OnabotulinumtoxinA for Simultaneous Treatment of Upper Facial Lines: Subject-Reported Satisfaction and Impact From a Phase 3 Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes are increasingly recognized as important measures of treatment benefit. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate subject-reported satisfaction and impact outcomes with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment in neurotoxin-naive adults with forehead lines (FHL), glabellar lines (GL), and crow's feet lines (CFL). METHODS: This Phase 3 study randomized 787 subjects to onabotulinumtoxinA 64 U (FHL 20 U, GL 20 U, and CFL 24 U), 40 U (FHL 20 U, GL 20 U, and CFL placebo), or placebo in double-blind Period 1. Subjects could receive up to 2 additional 64 U treatments in open-label Period 2. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the validated Facial Line Satisfaction Questionnaire (FLSQ) and 11-item Facial Line Outcomes (FLO-11) Questionnaire. RESULTS: The proportion of subjects mostly or very satisfied was significantly greater with onabotulinumtoxinA 64 U and 40 U versus placebo (87.9% and 81.4% vs 3.2%; p < .0001). Responder rates on FLSQ Impact Domain, FLO-11 Items 1, 4, 5, and total score were significantly greater with onabotulinumtoxinA versus placebo on Day 30 (p < .0001). Responder rates favoring onabotulinumtoxinA in Period 1 were maintained with repeated onabotulinumtoxinA 64 U treatment in Period 2. CONCLUSION: OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment was associated with high subject satisfaction and significant improvements in appearance-related psychological and emotional impacts.

OnabotulinumtoxinA for Treatment of Forehead and Glabellar Lines: Subject-Reported Satisfaction and Impact From a Phase 3 Double-Blind Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes are important measures of treatment benefit in facial aesthetic medicine. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate prespecified subject-reported satisfaction and impact outcomes with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment of forehead lines (FHL) and glabellar lines (GL). METHODS: The study randomized (3:1) 391 adults with moderate to severe FHL and GL to onabotulinumtoxinA (FHL, 20 U; GL, 20 U) or placebo in double-blind period 1 (days 0-180); subjects could receive up to 2 additional onabotulinumtoxinA treatments in open-label period 2. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the validated Facial Line Satisfaction Questionnaire (FLSQ) and the 11-item Facial Line Outcomes (FLO-11) Questionnaire. RESULTS: The proportion of subjects mostly or very satisfied with treatment was significantly greater with onabotulinumtoxinA than with placebo (90.3% vs 1.0%; p < .0001). Responder rates on FLSQ Impact Domain (73.9% vs 18.9%), FLO-11 Item 1 (85.4% vs 3.6%), Item 4 (77.2% vs 11.2%), Item 5 (83.5% vs 7.8%), and total score (86.0% vs 6.9%) were significantly greater with onabotulinumtoxinA than with placebo on Day 30 (p < .0001). Responder rates favoring onabotulinumtoxinA in Period 1 were generally maintained with repeated treatment during Period 2. CONCLUSION: Subjects were highly satisfied with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment and reported significant improvements in appearance-related psychological and emotional impacts of their facial lines.

Lip and Perioral Enhancement With Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Fillers in Individuals With Skin of Color.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with skin of color are underrepresented in studies of lip and perioral enhancement. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness and safety of hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal filler treatment for lip and perioral enhancement in subjects with skin of color. METHODS: Data were pooled from subjects with Fitzpatrick skin phototypes IV, V, or VI in 2 pivotal studies of HA dermal fillers. Photonumeric scales were used to assess lip fullness (5-point scale) and perioral lines and oral commissures severity (each 4-point scales). Safety was assessed by injection site responses recorded in patient diaries and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The cohort comprised 72 subjects (median age: 49.5 years; 95.8% female). Mean lip fullness improved from baseline by 1.1 points at 3 months after treatment; 85.0% of subjects were responders (≥1-point improvement). Of subjects treated for perioral lines (n = 12) and oral commissures (n = 56), 90.9% and 46.4%, respectively, were responders. Injection site responses were generally mild or moderate in severity, resolved within 2 weeks, and were consistent with those expected for HA dermal filler treatment. The most common AEs were injection site mass (19.4%) and bruising (12.5%). CONCLUSION: Lip and perioral enhancement with HA dermal fillers is effective and safe in subjects with skin of color.

Safe, Effective Chin and Jaw Restoration With VYC-25L Hyaluronic Acid Injectable Gel.

BACKGROUND: VYC-25L, a hyaluronic acid soft-tissue filler with lidocaine, is designed to restore and create facial volume in the chin and jaw. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of VYC-25L in subjects with chin retrusion. METHODS: Adults with chin retrusion (145°-165° glabella-subnasale-pogonion facial angle) were randomized (3:1) to receive VYC-25L in the chin/jaw at study onset (treatment group) or 3 months later (control group). Primary effectiveness end point was mean change in facial angle from baseline at Month 3. Safety assessments included injection site responses (ISRs), recorded in a subject diary, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: VYC-25L was administered to 119 subjects (treatment group: n = 90; control group: n = 29). Mean change in facial angle from baseline at Month 3 was significantly greater in the treatment versus control group (difference: 2.51°; p < .0001). Effectiveness was also demonstrated by the proportion of subjects with improved/much improved Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale scores and responses on FACE-Q Satisfaction and Psychological Well-Being Scales. Treatment benefit remained evident at Month 12. Common ISRs were firmness (95.8%), tenderness (95.8%), and swelling (91.6%). No serious treatment-related AEs were reported. CONCLUSION: VYC-25L significantly improved glabella-subnasale-pogonion facial angle and was generally safe and well tolerated.

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.

Subject satisfaction with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment of glabellar and lateral canthal lines using a new patient-reported outcome measure.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction with treatment is an important outcome in facial aesthetic medicine. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate subject satisfaction with onabotulinumtoxinA treatment of glabellar lines (GL) and crow's feet lines (CFL) using the validated Facial Line Satisfaction Questionnaire (FLSQ). METHODS: In this randomized double-blind study, subjects with moderate/severe GL and CFL received onabotulinumtoxinA (20 U, GL; 24 U, CFL) or placebo. Over 120 days, the following were assessed: satisfaction, achievement of treatment expectations, satisfaction with duration of treatment (FLSQ), severity of GL and CFL (Facial Wrinkle Scale [FWS]), and aesthetic improvement (Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale). RESULTS: Satisfaction in the per-protocol population was significantly greater at Day 60 in the onabotulinumtoxinA group (n = 60) compared with placebo (n = 57) for GL (81.7% vs 0%; p < .001). Most subjects treated with onabotulinumtoxinA remained satisfied up to 120 days. Achievement of treatment expectations (86.7%; Day 60), satisfaction (81.7%; Day 60), and satisfaction with the duration of treatment (61.6%; Day 90) were significantly better with onabotulinumtoxinA than placebo (p < .001) for GL and CFL combined. Efficacy (FWS) and aesthetic improvement were observed in most subjects at Days 30 and 60, respectively. CONCLUSION: High satisfaction rates are achieved and sustained in subjects treated with onabotulinumtoxinA for GL and CFL combined.