduction. The investigators assessed the product as providing adequate anesthesia in 97% of the performed procedures and were mostly very satisfied or satisfied with the convenience of use (79%) and tolerability (95%). Twenty-four AEs were reported in 18 (3%) patients. DISCUSSION: Most patients experienced mild pain only as evident by the ≤ 30 mm VAS scores. Patients and investigators were aligned with regards to both product satisfaction and their opinion on adequacy of pain reduction. The AE frequency was low compared to previous studies, possibly relating to different ways of collecting AEs. CONCLUSION: Pliaglis was well-tolerated and provided adequate pain reduction prior to dermatological procedures. www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01800474).

J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(4):413-418.

Partial study data have been presented at the Anti-Aging Medicine European Congress (AMEC), Paris; October, 24-25, 2014, and the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV), Istanbul; October 2-6, 2013.