CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Clinical Studies
Pivotal Study For JUVEDERM® Ultra
(Without Lidocaine)
Pivotal Study Design
A prospective, double-blind, randomized, within-subject
controlled, multicenter, pivotal clinical study was conducted to evaluate the
safety and effectiveness of JUVEDERM® Ultra in the treatment
of moderate to severe wrinkles. Subjects underwent treatment with JUVEDERM® Ultra
in one NLF and the control implant (ZYPLAST® bovine
collagen) in the opposite NLF.
Up to 3 bilateral treatments (initial treatment and up to
2 touch-up treatments), approximately 2 weeks apart, were allowed. At 2 and 4
weeks after each treatment, the Independent Expert Reviewer (IER) assessed the
level of correction achieved. If correction was less than optimal after the
first or second treatment, the Investigator re-treated the under corrected NLFs
using the same respective treatment materials as in the initial treatment. The
IER and the subject remained masked to the randomized treatment assignment.
Routine follow-up visits for safety and effectiveness
occurred at days 3 and 7 and week 2 after each treatment, and at 4, 8, 12, 16,
20, and 24 weeks after the last treatment. Standardized facial photography was
performed for documentation purposes. The Investigator and the IER
independently evaluated the severity of the subject's NLFs using a validated
5-point (range 0 to 4) photographic NLF severity scale. The subject made
independent self-assessments of NLF severity using a non-photographic 5-point
grading scale.
Study Endpoints
The primary effectiveness endpoint for the study was the
IER's NLF severity score over the post-treatment follow-up period.
Effectiveness of device treatment was demonstrated by a lowering of the NLF
severity score. Additional analyses included the subject's and the
Investigator's live NLF severity assessments.
Subject Demographics
A total of 146 subjects (31 to 75 years of age) were
randomizedand treated, and 140 (96%) completed the 6-month follow-up period.
Prior to enrollment, 87 (60%) had previous experience with other facial dermal
treatments (eg, alpha-hydroxy agents, BOTOX® Cosmetic
[onabotulinumtoxinA], microdermabrasion, or retinoic acid).
Subject demographics and pretreatment characteristics of
the JUVEDERM® Ultra effectiveness population are presented
inTable 5.
Table 5: Demographics and Pretreatment Characteristics
of the Effectiveness Population (Number/% of Subjects) N = 146
Gender (Number/%) |
Female |
135 |
92% |
Male |
11 |
8% |
Ethnicity (Number/%) |
Caucasian |
105 |
72% |
African American |
18 |
12% |
Hispanic |
15 |
10% |
Asian |
7 |
5% |
Other |
1 |
1% |
Fitzpatrick Skin Phototype (Number/%) |
I |
4 |
3% |
II |
34 |
23% |
III |
55 |
38% |
IV |
24 |
16% |
V |
24 |
16% |
VI |
5 |
3% |
Mean Baseline NLF Severity Scorea |
JUVEDERM® Ultra NLF |
2.6 |
|
ZYPLAST® NLF |
2.6 |
|
a NLF severity was ranked
on a 5-point scale from None (0) to Extreme (4) |
Effectiveness Results
The primary effectiveness results for JUVEDERM® Ultra
based on the IER's assessment of NLF severity are presented in Table 6.
Table 6: Effectiveness Summary Independent Expert
Reviewer’s NLF Severity Scores
|
nc |
JUVEDERM® Ultra
(Na = 146 NLFs) |
Controlb
(Na = 146 NLFs) |
NLF Severity d |
Improvement Since Baselined |
NLF Severityd |
Improvement Since Baselined |
Baseline |
146 |
2.6 |
- |
2.6 |
- |
Week 2 |
142 |
0.6 |
2.0 |
0.7 |
1.9 |
Week 12 |
129 |
0.9 |
1.7 |
1.6 |
0.9 |
Week 24 |
138 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
2.3 |
0.3 |
a Number of subject NLFs
treated with the respective device
b A commercially available injectable bovine collagen implant
c Number of subject NLFs with data at baseline and the specified time point
d Mean score |
Throughout the 24-week study period, JUVEDERM® Ultra
provided a clinically and statistically significant improvement in NLF
severity. Clinical superiority was achieved at week 24 for JUVEDERM® Ultra
over ZYPLAST® with mean NLF severity of 1.3 and 2.3,
respectively (P < .0001). Additionally, subject assessments for product
preference overwhelmingly favored JUVEDERM® Ultra:
88% preferred the JUVEDERM® Ultra treated NLF over the ZYPLAST® treated
NLF.
Extended Follow-up Clinical Study
Of the 146 randomized and treated subjects, more than
three-quarters (79%, 116/146) returned after completion of their 24-week
follow-up in the pivotal study for complimentary repeat treatment. Demographics
for the subjects receiving repeat treatment were similar to those in the
overall study. The majority of subjects were Caucasian and female, with a
median age of 50 years. More than one-third of subjects were of Fitzpatrick
Skin Photo types IV, V, or VI.
After completing the 24-week study, subjects returned for
repeat treatment at their convenience or their Investigator’s convenience. The
average time elapsed between last initial treatment and repeat treatment was
approximately 9 months. A statistical analysis demonstrated that those subjects
who returned for repeat treatment at a later time point were representative of
the pivotal study subjects overall. There were no significant differences
between these stratified groups in terms of NLF severity at baseline or at the
24-week follow-up visit or in overall initial volume injected. Before repeat
treatment, live assessments of wrinkle severity were made by the Investigator
and the subject. The extended follow-up effectiveness results for JUVEDERM® Ultra
based on the Investigator’s assessment of NLF severity are presented in Table
7.
Table 7: Extended Follow-up Prior to Repeat Treatment
Effectiveness Summary Investigator’s NLF Severity Scores
|
nb |
JUVEDERM® Ultra
(Na = 116 NLFs) |
NLF Severityc |
Improvement Since Baselinec |
P value |
Baselinea |
116 |
2.6 |
- |
N/A |
Follow-up Week 24a (Month 6) |
116 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
< .0001 |
Follow-up Weeks 25-36 (Months 6-9) |
68 |
1.3 |
1.2 |
< .0001 |
Follow-up Weeks > 36 (> 9 months) |
48 |
1.6 |
1.1 |
< .0001 |
a Data collected during
pivotal study
b Number
of subject NLFs with data at baseline and the specified time point
c Mean
score |
All subjects returning for repeat treatment were
stratified into 2 groups based on the time elapsed between last initial
treatment and repeat treatment: 25 to 36 weeks or > 36 weeks. Mean
improvement since baseline was clinically significant (≥ 1 point) for
both groups, with a large majority of subjects treated with JUVEDERM® Ultra
demonstrating improvement:
- 84% (57/68) at 25 to 36 weeks (6-9 months)
- 75% (36/48) beyond 36 weeks (beyond 9 months)
Follow-up After
Repeat Treatment
A subset of subjects enrolled in a prospective,
multicenter study for follow-up after repeat treatment. Subjects were eligible
for the follow-up study if they completed the pivotal study, indicated that
they preferred JUVEDERM® Ultra over the control device, and received
repeat treatment between 24 and 36 weeks after their last treatment in the
pivotal study.
Subjects underwent repeat treatment with JUVEDERM® Ultra
in both NLFs. Demographics for subjects enrolled in the repeat treatment
extended follow-up study were similar to those in the pivotal study. Routine
follow-up visits for safety and effectiveness occurred at 4, 12, 24, 36, and 48
weeks after the repeat treatment. The Investigator evaluated each subject for
signs and symptoms of serious or unanticipated adverse events. The Investigator
also evaluated the severity of the subject’s NLFs using the validated 5-point
(range 0 to 4) photographic NLF severity scale. The subject made independent
self-assessments of NLF severity using the nonphotographic 5-point grading
scale.
No serious or unanticipated adverse events were reported.
The effectiveness results for repeat treatment with JUVEDERM® Ultra
based on the Investigator’s assessment of NLF severity after repeat treatment
are presented in Table 8.
Table 8: Follow-up After Repeat Treatment
Effectiveness Summary Investigator’s NLF Severity Scores
|
na |
JUVEDERM® Ultra
N = 24 |
NLF Severityb |
Improvement Since Baselineb |
Baseline |
24 |
2.5 |
- |
Pre-repeat Treatment |
24 |
1.4 |
1.1 |
Week 12 |
23 |
0.9 |
1.7 |
Week 24 |
23 |
1.1 |
1.4 |
Week 48 |
9 |
1.3 |
1.3 |
a Number of subject NLFs
with data at baseline and the specified time point
b Mean
score |
Throughout the 48-week follow-up period, JUVEDERM® Ultra
provided a clinically significant improvement in NLF severity (≥ 1-point
mean improvement) with a large majority of subjects treated with JUVEDERM® Ultra
demonstrating improvement at24 weeks and beyond: 87% (20/23) at 24 weeks and
78% (7/9)at 48 weeks (1 year).
Clinical Study For JUVEDERM® Ultra
XC
A prospective, double-blind, randomized, within-subject
controlled, multicenter clinical study was conducted to evaluate the safety and
effectiveness of JUVEDERM® Ultra XC compared with JUVEDERM® Ultra
without lidocaine. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of
procedural pain (pain during injection) experienced by subjects when treated
with each product. The duration of the study was 2 weeks.
A total of 36 subjects received a single treatment with
JUVEDERM® Ultra XC in one NLF and JUVEDERM® Ultra
without lidocaine in the other NLF. Within 30 minutes after both NLFs were
treated, the subjects rated procedural pain on an 11-point scale and a 5-point
comparative scale. Both the Investigators and subjects rated NLF severity at
baseline and 2 weeks after treatment using the 5-point NLF severity scale from
the pivotal study. Subjects utilized an interactive, voice-response-system
diary to record common treatment-site reactions for 14 days.
Most of the subjects were women (94%) of Caucasian
descent (75%) with Fitzpatrick skin photo type II or III (58%). Persons of
color (Fitzpatrick skin photo types IV, V, or VI) comprised 36% of treated
subjects. Median age at study entry was 52 years (range, 32 to 73). Subject
demographics are shown in Table 9.
Table 9: Subject Demographics(Number/% of Subjects) N
= 36 Subjects
Gender |
Female |
34 |
94% |
Male |
2 |
6% |
Ethnicity |
Caucasian |
27 |
75% |
African American |
7 |
19% |
Hispanic |
0 |
0% |
Asian |
1 |
3% |
Other |
1 |
3% |
Fitzpatrick Skin Type |
I |
2 |
6% |
II |
16 |
44% |
III |
5 |
14% |
IV |
7 |
1 9% |
V |
3 |
8% |
VI |
3 |
8% |
The pain scores for the NLFs treated with JUVEDERM® Ultra
XC were significantly lower (P < .0001) than for the NLFs treated with
JUVEDERM® Ultra without lidocaine (Table 10) based on
the 11-point scale. On the comparative scale, 94% (34/36) of subjects rated the
side with lidocaine as less or slightly less painful compared to the side
without lidocaine (Table 11).
Table 10: Subject Assessment of Procedural Pain Scores
(N = 36)
|
Mean Pain Scorea |
JUVEDERM® Ultra XC |
1.5 |
JUVEDERM® Ultra |
5.2 |
Mean Difference |
-3.7 |
a Procedural pain score
ranges from 0 to 10 where 0 = No Pain and 10 = Worst Pain Imaginable |
Table 11: Subject Assessments of Comparative
Procedural Pain Score
|
JUVEDERM® Ultra
(N = 36 NLFs)
N (%) |
JUVEDERM® Ultra XC is less painful |
23 (64%) |
JUVEDERM® Ultra XC is slightly less painful |
11 (31%) |
No difference between products |
0 (0%) |
JUVEDERM® Ultra XC is slightly more painful |
2 (6%) |
JUVEDERM® Ultra XC is more painful |
0 (0%) |
NLF severity improvement after 2 weeks was similar for
both JUVEDERM® products (with and without lidocaine). Mean
baseline score was 2.3, and a clinically significant improvement (severity
reduction) to 0.7 was observed after 2 weeks for both products.