Higher Responder Rates Observed With Live Participant Assessment Versus Photographic Assessment After VYC-20L Hyaluronic Acid Treatment for Chin Augmentation.

BACKGROUND: In an evaluator-blinded, randomized controlled trial, the hyaluronic acid soft-tissue filler VYC-20L injectable gel was safe and effective for correcting volume deficits and retrusion in the chin. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this subanalysis was to compare responder rates obtained with photographic vs live assessments. METHODS: Participants were randomized 3:1 to VYC-20L treatment or a 6-month, no-treatment control period followed by optional treatment. Responder rates (≥1-point improvement from baseline on the validated Allergan Chin Retrusion Scale [ACRS]) obtained with photographic assessments and live assessments at Month 6 were compared. Prespecified subgroup analyses compared responder rates by baseline ACRS severity, filler volume, cannula usage, and investigation site. RESULTS: VYC-20L was effective for chin augmentation as evaluated with both live and photographic assessments. The ACRS responder rates at Month 6 were 91.8% with live assessments and 56.3% with photographic assessments. Consistently higher response rates were observed by live vs photographic assessment regardless of baseline ACRS severity, filler volume, cannula usage, and investigation site. CONCLUSIONS: Live assessment of ACRS response after VYC-20L treatment resulted in higher responder rates than photographic assessment, supporting the use of live assessment for this indication to approximate real-world clinical practice.

Field Therapy for Actinic Keratosis: A Structured Review of the Literature on Efficacy, Cost, and Adherence.

BACKGROUND: Although there are evidence-based guidelines for actinic keratosis management, selecting a cost-effective field therapy is challenging because of limited studies comparing cost, efficacy, and adherence among treatments. OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on field-directed therapies for actinic keratosis, comparing efficacy, cost, and adherence data for topical and in-office treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases were searched from October 2020 to March 2021 for articles on field therapy for actinic keratosis. Total cost per regimen was estimated using wholesale acquisition cost package prices and Medicare coverage rates for May 2021. Effective cost was approximated by dividing total cost by complete response rate. RESULTS: Efficacy data for various field therapies range widely, and long-term follow-up is limited. Cross-study comparisons are challenging because of heterogeneity of studies. Field-directed therapy with topical 5-fluorouracil and photodynamic therapy have similar effective cost. Adherence may significantly affect real-world efficacy and long-term clearance; this would favor shorter duration topical regimens or in-office procedures. CONCLUSION: Standardization of future studies examining efficacy of field treatments for actinic keratosis will allow comparison across treatments. In-office treatments such as photodynamic therapy represent a cost-effective alternative to topical therapies with comparable efficacy.