BackgroundEnhancement of the midface can be achieved with volumizing hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of Cohesive Polydensified Matrix® 26 mg/mL HA gel (CPM-26) and Vycross® 20 mg/ml HA gel (VYC-20) in a controlled, randomized, evaluator-blind, split-face clinical study.Patients and methodsSubjects with moderate-to-severe malar volume loss on the Merz Aesthetics Scale (MAS) received CPM-26 on one side and VYC-20 on the contralateral side of the face. Effectiveness assessments were performed by blinded evaluators including photographic and live MAS ratings and live Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) ratings. Calculations of anatomical volume variations at month 3 (M3), month 6 (M6), month 12 (M12) and month 18 (M18) were also performed.ResultsNon-inferiority of CPM-26 versus VYC-20 was demonstrated at M3 (primary end point) based on MAS. GAIS rating showed that significantly more subjects had better improvement with CPM-26 than with VYC-20 at month 1, M3, M12 and M18 (p=0.0032, p=0.0074, p=0.0384 and p=0.0110, respectively). Standardized evaluation of volume variations from baseline to M3, M12 and M18 showed that CPM-26 created more volume augmentation at all time points, and the difference was significant at M3.ConclusionCPM-26 was non-inferior to VYC-20 based on MAS ratings at M3 and demonstrated a favorable safety and effectiveness profile for midfacial volume enhancement with results lasting up to M18.
Background:
There is a growing interest in the application of hyaluronic acid (HA) derivatives in skin quality improvement. The aim of this study was to confirm safety and effectiveness of cohesive polydensified matrix-hyaluronic acid + glycerol (CPM-HA20G; Belotero Revive) in revitalization of early-onset photodamaged facial skin.
Methods:
A total of 159 subjects with early signs of facial photodamaged skin were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to multiple- or single-dose treatment with CPMHA20G. Effectiveness assessments included biophysical measurements of skin hydration; elasticity, firmness, and roughness; investigator- and subject-assessed Global Aesthetic Improvement Scales; and FACE-Q Skin Changes and Treatment Satisfaction questionnaires.
Results:
In both treatment groups, skin hydration improved from baseline to all follow-up visits in subjects with dry or very dry skin. This improvement was significant at week 16 after initial treatment in the multiple-dose group (
P =
0.0013). Investigator- and subject-reported outcomes showed that the majority of subjects across all skin hydration types benefited from treatment, with higher satisfaction rates observed in the multiple-dose group. According to investigator-assessed Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, 90.7% of subjects at week 12 in the multiple-dose and 74.6% of subjects at week 4 in the single-dose group were rated as at least “improved.” All related treatment-emergent adverse events were transient, expected injection-site reactions of mild to moderate intensity.
Conclusions:
Effectiveness of CPM-HA20G for skin hydration in subjects with dry or very dry skin was demonstrated up to 9 months after last injection. Overall, CPM-HA20G demonstrated effective and safe use in facial skin revitalization among subjects with early-onset photodamaged skin.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.