Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters











Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Drugs Dermatol ; 21(1): 13-20, 2022 Jan 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35005871

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of a novel hyaluronic acid injectable gel with 0.3% lidocaine (test device) with that of a commercially available injectable hyaluronic acid gel with 0.3% lidocaine (comparator) for lip augmentation. METHODS: Eligible patients (n = 158) with an overall score of very thin (n = 0) or thin (n = 1) on a 5-point Lip Fullness Grading Scale (LFGS) participated in the double-blind, randomized, multicenter study. Efficacy was assessed periodically over 6 months on a per protocol (PP) population (definitive) and a modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population (supportive). RESULTS: In the PP population, the mean change from baseline (day 56) in LFGS score was 1.52 for the test device and 1.53 for the comparator. This 56-day change was the primary efficacy endpoint. The 95% confidence interval (CI) limits for the mean difference in scores (test device minus comparator) were -0.33 and 0.31. In the mITT population, the corresponding 95% CI limits were -0.26 and 0.31. In both populations, the lower limits, -0.33 and -0.26, were higher than the prespecified -0.50, indicating that the test device was non-inferior to comparator. The adverse event profile was similar between the treatment groups. Ninety-three percent of patients treated with test device considered themselves improved, much improved, or very much improved at day 168 compared to 82% of those treated with comparator. The corresponding investigator improvement ratings were 100% and 76%, respectively. CONCLUSION: For lip augmentation, the efficacy and safety of the test device is non-inferior to comparator. J Drugs Dermatol. 2022;21(1):13-20 doi:10.36849/JDD.6548.


Subject(s)
Hyaluronic Acid , Lip , Double-Blind Method , Humans , Lidocaine , Treatment Outcome
2.
Pediatr Dermatol ; 31(2): 232-5, 2014.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22957967

ABSTRACT

Erysipeloid, a cutaneous infection with the gram-positive bacillus Erysipelothrix rhusiopathiae, is typically an occupational dermatosis seen in persons working with livestock or involved in commercial fishing (fishmongers). Other more-generalized forms of infection with this organism also exist, including a septic form usually associated with endocarditis. Many infections may be self-limited. They have rarely been reported in children or in immunocompromised patients. This microbe is sensitive to many mainstream antibiotic agents.


Subject(s)
Erysipelothrix Infections/immunology , Foot Dermatoses/immunology , Immunocompromised Host , Adolescent , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Biopsy , Erysipelothrix/isolation & purification , Erysipelothrix Infections/diagnosis , Erysipelothrix Infections/drug therapy , Female , Foot Dermatoses/diagnosis , Foot Dermatoses/drug therapy , Humans , Penicillins/therapeutic use
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL