Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 6/2015

01-12-2015 | Original Article

The Efficacy and Safety of Lidocaine-Containing Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Filler for Treatment of Nasolabial Folds: A Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Study

Authors: Won Joon Choi, Seung Won Han, Jung Eun Kim, Hye Won Kim, Moon Beom Kim, Hoon Kang

Published in: Aesthetic Plastic Surgery | Issue 6/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The use of injectable hyaluronic acid–based gel is well established in aesthetic facial procedures especially on the nasolabial fold (NLF).

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of PP-501-A-Lidocaine dermal filler with RestylaneLidocaine® when administered to the NLF.

Methods

Sixty-six subjects seeking correction of NLFs, with moderate or severe wrinkle severity, were recruited for this multicenter, randomized, patient and evaluator-blind, matched pairs, and active-controlled design clinical study. PP-501-A-Lidocaine and RestylaneLidocaine® were injected into the deep layer of the dermis and/or subcutis of the NLF. The first validity evaluation variable was the average wrinkle severity rating scale (WSRS), as scored by independent blinded evaluators at week 24. The second validity evaluation variable including the global aesthetic improvement scale (GAIS), the WSRS, and adverse event reporting at weeks 8, 16, and 24 were also performed.

Results

The mean improvement in the WSRS from baseline was 1.58 ± 0.68 for the PP-501-A-Lidocaine and 1.51 ± 0.66 for the RestylaneLidocaine® at week 24. The average value at week 8 after the final application was 1.62 ± 0.78 and 1.60 ± 0.75 in parts subject to PP-501-A-Lidocaine and RestylaneLidocaine®, respectively, and 1.58 ± 0.70 and 1.57 ± 0.68 at week 16, respectively. Both improvement and duration of the treatment effect were similar between the two groups. GAIS data rated by the treating investigator and participants showed no statistically significant differences. Both fillers were well tolerated and adverse reactions were mild and transient in most cases.

Conclusion

PP-501-A-Lidocaine showed an equivalent efficacy and safety observed after 6 months of follow-up compared to RestylaneLidocaine®.

Level of Evidence I

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.​springer.​com/​00266.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Levy PM, Boulle KD, Raspaldo H (2009) A split-face comparison of a new hyaluronic acid facial filler containing pre-incorporated lidocaine versus a standard hyaluronic acid facial filler in the treatment of naso-labial folds. J Cosmet Laser Ther 11:169–173CrossRefPubMed Levy PM, Boulle KD, Raspaldo H (2009) A split-face comparison of a new hyaluronic acid facial filler containing pre-incorporated lidocaine versus a standard hyaluronic acid facial filler in the treatment of naso-labial folds. J Cosmet Laser Ther 11:169–173CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Beasley KL, Weiss MA, Weiss RA (2009) Hyaluronic acid fillers: a comprehensive review. Facial Plast Surg 25:86–94CrossRefPubMed Beasley KL, Weiss MA, Weiss RA (2009) Hyaluronic acid fillers: a comprehensive review. Facial Plast Surg 25:86–94CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Kim JE, Sykes JM (2011) Hyaluronic acid fillers: history and overview. Facial Plast Surg 27:523–528CrossRefPubMed Kim JE, Sykes JM (2011) Hyaluronic acid fillers: history and overview. Facial Plast Surg 27:523–528CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Narins RS, Brandt F, Leyden J, Leyden J, Lorence ZP, Rubin M, Smith S (2003) A randomized, double-blind, multicenter comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of Restylane versus Zyplast for the correction of nasolabial folds. Dermatol Surg 29:588–595PubMed Narins RS, Brandt F, Leyden J, Leyden J, Lorence ZP, Rubin M, Smith S (2003) A randomized, double-blind, multicenter comparison of the efficacy and tolerability of Restylane versus Zyplast for the correction of nasolabial folds. Dermatol Surg 29:588–595PubMed
6.
go back to reference Beer K (2007) A randomized, evaluator-blinded comparison of efficacy of hyaluronic acid gel and avian-sourced hylan B plus gel for correction of nasolabial folds. Dermatol Surg 33:928–936PubMed Beer K (2007) A randomized, evaluator-blinded comparison of efficacy of hyaluronic acid gel and avian-sourced hylan B plus gel for correction of nasolabial folds. Dermatol Surg 33:928–936PubMed
7.
go back to reference Cohen JL, Dayan SH, Brandt FS, Nelson DB, Axford-Gately RA, Theisen MJ (2013) Systematic review of clinical trials of small- and large-gel-particle hyaluronic acid injectable fillers for aesthetic soft tissue augmentation. Dermatol Surg 39:205–231CrossRefPubMed Cohen JL, Dayan SH, Brandt FS, Nelson DB, Axford-Gately RA, Theisen MJ (2013) Systematic review of clinical trials of small- and large-gel-particle hyaluronic acid injectable fillers for aesthetic soft tissue augmentation. Dermatol Surg 39:205–231CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Monheit GD, Campbell RM, Neugent H, Nelson CP, Prather CL, Bachtell N, Eng D, Holmdahl L (2010) Reduced pain with use of proprietary hyaluronic acid with lidocaine for correction of nasolabial folds: a patient blinded, prospective, randomized controlled trial. Dermatol Surg 36:94–100CrossRefPubMed Monheit GD, Campbell RM, Neugent H, Nelson CP, Prather CL, Bachtell N, Eng D, Holmdahl L (2010) Reduced pain with use of proprietary hyaluronic acid with lidocaine for correction of nasolabial folds: a patient blinded, prospective, randomized controlled trial. Dermatol Surg 36:94–100CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Brandt FS, Cazzaniga A (2008) Hyaluronic acid gel fillers in the management of facial aging. Clin Interv Aging 3:153–159PubMedCentralPubMed Brandt FS, Cazzaniga A (2008) Hyaluronic acid gel fillers in the management of facial aging. Clin Interv Aging 3:153–159PubMedCentralPubMed
10.
go back to reference Rao J, Chi GC, Goldman MP (2005) Clinical comparison between two hyaluronic acid–derived fillers in the treatment of nasolabial folds: hylaform versus restylane. Dermatol Surg 31:1587–1590CrossRefPubMed Rao J, Chi GC, Goldman MP (2005) Clinical comparison between two hyaluronic acid–derived fillers in the treatment of nasolabial folds: hylaform versus restylane. Dermatol Surg 31:1587–1590CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Friedman P, Mafong E, Kauvar A, Geronemus R (2002) Safety data of injectable non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid gel for soft tissue augmentation. Dermatol Surg 28:491–494PubMed Friedman P, Mafong E, Kauvar A, Geronemus R (2002) Safety data of injectable non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid gel for soft tissue augmentation. Dermatol Surg 28:491–494PubMed
12.
go back to reference Jones DTA, Borrell M (2010) In vitro resistance to degradation of hyaluronic aciddermal fillers by ovine testicular hyaluronidase. Dermatol Surg 36:804–809CrossRef Jones DTA, Borrell M (2010) In vitro resistance to degradation of hyaluronic aciddermal fillers by ovine testicular hyaluronidase. Dermatol Surg 36:804–809CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Smith KC (2007) Practical use of Juvéderm: early experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(Suppl):67–73CrossRef Smith KC (2007) Practical use of Juvéderm: early experience. Plast Reconstr Surg 120(Suppl):67–73CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Narins RS, Dayan SH, Brandt FS, Baldwin EK (2008) Persistence and improvement of nasolabial fold correction with non animal stabilized hyaluronic acid 100,000 gel particles/mL filler on two retreatment schedules: results up to 18 months on two retreatment schedules. Dermatol Surg 34:S2–S8PubMed Narins RS, Dayan SH, Brandt FS, Baldwin EK (2008) Persistence and improvement of nasolabial fold correction with non animal stabilized hyaluronic acid 100,000 gel particles/mL filler on two retreatment schedules: results up to 18 months on two retreatment schedules. Dermatol Surg 34:S2–S8PubMed
15.
go back to reference Narins RS, Brandt FS, Dayan SH, Hornfeldt CS (2011) Persistence of nasolabial fold correction with a hyaluronic acid dermal filler with retreatment: results of an 18-month extension study. Dermatol Surg 37:644–650CrossRefPubMed Narins RS, Brandt FS, Dayan SH, Hornfeldt CS (2011) Persistence of nasolabial fold correction with a hyaluronic acid dermal filler with retreatment: results of an 18-month extension study. Dermatol Surg 37:644–650CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Borrell M, Leslie DB, Tezel A (2011) Lift capabilities of hyaluronic acid fillers. J Cosmet Laser Ther 13:21–27CrossRefPubMed Borrell M, Leslie DB, Tezel A (2011) Lift capabilities of hyaluronic acid fillers. J Cosmet Laser Ther 13:21–27CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Lowe NJ, Maxwell CA, Patnaik R (2005) Adverse reactions to dermal fillers: review. Dermatol Surg 31:1616–1625PubMed Lowe NJ, Maxwell CA, Patnaik R (2005) Adverse reactions to dermal fillers: review. Dermatol Surg 31:1616–1625PubMed
18.
go back to reference Weinkle SH, Bank DE, Boyd CM, Gold MH, Thomas JA, Murphy DK (2009) A multi-center, double-blind, randomized controlled study of the safety and effectiveness of Juve´derm injectable gel with and without lidocaine. J Cosmet Laser Ther 8:205–210 Weinkle SH, Bank DE, Boyd CM, Gold MH, Thomas JA, Murphy DK (2009) A multi-center, double-blind, randomized controlled study of the safety and effectiveness of Juve´derm injectable gel with and without lidocaine. J Cosmet Laser Ther 8:205–210
Metadata
Title
The Efficacy and Safety of Lidocaine-Containing Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Filler for Treatment of Nasolabial Folds: A Multicenter, Randomized Clinical Study
Authors
Won Joon Choi
Seung Won Han
Jung Eun Kim
Hye Won Kim
Moon Beom Kim
Hoon Kang
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery / Issue 6/2015
Print ISSN: 0364-216X
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5241
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-015-0571-z

Other articles of this Issue 6/2015

Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 6/2015 Go to the issue