CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Clinical Trials
The safety and effectiveness of Perlane in the treatment
of facial folds and wrinkles (nasolabial folds and oral commissures) were
evaluated in four prospective randomized controlled clinical studies involving
509 Perlane-treated subjects.
Perlane was shown to be effective when compared to
cross-linked collagen and cross-linked hyaluronic acid dermal fillers with
respect to the correction of moderate to severe facial folds and wrinkles, such
as
Table 1: Maximum Intensity of Symptoms after Initial
Treatment, Patient Diary (Study MA-1400-02)1
|
Perlane |
Restylane |
Perlane Patients |
Restylane Patients |
Total patients reporting symptoms
n (%) |
Total patients reporting symptoms
n (%) |
None
n (%) |
Tolerable2
n (%) |
Affected Daily Activity2
n (%) |
Disabling2
n (%) |
None
n (%) |
Tolerable2
n (%) |
Affected Daily Activity2
n (%) |
Disabling2
n (%) |
Bruising |
122 (86.5%) |
111 (78.2%) |
17 (12.2%) |
97 (69.8%) |
24 (17.3%) |
1 (0.7%) |
28 (20.1%) |
82 (59%) |
28 (20.1%) |
1 (0.7%) |
Redness |
118 (83.7%) |
114 (80.3%) |
21 (15.1%) |
105 (75.5%) |
12 (8.6%) |
1 (0.7%) |
25 (18%) |
96 (69.1%) |
17 (12.2%) |
1 (0.7%) |
Swelling |
128 (90.8%) |
127 (89.4%) |
11 (7.9%) |
107 (77%) |
19 (13.7%) |
2 (1.4%) |
12 (8.6%) |
102 (73.4%) |
23 (16.5%) |
2 (1.4%) |
Pain |
114 (80.9%) |
108 (76.1%) |
25 (18%) |
96 (69.1%) |
18 (12.9%) |
0 (0%) |
31 (22.3%) |
93 (66.9%) |
14 (10.1%) |
1 (0.7%) |
Tenderness |
130 (92.2%) |
123 (86.6%) |
9 (6.5%) |
112 (80.6%) |
18 (12.9%) |
0 (0%) |
16 (11.5%) |
109 (78.4%) |
12 (8.6%) |
2 (1.4%) |
Itching |
45 (31.9%) |
67 (47.2%) |
94 (67.6%) |
40 (28.8%) |
3 (2.2%) |
2 (1.4%) |
72 (51.8%) |
66 (47.5%) |
1 (0.7%) |
0 (0%) |
Other3 |
1 (0.7%) |
3 (2.1%) |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
1 Missing values are not reported.
2 Prospective definitions for: tolerable, affected daily activity
and disabling were not provided in the diary or protocol.
3 Two patients reported pimples (one Perlane/one Restylane); one Restylane patient reported a sore throat; one Restylane patient reported a
runny nose; degree of disability was not reported for any of the four events. |
Table 2: Duration of Adverse Events after Initial
Treatment, Patient Diary (Study MA-1400-02)1
|
Perlane |
Restylane |
Perlane Patients |
Restylane Patients |
Total patients reporting symptoms
n (%) |
Total patients reporting symptoms
n (%) |
Number of days2 |
Number of days2 |
1
n (%) |
2-7
n (%) |
8-13
n (%) |
14
n (%) |
1
n (%) |
2-7
n (%) |
8-13
n (%) |
14
n (%) |
Bruising |
122 (86.5%) |
111 (78.2%) |
6 (4.9%) |
81 (66.4%) |
28 (23%) |
7 (5.7%) |
9 (8.1%) |
69 (62.2%) |
30 (27%) |
3 (2.7%) |
Redness |
118 (83.7%) |
114 (80.3%) |
19 (16.1%) |
87 (73.7%) |
8 (6.8%) |
4 (3.4%) |
31 (27.2%) |
71 (62.3%) |
9 (7.9%) |
3 (2.6%) |
Swelling |
128 (90.8%) |
127 (89.4%) |
6 (4.7%) |
100 (78.1%) |
17 (13.3%) |
5 (3.9%) |
12 (9.4%) |
93 (73.2%) |
19 (15.0%) |
3 (2.4%) |
Pain |
114 (80.9%) |
108 (76.1%) |
46 (40.4%) |
66 (57.9%) |
2 (1.8%) |
0 (0%) |
37 (34.3%) |
69 (63.9%) |
2 (1.9%) |
0 (0%) |
Tenderness |
130 (92.2%) |
123 (86.6%) |
24 (18.5%) |
89 (68.5%) |
16 (12.3%) |
1 (0.8%) |
21 (17.1%) |
92 (74.8%) |
9 (7.3%) |
1 (0.8%) |
Itching |
45 (31.9%) |
67 (47.2%) |
19 (42.2%) |
23 (51.1%) |
3 (6.7%) |
0 (0%) |
22 (32.8%) |
38 (56.7%) |
6 (9.0%) |
1 (1.5%) |
Other3 |
1 (0.7%) |
3 (2.1%) |
1 (100%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
3 (100%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 Missing values are not reported.
2 Data are cumulated from up to four injection sites per patient
with earliest and latest time point for any reaction provided.
3 Two patients reported pimples (one Perlane/one Restylane); one Restylane patient reported a sore throat; one Restylane patient reported a
runny nose; degree of disability was not reported for any of the four events. |
Table 3: Maximum Intensity of Symptoms after Initial
Treatment, Patient Diary (Study MA-1400-01)1,2
|
Perlane |
Restylane |
Perlane Patients |
Restylane Patients |
Total patients reporting symptoms
n (%) |
Total patients reporting symptoms
n (%) |
None
n (%) |
Tolerable3
n (%) |
Affected Daily Activity3
n (%) |
Disabling3
n (%) |
None
n (%) |
Tolerable3
n (%) |
Affected Daily Activity3
n (%) |
Disabling3
n (%) |
Bruising |
74 (49.3%) |
70 (46.7%) |
75 (50.3%) |
67 (45%) |
7 (4.7%) |
0 (0%) |
79 (53%) |
66 (44.3%) |
4 (2.7%) |
0 (0%) |
Redness |
92 (61.3%) |
87 (58%) |
57 (38.3%) |
85 (57%) |
7 (4.7%) |
0 (0%) |
62 (41.6%) |
81 (54.4%) |
6 (4%) |
0 (0%) |
Swelling |
121 (80.7%) |
125 (83.3%) |
28 (18.8%) |
108 (72.5%) |
11 (7.4%) |
2 (1.3%) |
24 (16.1%) |
109 (73.2%) |
14 (9.4%) |
2 (1.3%) |
Pain Tenderness |
103 (68.7%) 130 (86.7%) |
96 (64%) 122 (81.3%) |
46 (30.9%) 19 (12.8%) |
90 (60.4%) 116 (77.9%) |
12 (8.1%) 13 (8.7%) |
1 (0.7%) 1 (0.7%) |
53 (35.6%) 27 (18.1%) |
84 (56.4%) 110 (73.8%) |
11 (7.4%) 11 (7.4%) |
1 (0.7%) 1 (0.7%) |
Itching |
58 (38.7%) |
53 (35.3%) |
91 (61.1%) |
54 (36.2%) |
4 (2.7%) |
0 (0%) |
96 (64.4%) |
49 (32.9%) |
4 (2.7%) |
0 (0%) |
Other4 |
3 (2%) |
3 (2%) |
NA |
3 (100%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
NA |
3 (100%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 Missing values are not reported.
2 Events are reported as local events; because of the design
(split-face) of the study, causality of the systemic adverse events cannot be
assigned.
3 Prospective definitions for: tolerable, affected daily activity
and disabling were not provided in the diary or protocol.
4 Two patients reported mild transient headache and one patient
reported mild “twitching”; neither could be associated with a particular
product. |
Table 4: Duration of Adverse Events after Initial
Treatment, Patient Diary (Study MA-1400-01)1,2
|
Perlane |
Restylane |
Perlane Patients |
Restylane Patients |
Total patients reporting symptoms
n
(%) |
Total patients reporting symptoms
n (%) |
Number of days3 |
Number of days3 |
1
n (%) |
2-7
n (%) |
8-13
n (%) |
14
n (%) |
1
n (%) |
2-7
n (%) |
8-13
n (%) |
14
n (%) |
Bruising |
74 (49.3%) |
70 (46.7%) |
23 (31.1%) |
44 (59.5%) |
6 (8.1%) |
1 (1.4%) |
13 (18.6%) |
51 (72.9%) |
6 (8.6%) |
0 (0%) |
Redness |
92 (61.3%) |
87 (58%) |
38 (41.3%) |
52 (56.5%) |
2 (2.2%) |
0 (0%) |
33 (37.9%) |
52 (59.8%) |
2 (2.3%) |
0 (0%) |
Swelling |
121 (80.7%) |
125 (83.3%) |
22 (18.2%) |
85 (70.2%) |
11 (9.1%) |
3 (2.5%) |
23 (18.4%) |
89 (71.2%) |
12 (9.6%) |
1 (0.8%) |
Pain |
103 (68.7%) |
96 (64%) |
32 (31.1%) |
67 (65%) |
2 (1.9%) |
2 (1.9%) |
27 (28.1%) |
67 (69.8%) |
2 (2.1%) |
0 (0%) |
Tenderness |
130 (86.7%) |
122 (81.3%) |
26 (20%) |
94 (72.3%) |
6 (4.6%) |
4 (3.1%) |
28 (23%) |
87 (71.3%) |
7 (5.7%) |
0 (0%) |
Itching |
58 (38.7%) |
53 (35.3%) |
29 (50%) |
26 (44.8%) |
2 (3.4%) |
1 (1.7%) |
22 (41.5%) |
27 (50.9%) |
4 (7.5%) |
0 (0%) |
Other4 |
3 (2%) |
3 (2%) |
3 (100%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
3 (100%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 Missing values are not reported.
2 Events are reported as local events; because of the design
(split-face) of the study, causality of the systemic adverse events cannot be
assigned.
3 Data are cumulated from up to two injection sites per patient with
earliest and latest time point for any reaction provided.
4 Two patients reported mild transient headache and one patient
reported mild “twitching”; neither could be associated with a particular
product. |
Table 5: All Investigator-Identified Adverse
Experiences (72 Hours) Number of Events per Patient per Study
Study Term |
MA-1400-01 |
MA-1400-02 |
Number of Events Perlane
(N=150) |
Number of Events Restylane
(N=150) |
Number of Events Perlane
(N=141) |
Number of Events Restylane
(N=142) |
Ecchymosis |
10 |
9 |
44 |
48 |
Edema |
4 |
4 |
10 |
6 |
Erythema |
13 |
13 |
5 |
3 |
Tenderness |
4 |
4 |
5 |
7 |
Pain |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Hyperpigmentation |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
Pruritus |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
Papule |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
Burning |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Hypopigmentation |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
Injection site scab |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
Table 6: Investigator-Identified Adverse Experiences
(2 Weeks or More After Implantation) (Number of Patients) (Perlane v.
Specified Active Controls—All Studies)
Study Term |
MA-1400-01 Perlane
(n=150)
(%) |
MA-1400-01 Restylane
(n=150)
(%) |
MA-1400-02 Perlane
(n=141)
(%) |
MA-1400-02 Restylane
(n=142)
(%) |
31GE0101 Perlane
(n=150)
(%) |
31GE0101 Hylaform
(n=150)
(%) |
31GE0002 Perlane
(n=68)
(%) |
31GE0002 Zyplast
(n=68)
(%) |
Ecchymosis |
7 (4.6%) |
4 (2.7%) |
15 (10.6%) |
14 (9.9%) |
6 (4.0%) |
2 (1.3%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
Edema |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
3 (2.1%) |
2 (1.4%) |
14 (9.3%) |
6 (4.0%) |
4 (5.9%) |
9 (13.2%) |
Erythema |
2 (1.3%) |
2 (1.3%) |
2 (1.4%) |
1 (0.7%) |
13 (8.7%) |
8 (5.3%) |
6 (8.8%) |
8 (11.8%) |
Tenderness |
1 (0.7%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (0.7%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (1.3%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
Pain |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (0.7%) |
13 (8.7%) |
3 (2.0%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (2.9%) |
Papule |
0 (0%) |
1 (0.7%) |
1 (0.7%) |
2 (1.4%) |
11 (7.3%) |
1 (0.7%) |
1 (1.5%) |
6 (8.8%) |
Pruritus |
0 (0%) |
1 (0.7%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (0.7%) |
2 (1.3%) |
3 (2.0%) |
3 (4.4%) |
5 (7.4%) |
Rash |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (0.7%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
Hyperpigmentation |
7 (4.7%) |
8 (5.3%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
Injection site scab |
0 (0%) |
1 (0.7%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
Skin exfoliation |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (0.7%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
MA-1400-02: Prospective, Randomized, Blinded,
Controlled Clinical Study
Design
1:1 randomized, prospective study at 17 U.S. centers,
which compared the safety and effectiveness of Perlane and Restylane following
treatment to baseline condition. Patients were randomized to either Perlane or
Restylane treatment. A touch-up was allowed 2 weeks after initial treatment.
Patients were partially masked; evaluating physicians were independent and
masked; treating physicians were unmasked.
Effectiveness was studied with 6 months follow-up. Safety
was studied with 6 months follow-up.
Endpoints
Effectiveness
Primary
The difference in effect of Perlane at week 12
versus baseline condition on the visual severity of the nasolabial folds, as
assessed by the Blinded Evaluator.
The primary study endpoint was wrinkle severity 12 weeks
after optimal correction was achieved. Wrinkle severity was evaluated on a
five-step validated Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) (i.e., none, mild,
moderate, severe, extreme) by a live evaluator blinded to treatment. Patient
success was defined as maintaining at least a one point improvement on the WSRS
at 12 weeks after optimal correction was achieved. The percent of patient successes
was calculated for each treatment group. Each group was compared to its own baseline,
with no comparison of Perlane to Restylane.
Secondary
Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) assessed at other
follow-up points (2, 6, and 24 weeks after optimal correction) by the Blinded
Evaluator, the investigator and the patient and compared to baseline score by
the same evaluator. Duration of effect defined as 6 months or timepoint, if
earlier, at which less than 50% of patients had at least a 1-grade response remaining
in both nasolabial folds (NLFs).
Safety assessments included: collection of patient
symptoms in a 14-day diary; investigator evaluation of adverse experiences at
72 hours, and at 2, 6, 12, and 24 weeks; development of humoral or
cell-mediated immunity; and the relationship of adverse experiences to injection
technique.
Outcomes
Demographics
The study enrolled 283 (i.e., 141 Perlane and 142
Restylane) patients with moderate to severe NLF wrinkles. The patients were
predominantly healthy ethnically diverse females. Bilateral NLFs and oral
commissures were corrected in most patients with 1.9 mL to 4.6 mL of Perlane. The
greatest amount used in any patient was 9.0 mL.
Gender – Female: 266 (94%); Male: 17 (6%)
Ethnicity – White: 226 (80%); Hispanic or Latino:
31 (11%); African American: 23 (8%); Asian: 3 (1%)
Efficacy
The results of the blinded evaluator assessment of NLF
wrinkle severity for Perlane and control (Restylane) are presented in
Table 7. In the primary effectiveness assessment at 12 weeks, 87% of the Perlane
and 77% of the control patients had maintained at least a 1-point improvement
over baseline.
Table 7: Blinded Evaluator Wrinkle Severity Response
Scores
Time point |
No. of Perlane Patients |
No. of Perlane
Pts. maintaining
≥ 1 Unit
Improvement of
NLF on WSRS |
No. of
Restylane
Patients |
No. of Restylane Pts. maintaining ≥ 1 Unit Improvement of NLF on WSRS |
6 weeks |
136 |
121 (89%) |
136 |
113 (83%) |
12 weeks |
141 |
122 (87%) |
140 |
108 (77%) |
24 weeks |
138 |
87 (63%) |
140 |
103 (74%) |
All p-values < 0.0001 based on t-test compared to
baseline condition |
Antibody Testing
15/141 (10.6%) subjects displayed a pre-treatment
antibody response against Perlane, (which was believed to be related to
co-purifying Streptococcus capsule antigens). One subject also developed a
measurable increase in antibody titer after Perlane injection. 4/16 (27%)
patients with antibodies against Perlane had adverse experiences at the
injection site, which was similar to the local adverse event rate observed in the
entire Perlane population (i.e., 49/141 (35%)). With the exception of
one moderate bruising event, all the adverse experiences in the patients with a
humoral response against Perlane were mild in severity. No severe events
were noted and the subject who developed an antibody response after Perlane injection
did not experience any adverse event at the injection site. Immediate type skin
testing demonstrated that no patient developed IgE to Perlane. Post-exposure
histopathology of skin biopsies of an implant site on each patient demonstrated
that no patient developed cell-mediated immunity to Perlane.
MA-1400-01: Prospective, Randomized, Blinded,
Controlled Clinical Study
Design
1:1 randomized, prospective study at 10 U.S. centers,
which compared the safety and effectiveness of Perlane and Restylane following
treatment to baseline condition in 150 patients with pigmented skin and
predominantly African-American ethnicity. Patients were randomized to either Perlane
or Restylane treatment in a “within-patient” model of augmentation
correction of bilateral nasolabial folds (NLFs) and oral commissures with one
treatment assigned to one side and the other treatment to the other side. A
touch-up was allowed 2 weeks after initial treatment. Patients and treating physicians
were partially masked. Evaluations were performed by live investigator
assessment for the primary analysis.
Effectiveness was studied with 6 months follow-up. Safety
was studied with 6 months follow-up.
Endpoints
Effectiveness
Primary
The difference in effect of Perlane at week 12
versus baseline condition on the visual severity of the NLFs.
The primary study endpoint was wrinkle severity 12 weeks
after optimal correction was achieved. Wrinkle severity was evaluated with a
five-step validated Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) (i.e., none, mild,
moderate, severe, extreme) by an on-site Blinded Evaluator. Patient success was
defined as maintaining at least a one point improvement on the WSRS at 12 weeks
after optimal correction was achieved. The percent of patients successes was calculated
for each group. Each treatment group was compared to its own baseline, with no comparison
of Perlane to Restylane.
Secondary
Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) was assessed at
other follow-up points (2, 6, and 24 weeks after optimal correction) by the
investigator and the patient and compared to baseline score by the same
evaluator. A photographic assessment of patient outcomes was also performed.
Duration of effect defined as 6 months or timepoint, if earlier, at which less
than 50% of patients had at least a 1-grade response at both nasolabial folds.
Safety assessments included: collection of patient
symptoms in a 14-day diary; investigator evaluation of adverse experiences at
72 hours, and at 2, 6, 12, and 24 weeks; the development of humoral or
cell-mediated immunity; and the relationship of adverse experiences to
injection technique.
Outcomes
Demographics
The study enrolled 150 patients with moderate to severe
NLF wrinkles. The patients were predominantly healthy African-American females.
Gender – Female: 140/150 (93%); Male 10/150 (7%)
Ethnicity – White: 2 (1.3%); Hispanic or Latino: 9
(6%); African-American: 137 (91%); American Indian: 2 (1.3%)
Fitzpatrick Skin Type – I to III: 0 (0%); IV: 44
(29%); V: 68 (45%); VI: 38 (25%)
Efficacy
The results of the live blinded evaluator assessment of
wrinkle severity for Perlane and control (Restylane) are presented in
Table 8 and are based on the Intent-to-Treat analysis. In the primary
effectiveness assessment at 12 weeks, 92% of the Perlane -treated and
93% of the Restylane -treated NLF maintained at least a 1-point
improvement over baseline.
Table 8: Live Evaluator Wrinkle Severity Response
Scores
Time point |
No. of patients |
No. of Perlane Pts. maintaining ≥ 1 Unit Improvement on WSRS |
95% Perlane Confidence Interval |
No. of Restylane Pts. maintaining ≥ 1 Unit Improvement on WSRS |
95% Restylane Confidence Interval |
6 weeks |
148 |
140 (95%) |
90-99% |
142 (96%) |
92-99% |
12 weeks |
149 |
137 (92%) |
87-97% |
139 (93%) |
89-98% |
24 weeks |
147 |
104 (71%) |
63-77% |
108 (73%) |
66-81% |
All p-values < 0.0001 based on t-test compared to
baseline condition |
Antibody Testing
6/150 (4%) subjects displayed a pre-treatment antibody
response against Perlane (which was believed to be related to
co-purifying Streptococcus capsule antigens). No subjects developed a
measurable increase in antibody titer after Perlane injection. 0/6 (0%)
patients with antibodies against Perlane had adverse experiences at the
injection site as compared to the local adverse event rate observed in the
entire Perlane population (i.e., 14/150 (9%)).
All the adverse experiences in the patients with a
humoral response against Perlane were mild in severity. Immediate type
skin testing demonstrated that no patient developed IgE to Perlane. Post-exposure
histopathology of skin biopsies of an implant site on each patient demonstrated
that no patient developed cell-mediated immunity to Perlane.
31GE0101: Prospective, Randomized, Blinded, Controlled
Clinical Study
Design
1:1 randomized, prospective study at 6 Canadian centers,
which compared the safety and effectiveness of Perlane and Hylaform. Patients
were randomized to either Perlane or Hylaform in a “within-patient”
model of augmentation correction of bilateral nasolabial folds (NLFs) with one
treatment assigned to one side and the other treatment to the other side. A
touch-up was allowed 2 weeks after initial treatment. Patients were partially
masked; evaluating physicians were independent and masked; treating physicians
were partially masked.
Effectiveness was studied with 6 months follow-up. Safety
was studied with 6 months follow-up.
Endpoints
Effectiveness
Primary
The difference in effect of Perlane as compared to
Hylaform on the visual severity of the NLFs, as assessed by a Blinded Evaluator
at 6 months after baseline.
The primary evaluation parameter was a five-step
validated Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) score (absent, mild, moderate,
severe, extreme) by the Blinded Evaluator at 6 months. Success was defined as
maintaining at least a one point improvement of the NLF on the WSRS at 6 months
after optimal correction was achieved. The percent of successful NLFs after Perlane
and control treatments were compared, as well as a within-patient matched
analysis (McNemar's Test).
Secondary
Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) was assessed at
other follow-up points (2 weeks and 3, 4.5, and 6 months after optimal
correction) by the Blinded Evaluator and the patient. Global Aesthetic
Improvement (GAI): very much improved /much improved / improved / no change / worse,
assessed at same time points by patient.
Safety assessments included: investigator evaluation of
adverse experiences at all time points.
Outcomes
Demographics
The study enrolled 150 patients with moderate to severe
nasolabial fold wrinkles. The patients were predominantly healthy white
females. The study was completed by 140 of 150 patients at six months and
additional safety data were available in 122 of 150 patients at 9 months.
Gender – Female: 140 (93%); Male: 10 (7%)
Ethnicity – White: 142/150 (95%); Non-caucasian:
8/150 (5%)
Efficacy
The results of the blinded evaluator assessments are
presented in Table 9 and are based on an Intent-to-Treat (ITT) analysis. At 6
months, 113/150 (75%) of the Perlane-treated NLFs maintained at least a single
point improvement on the WSRS compared to 57/150 (38%) of the control-treated
NLFs.
Table 9: Blinded Evaluator Wrinkle Severity Response
Rates
Time point |
Number of NLFs |
No. of Perlane NLFs maintaining ≥ 1 Unit improvement on WSRS |
No. of Hylaform NLFs maintaining ≥ 1 Unit Improvement on WSRS |
3 months |
150 |
131 (87%) |
94 (63%) |
4.5 months |
150 |
110 (73%) |
69 (46%) |
6 months |
150 |
113 (75%) |
57 (38%) |
Table 10 shows the results for the within-patient
investigator assessment of NLF on the WSRS.
Table 10: Evaluating Investigator's Assessment of NLF
Severity; Score Change From Pre-Treatment Until 3, 4.5, and 6 Months After Last
Treatment
Mos. after last treatment |
Periane is superior to Hylaform
n (%) |
Periane equal to Hylaform
n (%) |
Hylaform superior to Periane
n (%) |
p-value* |
3 |
95 (63.3%) |
46 (30.7%) |
9 (6.0%) |
p < 0.001 |
4.5 |
87 (58.0%) |
54 (36.0%) |
9 (6.0%) |
p < 0.001 |
6 |
96 (64.0%) |
42 (28.0%) |
12 (8.0%) |
p < 0.001 |
31GE0002: Prospective, Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Clinical Study
Design
1:1 randomized, prospective study at 2 Scandinavian centers, which compared the safety
and effectiveness of Perlane and Zyplast. Patients were randomized to either Perlane or
Zyplast in a “within-patient” model of augmentation correction of bilateral nasolabial folds
(NLFs) with one treatment assigned to one side and the other treatment to the other side.
Patients were partially masked; evaluating physicians were independent and masked; treating
physicians were partially masked. A touch-up was allowed 2 weeks after the initial treatment.
Retreatment was allowed at 6 or 9 months.
Effectiveness was studied with 9 months follow-up. Safety was studied with 12 months
follow-up.
Endpoints
Effectiveness
Primary
Superiority of correction of the NLF by Perlane as compared to Zyplast based on the visual
severity of the NLF, as assessed by a Blinded Evaluator at 6 months after optimal correction
was achieved.
The primary evaluation parameter was a five-step validated Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale
(WSRS) score (absent, mild, moderate, severe, extreme) by the Blinded Evaluator at 6 months.
NLF success was defined as maintaining at least a one point improvement on the WSRS at 6
months after optimal correction was achieved. The within patient comparison of Perlane and
control treatments was evaluated in a matched analysis (McNemar’s Test).
Secondary
Superiority of correction of the NLF by Perlane or Zyplast based on the visual severity of the
NLFs, as assessed by a Blinded Evaluator at 9 months after baseline.
Safety assessments included: investigator evaluation of adverse experiences at all time points.
Outcomes
Demographics
The study enrolled 68 patients with correctable NLF wrinkles. The patients were
predominantly healthy white females.
Gender – Female: 65 (96%); Male: 3 (4%)
Ethnicity – White: 68/68 (100%)
Efficacy
The results of the blinded evaluator assessments are presented in Table 11. At the primary
effectiveness time point of 6 months, the Perlane-treated NLF experienced more improvement
from baseline (judged by the WSRS) in 50% of the subjects; the control-treated side
experienced more improvement in 10.3% of the subjects.
Table 11: Evaluating Investigator’s Assessment; Difference in the Severity Rating Scale From
Pre-Treatment Until 2, 4, 6, and 9 Months After Baseline
Time point |
Periane NLF is superior to control NLF
n (%) |
Periane NLF is equal to control NLF
n (%) |
Control NLF is
superior to
Perlane NLF
n (%) |
p-value1 |
2 months2 |
32 (47.1%) |
28 (41.2%) |
8 (11.8%) |
0.0001 |
4 months2 |
38 (55.9%) |
25 (36.8%) |
5 (7.4%) |
0.0001 |
6 months2 |
34 (50.0%) |
27 (39.7%) |
7 (10.3%) |
0.0003 |
9 months3 |
21 (48.8%) |
16 (37.2%) |
6 (14.9%) |
0.0039 |
* McNemar's test with %=n/N, where N=Number of subjects
in the ITT population |