Cargando…

Effectiveness evaluation of two volumizing hyaluronic acid dermal fillers in a controlled, randomized, double-blind, split-face clinical study

BACKGROUND: Enhancement of the midface can be achieved with volumizing hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. OBJECTIVE: The 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kerscher, Martina, Agsten, Karla, Kravtsov, Maria, Prager, Welf
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5498678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28721082
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S135441
_version_ 1783248345920176128
author Kerscher, Martina
Agsten, Karla
Kravtsov, Maria
Prager, Welf
author_facet Kerscher, Martina
Agsten, Karla
Kravtsov, Maria
Prager, Welf
author_sort Kerscher, Martina
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Enhancement of the midface can be achieved with volumizing hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. OBJECTIVE: The 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 METHODS: Subjects 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. RESULTS: Non-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. CONCLUSION: CPM-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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5498678
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54986782017-07-18 Effectiveness evaluation of two volumizing hyaluronic acid dermal fillers in a controlled, randomized, double-blind, split-face clinical study Kerscher, Martina Agsten, Karla Kravtsov, Maria Prager, Welf Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol Original Research BACKGROUND: Enhancement of the midface can be achieved with volumizing hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers. OBJECTIVE: The 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 METHODS: Subjects 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. RESULTS: Non-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. CONCLUSION: CPM-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. Dove Medical Press 2017-06-29 /pmc/articles/PMC5498678/ /pubmed/28721082 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S135441 Text en © 2017 Kerscher et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
Kerscher, Martina
Agsten, Karla
Kravtsov, Maria
Prager, Welf
Effectiveness evaluation of two volumizing hyaluronic acid dermal fillers in a controlled, randomized, double-blind, split-face clinical study
title Effectiveness evaluation of two volumizing hyaluronic acid dermal fillers in a controlled, randomized, double-blind, split-face clinical study
title_full Effectiveness evaluation of two volumizing hyaluronic acid dermal fillers in a controlled, randomized, double-blind, split-face clinical study
title_fullStr Effectiveness evaluation of two volumizing hyaluronic acid dermal fillers in a controlled, randomized, double-blind, split-face clinical study
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness evaluation of two volumizing hyaluronic acid dermal fillers in a controlled, randomized, double-blind, split-face clinical study
title_short Effectiveness evaluation of two volumizing hyaluronic acid dermal fillers in a controlled, randomized, double-blind, split-face clinical study
title_sort effectiveness evaluation of two volumizing hyaluronic acid dermal fillers in a controlled, randomized, double-blind, split-face clinical study
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5498678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28721082
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S135441
work_keys_str_mv AT kerschermartina effectivenessevaluationoftwovolumizinghyaluronicaciddermalfillersinacontrolledrandomizeddoubleblindsplitfaceclinicalstudy
AT agstenkarla effectivenessevaluationoftwovolumizinghyaluronicaciddermalfillersinacontrolledrandomizeddoubleblindsplitfaceclinicalstudy
AT kravtsovmaria effectivenessevaluationoftwovolumizinghyaluronicaciddermalfillersinacontrolledrandomizeddoubleblindsplitfaceclinicalstudy
AT pragerwelf effectivenessevaluationoftwovolumizinghyaluronicaciddermalfillersinacontrolledrandomizeddoubleblindsplitfaceclinicalstudy