BACKGROUND:Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are frequently used for the correction of facial soft tissue defects. AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of a novel HA filler, HA(E) (Emervel Deep), with those of HA(P) (Restylane Perlane) in the treatment of severe nasolabial folds (NLF). PATIENTS/ METHODS: A split-face, randomized and evaluator-blinded comparison study. Subjects were randomized to receive injection of HA(E) or HA(P) on their left or right NLF. Efficacy was evaluated based on the change in Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) from baseline. Local tolerability was assessed based on subject diary during the first 3 weeks after injection. Adverse events were also evaluated. RESULTS: At both weeks 12 and 24, the mean improvement in WSRS from baseline was significantly greater for HA(E) than for HA(P) (1.58±0.89 vs. 1.33±0.82 at week 24; P=0.002). Similar volume of both products was injected at baseline and touch-up. Both fillers were well tolerated, with similar worst score distribution and mean score for erythema, edema/swelling, bruising, and pruritus. Significantly less severe pain/tenderness was reported with HA(E) than with HA(P) (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The new HA filler HA(E) provides better efficacy and similar local tolerability compared with HA(P) 6 months after the treatment of severe NLF.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are frequently used for the correction of facial soft tissue defects. AIM: To compare the efficacy and safety of a novel HA filler, HA(E) (Emervel Deep), with those of HA(P) (Restylane Perlane) in the treatment of severe nasolabial folds (NLF). PATIENTS/ METHODS: A split-face, randomized and evaluator-blinded comparison study. Subjects were randomized to receive injection of HA(E) or HA(P) on their left or right NLF. Efficacy was evaluated based on the change in Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) from baseline. Local tolerability was assessed based on subject diary during the first 3 weeks after injection. Adverse events were also evaluated. RESULTS: At both weeks 12 and 24, the mean improvement in WSRS from baseline was significantly greater for HA(E) than for HA(P) (1.58±0.89 vs. 1.33±0.82 at week 24; P=0.002). Similar volume of both products was injected at baseline and touch-up. Both fillers were well tolerated, with similar worst score distribution and mean score for erythema, edema/swelling, bruising, and pruritus. Significantly less severe pain/tenderness was reported with HA(E) than with HA(P) (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The new HA filler HA(E) provides better efficacy and similar local tolerability compared with HA(P) 6 months after the treatment of severe NLF.
Authors: Byung Wook Kim; Ik Jun Moon; Woo Jin Yun; Bo Young Chung; Sang Duck Kim; Ga-Young Lee; Sung Eun Chang Journal: Ann Dermatol Date: 2016-05-25 Impact factor: 1.444
Authors: Gary Monheit; Kenneth Beer; Bhushan Hardas; Pearl E Grimes; Barry M Weichman; Vince Lin; Diane K Murphy Journal: Dermatol Surg Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 3.398
Authors: Peter Callan; Greg J Goodman; Ian Carlisle; Steven Liew; Peter Muzikants; Terrence Scamp; Michael B Halstead; John D Rogers Journal: Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol Date: 2013-03-20