CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Clinical Studies
Nasolabial Fold Pre-Market Clinical Trial
Study Design
The safety and effectiveness of RADIESSE injectable
implant for the treatment of nasolabial folds (NLFs) was evaluated in a
multi-center, prospective, randomized clinical trial. Patients were randomized
to receive RADIESSE injectable implant in one fold and a commercially available
collagen implant in the contralateral fold.
Patients were eligible to receive up to three injections
during the initial treatment phase (week 0, week 2 and week 4). At 2 weeks
after each treatment, the level of correction was determined and if correction
was less than optimal, the Investigator re-treated the nasolabial fold using
the same respective treatment materials as in the initial treatment. A safety
follow-up was conducted 1 month after any injection and at 3 and 6 months after
the last injection. Effectiveness evaluations were conducted at 3 and 6 months
after the last injection. Three blinded reviewers independently evaluated the
severity of the subject's nasolabial folds using a validated 6-point wrinkle
severity scale.
Study Endpoints
The primary effectiveness endpoint of the study was the
blinded reviewers' Lemperle Rating Scale (LRS) score of wrinkle severity at 3
months after the last touch-up (at which optimal correction was achieved). In
this assessment, LRS scores were determined, (using this validated 6-point
scale), via blinded, photographic assessments by 3 board certified physicians. A
change in LRS of 1 was considered to be clinically significant. Secondary
effectiveness endpoints included the blinded reviewers' assessment of wrinkle
severity at 6 months after treatment, and the volume of material injected.
Study Population
A total of 117 subjects (31-76 years of age) were
randomized and treated and 115 (98.3%) completed the 3 month primary
effectiveness evaluation and 113 (96.6%) completed the 6 month follow-up visit.
The baseline demographics of the study population are presented in Table 7
which shows that the study enrolled a population of predominantly female,
Caucasian nonsmokers.
Table 7: PATIENT DEMOGRAPHICS
N = 117
AGE (YEARS) |
|
Mean |
54.7 |
Standard Deviation |
8.9 |
Minimum |
31.0 |
Maximum |
76.0 |
GENDER |
Female |
105 (89.7%) |
Male |
12 (10.3%) |
RACE |
American Indian |
0 (0.0%) |
Asian |
0 (0.0%) |
Black |
2 (1.7%) |
Caucasian |
102 (87.2%) |
Hispanic |
11 (9.4%) |
Other |
2 (1.7%) |
SMOKING HISTORY |
Quit Smoking |
26 (22.2%) |
Never Smoked |
83 (70.0%) |
Smokes |
8 (6.8%) |
Treatment Material Delivered
Volumes injected during the initial treatment phase are
detailed in Table 8 below. The total mean volume for RADIESSE injectable
implant was 1.2mL and 2.4mL for the Control.
Table 8: TOTAL VOLUME OF MATERIAL INJECTED (mL),
N = 117
|
RADIESSE® |
CONTROL |
Mean |
1.2 |
2.4 |
Median |
1.1 |
2.2 |
Standard Deviation |
0.5 |
0.9 |
Minimum |
0.3 |
0.8 |
Maximum |
2.7 |
4.7 |
Effectiveness Results
Table 9 contains the mean LRS at baseline, 3 months and 6
months for the RADIESSE injectable implant treated nasolabial folds and the
Control treated nasolabial folds with the difference between the means.
Baseline scores for the RADIESSE injectable implant and Control groups were not
statistically different.
Table 9: COMPARISON OF MEAN LRS SCORES* FOR RADIESSE
INJECTABLE IMPLANT AND CONTROL
Nasolabial Folds - Baseline, 3 and 6 Months
|
RADIESSE® |
CONTROL |
DIFFERENCE |
Baseline |
3.4 |
3.4 |
0.0 |
3 Months |
1.9 |
3.5 |
1.6 |
6 Months |
2.1 |
3.4 |
1.3 |
* Grading Scale: 0 = No wrinkles, 1 = Just perceptible
wrinkle, 2 = Shallow wrinkle, 3 = Moderately deep wrinkle, 4 = Deep wrinkle,
well-defined edges, 5 = Very deep wrinkle, redundant fold |
Primary Effectiveness Endpoint
The primary effectiveness endpoint was to use mean LRS
scores to evaluate whether RADIESSE injectable implant was non-inferior to
Control for the correction of nasolabial folds 3 months after final treatment.
At 3 months, 84.6% of the RADIESSE injectable implant treated nasolabial folds
were scored at least 1-point higher than the Control, 12.8% were scored equally,
and 2.6% were scored at least 1-point lower than the Control. RADIESSE
injectable implant met the statistical criteria for non-inferiority to Control
at 3 months (p < 0.0001), however, the Control scored no effectiveness at 3
months.
Secondary Effectiveness Endpoint
The pre-specified secondary superiority analyses at 6
months required a mean 1-point LRS difference between the improvements for the
RADIESSE injectable implant treated nasolabial fold versus improvement on the
Control treated nasolabial fold and that in at least 50% of patients, the
RADIESSE injectable implant treated nasolabial fold be superior to the Control treated
nasolabial fold. At 6 months after optimal correction was achieved, 78.6% of
the RADIESSE injectable implant treated nasolabial folds were scored at least
1-point higher than the Control-treated folds, 16.2% were scored equally, and
5.1% were scored at least 1-point lower than the Control. The mean LRS for the
RADIESSE injectable implant treated nasolabial folds demonstrated superiority
when compared to the mean LRS for the Control-treated nasolabial folds at 6
months (p < 0.0001).
Nasolabial Folds Mixing Radiesse Injectable Implant With
2% Lidocaine Hcl Pre-Market Clinical Trial
CAUTION: The clinical study that evaluated
the mixing of 2% lidocaine and RADIESSE injectable implant was conducted ONLY
on nasolabial folds. The safety and effectiveness for the mixing of 2%
lidocaine and RADIESSE injectable implant for restoration and/or correction of the
signs of facial fat loss (lipoatrophy) in people with human immunodeficiency
virus has not been studied.
In a prospective, randomized split-face single-blind
clinical study, 50 patients were injected with syringes of 1.3cc of RADIESSE
injectable implant mixed with 0.2cc of 2% lidocaine HCl (lidocaine) in one
nasolabial fold (Treatment) and RADIESSE injectable implant without the 2% lidocaine
(Control) in the contralateral nasolabial fold at two investigational sites in
the United States. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of
RADIESSE injectable implant mixed with 2% lidocaine for the reduction of pain
during injection and the incidence of adverse events through the 1 month
follow-up period.
Study Endpoints
The two primary effectiveness endpoints of the study were
to evaluate if a statistically significant reduction in pain existed in the
Treatment nasolabial fold when compared to the Control nasolabial fold
immediately after treatment using a validated visual analog scale (VAS) and to assess
whether the observed differences in pain in the Treatment nasolabial fold when compared
to the Control nasolabial fold were clinically meaningful immediately after
treatment.
The secondary effectiveness endpoints assessed pain in
the Treatment nasolabial fold when compared to the Control nasolabial fold at
various times out to 1 month post treatment, aesthetic effectiveness out to one
month after treatment and subject preference by analyzing the percent of
patients favoring one treatment over the other.
Study Population
The inclusion criteria for the clinical study were that
the patient was at least 18 years of age, was a candidate for nasolabial fold
treatment using RADIESSE injectable implant, understood and accepted the
obligation not to receive any other facial procedures in the lower half of the face
for 1 month, understood and accepted the obligation to present for all
scheduled follow-up visits, was logistically able to meet all study
requirements and had approximately symmetrical nasolabial folds.
The exclusion criteria for the clinical study were
patients that had received any type of treatment or procedures including
surgery in the nasolabial folds, had received neurotoxins in the lower half of
the face in the past 6 months, had received hyaluronic acid, calcium
hydroxylapatite (CaHA) or collagen injections in the lower half of the face
within the past 1 ½ years, had received polylactic acid, PMMA, silicone or any
other permanent filler injections in the lower half of the face, had nasolabial
folds that were too severe to be corrected in one treatment session, had a
history of chronic or recurrent infection or inflammation that would preclude
participation in the study, had a known bleeding disorder or were receiving
medication that would likely increase the risk of bleeding, was female and of
child bearing potential and was pregnant or not using acceptable method of
birth control, had any history of hypersensitivity to Lidocaine or anesthetics
of the amide type, had a history of anaphylaxis or multiple severe allergies,
or had received any investigational product within 30 days prior to study
enrollment or is planning to participate in another investigation during the
course of this study.
Study Results
The first primary effectiveness endpoint of the study was
to assess pain using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) in the Treatment fold
compared to the Control fold. The mean VAS scores at time zero resulted in a
statistically significant reduction in pain in the Treatment fold compared to
the Control fold. The mean difference in VAS scores was -3.85 and a paired
t-test resulted in a pvalue of < 0.0001 (see Table 10).
Table 10: VISUAL ANALOG SCALE (VAS) SCORE AT TIME ZERO
|
TREATMENT |
CONTROL |
Mean |
2.8 |
6.6 |
Median |
2.5 |
7.0 |
St. Deviation |
1.9 |
2.2 |
Minimum |
0.0 |
2.0 |
Maximum |
8.5 |
10.0 |
Mean Difference |
3.85 |
p-value |
< 0.0001 |
The second primary effectiveness endpoint of the study
was to assess percentage of patients in which there was a clinically meaningful
reduction in pain in the Treatment fold. Forty-five (45) of the 50 patients
(90%) recorded VAS scores of at least 2.0cm lower for the Treatment fold compared
to the Control fold, demonstrating a clinically meaningful reduction in pain
(see Table 11).
Table 11: VAS SCORE ≥ 2.0cm LOWER IN TREATMENT
VS. CONTROL
N = 50
N |
% |
45 |
90.0% C.I. 78.2%-96.7% |
p < 0.0001 |
A secondary effectiveness endpoint of the study was to
assess pain in the Treatment fold compared to the Control fold at various times
out to 1 month. The Treatment fold showed a statistically significant reduction
in pain at four time points within the first hour (p < 0.0001) when compared
to the Control fold. At 2 weeks and 1 month, there was no difference between
the Treatment and Control folds as all pain ratings for both groups were 0 (no
pain) (see Table 12).
Table 12: VAS SCORE AFTER TIME ZERO
N = 50
|
15 MIN |
30 MIN |
45 MIN |
60 MIN |
2 WEEK |
1 MONTH |
TX |
CON- TROL |
TX |
CON- TROL |
TX |
CON- TROL |
TX |
CON- TROL |
TX |
CON- TROL |
TX |
CON- TROL |
Mean |
0.9 |
3.4 |
0.7 |
2.5 |
0.5 |
1.8 |
0.3 |
1.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Median |
0.5 |
3.0 |
0.5 |
2.3 |
0.0 |
1.0 |
0.0 |
0.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
SD |
1.0 |
2.2 |
1.0 |
2.1 |
0.8 |
1.8 |
0.7 |
1.6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Minimum |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Maximum |
4.0 |
8.0 |
5.0 |
7.5 |
3.5 |
6.5 |
3.0 |
6.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
p-value |
< 0.0001 |
< 0.0001 |
< 0.0001 |
< 0.0001 |
N/A |
N/A |
Another effectiveness endpoint assessed aesthetic
improvement on the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) at 2 weeks and 1
month post treatment. All patients in both groups were at least “Improved” (see
Table 13).
Table 13: GAIS DISTRIBUTION
RATING |
2 WEEKS
N
(%) |
1 MONTH
N
(%) |
TREATMENT |
CONTROL |
TREATMENT |
CONTROL |
Very Much Improved |
29 (58.0) |
26 (52.0) |
31 (62.0) |
28 (56.0) |
Much Improved |
16 (32.0) |
18 (36.0) |
12 (24.0) |
20 (40.0) |
Improved |
5 (10.0) |
6 (12.0) |
0) |
2 (4.0) |
No Change |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Worse |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
TOTAL IMPROVED |
50 (100.0) |
50 (100.0) |
50 (100.0) |
50 (100.0) |
p-value |
1.0000 |
1.0000 |
Nasolabial Folds Long-Term Safety Post-Approval Study
Study Objective
A post approval study was performed to 1) collect
long-term safety information on use of RADIESSE injectable implant injected
into the nasolabial folds; and 2) to assess the effect of multiple injections.
Study Design
RADIESSE injectable implant was assessed in a
prospective, open-label, multi-center study of patients whose nasolabial folds
were corrected with RADIESSE injectable implant. 102 subjects (drawn from the
117 patients who participated in the premarket clinical trial) agreed to participate
in the post approval study. Patients were requested to return for visits a
minimum of 2 years and then a minimum of 3 years after their initial injection.
At the beginning of the post marketing study, 8 patients were already 3 years
from initial injection and, therefore, required only one visit. One hundred and
two (102) patients were assessed a minimum of 2 years after initial injection
and 99 were assessed a minimum of 3 years after initial injection. Three (3) patients
were lost to follow up.
Study Population
The patient cohort in this post approval study was the
continued follow-up of the pre-market cohort. Patient demographics are provided
in Table 14.
Table 14: PATIENT DEMOGRAPHICS
N =102
AGE (YEARS) |
|
Mean |
55.1 |
Standard Deviation |
8.8 |
Minimum |
31.0 |
Maximum |
76.0 |
GENDER |
Female |
94
(92.2%) |
Male |
8
(7.8%) |
RACE |
American Indian |
1 (1.0%) |
Asian |
0 (0.0%) |
Black |
1 (1.0%) |
Caucasian |
8 .8 % |
Hispanic |
11 (10.8%) |
Other |
2 (2.0%) |
SMOKING HISTORY |
Quit Smoking |
23
(22.6%) |
Never Smoked |
73
(71.6%) |
Smokes |
6 (5.9%) |
The inclusion criterion for the study was participation
in the pre-market clinical trial (Section I of the Nasolabial Folds CLINICAL
STUDIES section) and signing a written informed consent for participation in
the post-approval study. There were no additional exclusion criteria.
Study Endpoints
To collect long-term safety information of RADIESSE
injectable implant injected into the nasolabial folds at a minimum of 2 and 3
years after initial injection and to assess the effect of multiple injections.
Study Results
102 study patients and 204 folds received a mean of 3.7
and 1.8 RADIESSE injections, respectively, from the time period covering
initial pre market study injection through the last post approval study visit.
100% of patients and 98% of folds received RADIESSE treatment during the same
time period with only 11% of patients receiving RADIESSE injections during the
post approval study period alone. During the post approval study, 15% of
patients received Botulinum toxin injections and 9% of patients received facial
dermal fillers other than RADIESSE injectable implant in the nasolabial folds.
With respect to the long term safety of RADIESSE
injectable implant, there were no reports of long term adverse events in this
post approval study. The adverse events monitored in the postapproval study
included allergic reaction, ecchymosis, edema, embolization, erosion, erythema,
extrusion, granuloma, hematoma, infection, necrosis, needle jamming, nodule,
and pain. These results demonstrate the long term safety and effectiveness of
RADIESSE injectable implant up to 3 years after the date of first injection.
Study Limitations
RADIESSE injectable implant was studied in a limited
number of predominately female patients. Safety of RADIESSE injectable implant
following the correction of nasolabial folds beyond 3 years was not studied.
Nasolabial Folds Fitzpatrick Skin Type Iv-Vi
Post-Approval Study
Study Objective
A post-approval study was performed to assess the safety
of RADIESSE injectable implant following correction of the nasolabial folds in
patients with Fitzpatrick Skin Types 4, 5, or 6, specifically to assess the
likelihood of hypertrophic scarring, keloid formation and hyper- or hypopigmentation.
Study Design
The safety of RADIESSE injectable implant was assessed in
a prospective, open-label, multicenter study in 100 patients with Fitzpatrick
Skin Types 4, 5 or 6 whose nasolabial folds were corrected with subdermal
injections of RADIESSE injectable implant.
Study Population
Patient demographics are provided in Table 15.
Table 15: PATIENT DEMOGRAPHICS
N = 100
AGE (YEARS) |
|
Mean |
52 |
Standard Deviation |
11.1 |
Minimum |
25 |
Maximum |
78 |
GENDER |
Male |
6 (6.0%) |
Female |
94 (94.0%) |
RACE |
Caucasian |
0 (0.0%) |
Black |
85 (85.0%) |
Hispanic |
12 (12.0%) |
Asian |
2 (2.0%) |
Other |
1 (1.0%) |
FITZPATRICK SKIN TYPE |
4 |
24(24.0%) |
5 |
35(35.0%) |
6 |
41(41.0%) |
INJECTION VOLUME (mL) |
Mean |
1.24 |
Standard Deviation |
0.397 |
Minimum |
0.6 |
Maximum |
2.8 |
The Inclusion Criteria for the post-approval study were
that the patient was at least 18 years of age, has Fitzpatrick Skin Type IV, V,
or VI, and understands and accepts the obligation not to receive any other
procedures or treatments in the nasolabial fold for 6 months.
The Exclusion Criteria for the post-approval study were
that the patient has history of hyper- or hypo-pigmentation in the nasolabial
folds, keloid formation, or hypertrophic scarring, has a known bleeding
disorder or is receiving drug therapy that could increase the risk of bleeding,
has nasolabial folds that are too severe to be corrected in one treatment
session, has received any dermal filler or other injections, grafting or
surgery in either nasolabial fold, is pregnant, lactating, or not using
acceptable contraception.
Study Endpoints
The likelihood of hypertrophic scarring, keloid formation
and hyper- or hypopigmentation was evaluated through 6 months from treatment
with RADIESSE injectable implant in the nasolabial folds.
Length of Follow-up and Assessments
Patients were followed for 6 months from RADIESSE
treatment (injection visit). Ninety days (90) ± 30 days from the injection
visit, patients returned for a safety assessment of their nasolabial folds (3
month visit). One hundred eighty days (180) ± 30 days from the initial
injection, patients returned for a safety assessment of their nasolabial folds
(6 month visit).
Subject Accountability
One hundred (100) patients were enrolled in the
post-approval study. 100 patients were assessed at the 3 month visit (100%
follow-up rate). Ninety eight (98) patients were assessed at the 6 month visit
(98% follow-up rate). Two (2) patients were lost to follow-up.
Study Results
At 3 months, 100% of patients were assessed and there were
no reports of hypertrophic scarring, keloid formation, hyperpigmentation or
hypopigmentation at the injection site. At 6 months 98% of patients were
assessed. Two (2) patients were lost to follow-up. Of the 98 patients assessed,
no occurrence of hypertrophic scarring, keloid formation, hyperpigmentation or
hypopigmentation at the injection site was reported. One patient reported
erythema in the upper left nasolabial fold that was treated with hydrocortisone
and lasted for 111 days. Another patient experienced mild hyperpigmentation in
the upper lip that lasted 159 days. No treatment was required.
The use of RADIESSE injectable implant did not cause
hypertrophic scarring, keloid formation, hyperpigmentation or hypopigmentation
at the injection site in persons with Fitzpatrick Skin Types of 4, 5 and 6 in
this study throughout the follow-up period of 6 months.
Study Limitations
RADIESSE injectable implant was studied in a limited
number of predominately female patients. Likelihood of keloid formation,
hypertrophic scarring, and hypo- or hyperpigmentation after use of RADIESSE
injectable implant for the correction of nasolabial folds in patients with
Fitzpatrick Skin Type 4, 5 and 6 beyond 6 months was not studied.
Hiv-Associated Facial Lipoatrophy Pre-Market Clinical
Trial
In a 12-month prospective, open label study of 100
patients at three U.S. sites, adverse events reported after RADIESSE injectable
implant treatments are presented below. Adverse events reported in patient
diaries during the 14 days after treatment are listed in Tables 16 and 17. Physician
reported adverse events (those reported by Investigators and patients any time outside
the 2 week diaries) are presented in Tables 18 and 19.
Table 16: PATIENT DIARY ADVERSE EVENTS
Reported Through Patient Diaries Maximum Severity By Adverse Event Type N =
100
ADVERSE EVENT TYPE |
PATIENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS |
MILD
N
(%) |
MODERATE
N
(%) |
SEVERE
N
(%) |
Ecchymosis |
64 |
34 (53.1) |
25
(39.1) |
5 (7.8) |
Edema |
99 |
46
(46.5) |
49
(49.5) |
4 (4.0) |
Erythema |
55 |
32
(58.2) |
23 (41.8) |
0 (0.0) |
Granuloma |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Nodule |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Pain |
37 |
24 (64.9) |
13 (35.1) |
0 (0.0) |
Pruritis |
21 |
18 (85.7) |
4.3 ) |
0 (0.0) |
Contour Irregularity |
11 |
8 (72.7) |
3 (27.3) |
0 (0.0) |
Discoloration |
5 |
2 (40.0) |
3 (60.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Hardness |
4 |
2 (50.0) |
2 (50.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Headache |
3 |
1 (33.3) |
2 (66.7) |
0 (0.0) |
Lump |
12 |
8 (66.7) |
4 (33.3) |
0 (0.0) |
* Other - Miscellaneous |
13 |
9 (69.2) |
4 (30.8) |
0 (0.0) |
Numbness |
4 |
4 (100) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Scab |
2 |
1 (50.0) |
1 (50.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Soreness |
3 |
2 (66.7) |
1 (33.3) |
0 (0.0) |
Tenderness |
3 |
3 (100) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Tightness |
2 |
1 (50.0) |
0 (0.0) |
1 (50.0) |
* 13 patients with the following event types: flushed,
bloodshot eyes, fever, black eye, ear running, backed up salivary gland, spot,
nerve sensitivity, dry, sinus infection, burning sensation, warm cheeks, felt
stretched, rash. |
Table 17: PATIENT DIARY ADVERSE EVENTS
Reported Through Patient Diaries Duration By Adverse Event Type N = 100
ADVERSE EVENT TYPE |
TOTAL REPORTING SYMPTOMS |
NUMBER OF DAYS |
1-3
N
(%) |
4-7
N
(%) |
8-14
N
(%) |
> 14
N
(%) |
Ecchymosis |
142 |
29 (20.4) |
51 (35.9) |
50 (35.2) |
12 (8.5) |
Edema |
431 |
206 (47.8) |
153 (35.5) |
52 (12.1) |
20 (4.6) |
Erythema |
210 |
114 (54.3) |
69 (32.9) |
22 (10.5) |
5 (2.4) |
Granuloma |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Nodule |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Pain |
110 |
54 (49.1) |
32 (29.1) |
18 (16.4) |
6 (5.5) |
Pruritis |
54 |
28 (51.9) |
9 (16.7) |
6 (11.1) |
11 (20.4) |
Contour Irregularity |
30 |
4 (13.3) |
1 (3.3) |
5 (16.7) |
20 (66.7) |
Discoloration |
6 |
2 (33.3) |
0 (0.0) |
2 (33.3) |
2 (33.3) |
Hardness |
8 |
2 (25.0) |
1 (12.5) |
2 (25.0) |
3 (37.5) |
Headache |
3 |
2 (66.7) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
1 (33.3) |
Lump |
18 |
6 (33.3) |
2 (11.1) |
4 (22.2) |
6 (33.3) |
* Other - Miscellaneous |
18 |
9 (50.0) |
4 (22.2) |
2 (11.1) |
3 (16.7) |
Numbness |
7 |
7 (100) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Scab |
4 |
1 (25.0) |
2 (50.0) |
1 (25.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Soreness |
6 |
3 (50.0) |
3 (50.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Tenderness |
8 |
3 (37.5) |
5 (62.5) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Tightness |
4 |
1 (25.0) |
1 (25.0) |
2 (50.0) |
0 (0.0) |
* 18 reports of the following event types: flushed,
bloodshot eyes, fever, black eye, ear running, backed up salivary gland, spot,
nerve sensitivity, dry, sinus infection, burning sensation, warm cheeks, felt
stretched, rash. |
Table 18: PHYSICIAN REPORTED ADVERSE EVENTS
Maximum Severity By Adverse Event Type N = 100
ADVERSE EVENT TYPE |
PATIENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS |
MILD
N
(%) |
MODERATE
N
(%) |
SEVERE
N
(%) |
Ecchymosis |
3 |
2 (66.7) |
1 (33.3) |
0 (0.0) |
Edema |
7 |
7 (100) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Erythema |
3 |
3 (100) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Granuloma |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Needle Jamming |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Nodule |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Pain |
2 |
1 (50.0) |
0 (0.0) |
1 (50.0) |
Pruritis |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Contour Irregularity |
19 |
15 (78.9) |
4 (21.1) |
0 (0.0) |
Discoloration |
3 |
3 (100) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Lump |
2 |
1 (50.0) |
1 (50.0) |
0 (0.0) |
* Other - Miscellaneous |
5 |
2 (40.0) |
3 (60.0) |
0 (0.0) |
* 5 patients with the following event types: puffiness,
hearing loss, skin tag/lesion excision, firmness. |
Table 19: PHYSICIAN REPORTED ADVERSE EVENTS
Duration By Adverse Event Type N = 100
ADVERSE EVENT TYPE |
TOTAL REPORTING SYMPTOMS |
NUMBER OF DAYS |
1-3
N
(%) |
4-7
N
(%) |
8-14
N
(%) |
> 14
N
(%) |
Ecchymosis |
5 |
3 (60.0) |
0 (0.0) |
2 (40.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Edema |
12 |
9 (75.0) |
1 (8.3) |
1 (8.3) |
1 (8.3) |
Erythema |
4 |
1 (25.0) |
2 (50.0) |
0 (0.0) |
1 (25.0) |
Granuloma |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Needle Jamming |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Nodule |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Pain |
4 |
2 (50.0) |
0 (0.0) |
2 (50.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Pruritis |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Contour Irregularity |
44 |
22 (50.0) |
0 (0.0) |
1 (2.3) |
21 (47.7) |
Discoloration |
6 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
6 (100) |
Lump |
3 |
1 (33.3) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
2 (66.7) |
* Other - Miscellaneous |
10 |
5 (50.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
5 (50.0) |
* 10 reports of the following event types: puffiness,
hearing loss, skin tag/lesion excision, firmness |
Hiv-Associated Facial Lipoatrophy Long-Term Safety Study
Adverse events reported at 18 months are presented below.
Adverse events reported in patient diaries during the 14 days after treatment
are listed in Tables 20 and 21. Physician reported adverse events (those
reported by Investigators and patients any time outside the 2 week diaries) are
presented in Tables 22 and 23.
Table 20: PATIENT DIARY ADVERSE EVENTS - 18 MONTHS
Reported Through Patient Diaries Maximum Severity By Adverse Event Type N =
100
ADVERSE EVENT TYPE |
PATIENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS |
MILD
N
(%) |
MODERATE
N
(%) |
SEVERE
N
(%) |
Ecchymosis |
22 |
9 (40.9) |
10 (45.5) |
3 (13.6) |
Edema |
74 |
47 (63.5) |
23 (31.1) |
4 (5.4) |
Erythema |
40 |
25 (62.5) |
14 (35.0) |
1 (2.5) |
Granuloma |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Nodule |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Pain |
23 |
12 (52.2) |
11 (47.8) |
0 (0.0) |
Pruritis |
7 |
7 (100) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Contour Irregularity |
2 |
1 (50.0) |
1 (50.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Numbness |
1 |
0 (0.0) |
1 (100) |
0 (0.0) |
Table 21: PATIENT DIARY ADVERSE EVENTS - 18 MONTHS
Reported Through Patient Diaries Duration By Adverse Event Type N = 100
ADVERSE EVENT TYPE |
TOTAL REPORTING SYMPTOMS |
NUMBER OF DAYS |
1-3
N
(%) |
4-7
N
(%) |
8-14
N
(%) |
> 14
N
(%) |
Ecchymosis |
34 |
11 (32.4) |
13 (38.2) |
6 (17.6) |
4 (11.8) |
Edema |
144 |
54 (37.5) |
74 (51.4) |
12 (8.3) |
4 (2.8) |
Erythema |
75 |
51 (68.0) |
20 (26.7) |
4 (5.3) |
0 (0.0) |
Granuloma |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Nodule |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Pain |
42 |
18 (42.9) |
20 (47.6) |
3 (7.1) |
1 (2.4) |
Pruritis |
13 |
11 (84.6) |
0 (0.0) |
2 (15.4) |
0 (0.0) |
Contour Irregularity |
2 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
1 (50.0) |
1 (50.0) |
Numbness |
2 |
1 (50.0) |
1 (50.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Table 22: PHYSICIAN REPORTED ADVERSE EVENTS - 18
MONTHS
Maximum Severity By Adverse Event Type N = 100
ADVERSE EVENT TYPE |
PATIENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS |
MILD
N
(%) |
MODERATE
N
(%) |
SEVERE
N
(%) |
Ecchymosis |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Edema |
1 |
1 (100) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Erythema |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Granuloma |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Needle Jamming |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Nodule |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Pain |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Pruritis |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Other |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Table 23: PHYSICIAN REPORTED ADVERSE EVENTS - 18
MONTHS
Duration By Adverse Event Type N = 100
ADVERSE EVENT TYPE |
TOTAL REPORTING SYMPTOMS |
NUMBER OF DAYS |
1-3
N
(%) |
4-7
N
(%) |
8-14
N
(%) |
> 14
N
(%) |
Ecchymosis |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Edema |
1 |
1 (100) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Erythema |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Granuloma |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Needle Jamming |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Nodule |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Pain |
0 |
0(0.0) |
0(0.0) |
0(0.0) |
0(0.0) |
Pruritis |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Other |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Adverse events reported at 30 months are presented below.
Adverse events reported in patient diaries during the 14 days after treatment
are listed in Tables 24 and 25. Physician reported adverse events (those
reported by Investigators and patients any time outside the 2 week diaries) are
presented in Tables 26 and 27.
Table 24: PATIENT DIARY ADVERSE EVENTS - 30 MONTHS
Reported Through Patient Diaries Maximum Severity By Adverse Event Type N =
100
ADVERSE EVENT TYPE |
PATIENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS |
MILD
N
(%) |
MODERATE
N
(%) |
SEVERE
N
(%) |
Ecchymosis |
19 |
12 (63.2) |
7 (36.8) |
0 (0.0) |
Edema |
70 |
43 (61.4) |
22 (31.4) |
5 (7.1) |
Erythema |
24 |
18 (75.0) |
5 (20.8) |
1 (4.2) |
Granuloma |
0 |
0(0.0) |
0(0.0) |
0(0.0) |
Nodule |
0 |
0(0.0) |
0(0.0) |
0(0.0) |
Pain |
19 |
11(57.9) |
8(42.1) |
0(0.0) |
Pruritis |
3 |
3(100) |
0(0.0) |
0(0.0) |
Headache |
1 |
1(100) |
0(0.0) |
0(0.0) |
Lump |
1 |
1(100) |
0(0.0) |
0(0.0) |
* Other - Miscellaneous |
4 |
3(75.0) |
1(25.0) |
0(0.0) |
Numbness |
1 |
0(0.0) |
1(100) |
0(0.0) |
Soreness |
1 |
1(100) |
0(0.0) |
0(0.0) |
Tightness |
1 |
1 (100) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
* 4 patients with the following event types: black eye,
nausea, abrasion, pimple. |
Table 25: PATIENT DIARY ADVERSE EVENTS - 30 MONTHS
Reported Through Patient Diaries Duration By Adverse Event Type N = 100
ADVERSE EVENT TYPE |
TOTAL REPORTING SYMPTOMS |
NUMBER OF DAYS |
1-3
N
(%) |
4-7
N
(%) |
8-14
N
(%) |
> 14
N
(%) |
Ecchymosis |
34 |
8 (23.5) |
12 (35.3) |
10 (29.4) |
4 (11.8) |
Edema |
147 |
57 (38.8) |
68 (46.3) |
16 (10.9) |
6 (4.1) |
Erythema |
49 |
26 (53.1) |
18 (36.7) |
3 (6.1) |
2 (4.1) |
Granuloma |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Nodule |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Pain |
34 |
21 (61.8) |
12 (35.3) |
1 (2.9) |
0 (0.0) |
Pruritis |
5 |
3 (60.0) |
2 (40.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Headache |
2 |
0 (0.0) |
1 (50.0) |
1 (50.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Lump |
1 |
0 (0.0) |
1 (100) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
* Other - Miscellaneous |
5 |
0 (0.0) |
3 (60.0) |
1 (20.0) |
1 (20.0) |
Numbness |
2 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
2 (100) |
0 (0.0) |
Soreness |
2 |
1 (50.0) |
1 (50.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Tightness |
2 |
0 (0.0) |
2 (100) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
* 5 reports of the following event types: black eye,
nausea, abrasion, pimple. |
Table 26: PHYSICIAN REPORTED ADVERSE EVENTS - 30
MONTHS
Maximum Severity By Adverse Event Type N = 100
ADVERSE EVENT TYPE |
PATIENTS REPORTING SYMPTOMS |
MILD
N
(%) |
MODERATE
N
(%) |
SEVERE
N
(%) |
Ecchymosis |
1 |
0 (0.0) |
1 (100) |
0 (0.0) |
Edema |
6 |
5 (83.3) |
1 (16.7) |
0 (0.0) |
Erythema |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Granuloma |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Needle Jamming |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Nodule |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Pain |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Pruritis |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Other |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Table 27: PHYSICIAN REPORTED ADVERSE EVENTS - 30 MONTHS
Duration By Adverse Event Type N = 100
ADVERSE EVENT TYPE |
TOTAL REPORTING SYMPTOMS |
NUMBER OF DAYS |
1-3
N
(%) |
4-7
N
(%) |
8-14
N
(%) |
> 14
N
(%) |
Ecchymosis |
2 |
2 (100) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Edema |
12 |
7 (58.3) |
4 (33.3) |
1 (8.3) |
0 (0.0) |
Erythema |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Granuloma |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Needle Jamming |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Nodule |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Pain |
0 |
0(0.0) |
0(0.0) |
0(0.0) |
0(0.0) |
Pruritis |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Other |
0 |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
0 (0.0) |
Clinical Studies
Hiv-Associated Facial Lipoatrophy Pre-Market Clinical
Trial
Study design
The safety and effectiveness of RADIESSE injectable
implant for the treatment of facial lipoatrophy was evaluated in a prospective,
open-label, multi-center study of 100 patients with facial lipoatrophy with
human immunodeficiency virus. Patients received an initial treatment (initial
injection and an additional injection at 1 month as needed). Six months later,
all patients were assessed for the need for a touch up injection. Effectiveness
was assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months from initial treatment by means of a Global
Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) rating, cheek skin thickness measurements,
and patient satisfaction assessment. Safety was assessed by the recording of
adverse events through 12 months.
Study Endpoints
The primary endpoint of the study was to evaluate the
correction of lipoatrophy 3 months after treatment by comparing changes from
baseline on the GAIS. The GAIS is a 5-category scale (Very much improved, much
improved, improved, no change and worse). The secondary endpoints of the study
were to evaluate the correction of facial lipoatrophy 6 months after treatment
by comparing changes from baseline on the GAIS, and 3 and 6 months after treatment
by comparing changes from baseline in cheek skin thickness measurements.
Study Population
The inclusion criteria for the clinical study were that
the patient was to be HIV positive, had a CD4 count ≥ 250 /mm³ and viral
load ≤ 5000 copies/mL, had been receiving HAART therapy for a minimum of
3 years, had HIV-associated facial lipoatrophy that was a grade 2, 3, or 4 on
the Facial Lipoatrophy Severity Scale, was at least 18 years of age, signed a
written informed consent, understood and accepted the obligation not to receive
any other facial procedures or treatment affecting facial lipoatrophy through
12 month follow-up and understood and accepted the obligation and was
logistically able to present for all scheduled follow-up visits.
The exclusion criteria for the clinical study were
patients that had a known bleeding disorder (e.g., thrombocytopenia,
thrombasthenia, or von Willebrand's disease), had received or was anticipated
to receive antiplatelets, anticoagulants, thrombolytics, vitamin E,
anti-inflammatories, interferon, or prednisone from 1 week pre- to 1 month
post-injection, was receiving systemic or topical corticosteroids or anabolic
steroids, had another medical condition that would preclude study participation
or suggested an AIDS diagnosis (e.g., Kaposi sarcoma, recurrent infection, recurrent
pneumonia), had received silicone injections, facial tissue augmentation other
than collagen, grafting, or any other surgery in the cheek area, had received
collagen in the cheek area within the past 6 months, had received
over-the-counter wrinkle products (e.g., alphahydroxy acids) or prescription
treatments (e.g., Renova, Retin-A, microdermabrasion, chemical peels) within 4
weeks prior to study or intended to receive these products and/or treatments during
the study, had facial hair that would preclude ability to assess facial
lipoatrophy, had a history of keloid formation, was pregnant or lactating or
not using a reliable form of birth control, if female of child bearing
potential and was enrolled in an interfering study.
Study Results
Demographics / Injection Information
The study enrolled a population of predominantly
multi-ethnic, non-smoking males (94% male) with a mean age of 48 years.
Forty-four (44) percent of patients were Black, Hispanic or Asian. Fifty-six
(56) percent were Caucasian. Fifty-one (51) percent of patients had a
Fitzpatrick Skin score of IV, V or VI. All treatments were performed with a 25
gauge, 1½ inch needle. Mean initial treatment volumes were 4.8mL for the
initial treatment and 1.8mL at 1 month if necessary (85% of patients were
treated at 1 month). At 6 months, the mean touch up volume was 2.4mL (89% of
patients). Four (4) percent of patients received only one treatment, 18% of
patients received a total of two treatments and 78% of patients received a
total of three treatments. No patient received more than three treatments.
Effectiveness Results
A live GAIS rating was determined at 3, 6 and 12 months
(see Table 28).
Table 28: GAIS RATINGS
% OF PATIENTS |
3 MONTH
N = 100 |
6 MONTH
N = 98 |
12 MONTHS
N = 98 |
Very Much Improved |
26% |
7% |
31% |
Much Improved |
72% |
86% |
53% |
Improved |
2% |
7% |
16% |
No Change |
0% |
0% |
0% |
Worse |
0% |
0% |
0% |
TOTAL |
100% |
100% |
100% |
Cheek thickness measurements of patients left and right
cheeks were performed at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months (see Table 29).
Table 29: CHEEK THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS
|
BASELIN E |
3 MONTH |
6 MONTH |
12 MONTH |
Mean
(N=100) |
Mean
(N=100) |
Δ From Baseline |
P-Value |
Mean
(N=97) |
Δ From Baseline |
P-Value |
Mean
(N=98) |
Δ From Baseline |
P-Value |
Left Cheek |
4.7mm |
7.3mm |
2.6mm |
< 0.0001 |
7.1mm |
2.4mm |
< 0.0001 |
6.9mm |
2.2mm |
< 0.0001 |
Right Cheek |
4.9mm |
8.0mm |
2.1mm |
< 0.0001 |
7.5mm |
2.7mm |
< 0.0001 |
7.3mm |
2.5mm |
< 0.0001 |
Patients provided responses to a 5-question patient
satisfaction questionnaire at 3, 6 and 12 months (see Table 30).
Table 30: PATIENT SATISFACTION ASSESSMENT
|
3 MONTH
N=100 |
6 MONTH
N=98 |
12 MONTH
N = 98 |
YES |
YES |
YES |
Would you recommend RADIESSE® treatment? |
99% |
99% |
99% |
Has the RADIESSE® treatment been beneficial to you? |
100% |
100% |
100% |
Do you feel more attractive since receiving RADIESSE® treatment? |
98% |
98% |
99% |
Is your emotional wellbeing better since receiving RADIESSE®? |
91% |
96% |
97% |
Do you have more confidence in your appearance since receiving RADIESSE®? |
98% |
98% |
99% |
Data For Hiv-Associated Facial Lipoatrophy Long-Term
Safety Study
Study Objective
A post-approval study was performed to evaluate adverse
events after repeat injections of RADIESSE injectable implant for the treatment
of facial lipoatrophy in patients with human immunodeficiency virus.
Study Design
The safety and effectiveness of RADIESSE injectable
implant for the treatment of facial lipoatrophy was evaluated in a premarket
prospective, open-label, multi-center study of 100 patients with facial
lipoatrophy with human immunodeficiency virus. As a condition of approval, a
post-approval study was undertaken to provide long term data on the patients
enrolled in the premarket study to evaluate any adverse events after repeat
injections. Effectiveness was assessed as part of the post-approval study at 18
and 30 months from initial treatment by means of a Global Aesthetic Improvement
Scale (GAIS) rating, cheek skin thickness measurements, and patient
satisfaction assessment. Safety was assessed by the recording of adverse events
through 30 months. Touch-up injections were performed as needed at 18 and 30
months. Therefore, the 18-month and 30-month effectiveness results are one year
from last touch-up injection.
Study Endpoints
The primary endpoint of the post-approval study was to
evaluate the correction of lipoatrophy 18 and 30 months after treatment by
comparing changes from baseline on the GAIS. The GAIS is a 5-category scale
(Very much improved, much improved, improved, no change and worse). The secondary
endpoint of the post-approval study was to evaluate the correction of facial lipoatrophy
18 and 30 months after treatment by comparing changes from baseline in cheek skin
thickness measurements.
Study Population
The patient cohort in this post approval study was the
continued follow-up of the pre-market cohort. The inclusion criterion for the
post-approval study was participation in the pre-market clinical study (Section
I in HIV-Associated Facial Lipoatrophy CLINICAL STUDIES section) through 12
months, signed a written informed consent, understood and accepted the
obligation not to receive any other facial procedures or treatment affecting
facial lipoatrophy through 30 month follow-up and understood and accepted the
obligation and was logistically able to present for 18 and 30 month follow-up
visits.
The exclusion criteria for the clinical study were
patients that had a known bleeding disorder (e.g., thrombocytopenia,
thrombasthenia, or von Willebrand's disease), had received or was anticipated
to receive antiplatelets, anticoagulants, thrombolytics, vitamin E,
anti-inflammatories, interferon, or prednisone from 1 week pre- to 1 month
post-injection, was receiving systemic or topical corticosteroids or anabolic
steroids at any time through 30 month visit, had another medical condition that
would preclude continued study participation or suggested an AIDS diagnosis
(e.g., Kaposi sarcoma, recurrent infection, recurrent pneumonia), intended to
receive over-the-counter wrinkle products (e.g., alpha-hydroxy acids) or
prescription treatments (e.g., Renova, Retin-A, microdermabrasion, chemical
peels) any time through 30 month visit, had a history of keloid formation, was
pregnant or lactating or not using a reliable form of birth control, if female
of child bearing potential.
Follow-up Assessments
Patients enrolled in the post-approval study returned for
two (2) follow-up assessments after completion of the pre-market study. The
first post-approval assessment was 540 ± 45 days from initial treatment if not
treated at 1 month and 570 ± 45 days from initial treatment if treated at 1
month (18/19 month visit). The second post-approval assessment was 900 ± 45
days from initial treatment if not treated at 1 month and 930 ± 45 days from
initial treatment if treated at 1 month (30/31 month visit). The assessment
consisted of a live GAIS rating, facial photographs, skin thickness
measurements, patient satisfaction assessment, recording of CD4 counts antiviral
loads, recording of relevant medications, and an assessment for adverse events.
Study Results
The study enrolled a population of predominantly
multi-ethnic, non-smoking males (94% male) with a mean age of 48 years (age
range of 34 – 69). Forty-four (44) percent of patients were Black, Hispanic or
Asian. Fifty-six (56) percent were Caucasian. Fifty-one (51) percent of patients
had a Fitzpatrick Skin score of IV, V or VI. All treatments were performed with
a 25 gauge, 1½ inch needle. At 18 months, 92% of patients received a mean
touch-up volume of 4.4mL. At 30 months, 90% of patients received a mean
touch-up volume of 2.8mL. Over the course of both the premarket and
post-approval studies, two (2) percent of patients received only one treatment,
3% - two treatments, 5% - 3 treatments, 12% - 4 treatments, and 78% - 5 treatments.
No patient received more than five treatments.
A live GAIS rating was determined at 18 and 30 months
(see Table 31). The last pre-market study touch up injection was allowed at 6
months. Post-market study touch-up injections were allowed at 18 and 30 months.
Therefore, the 18-month and 30-month response rates of 91.0% and 90.1%,
respectively, are one year from last touch-up injection.
Table 31: GAIS RATINGS
RATING |
18 MONTHS
N = 94 |
30 MONTHS
N = 91 |
Very Much Improved |
9.6% |
3.3% |
Much Improved |
43.6% |
28.6% |
Improved |
38.3% |
58.2% |
No Change |
8.5% |
8.8% |
Worse |
0.0% |
1.1% |
TOTAL IMPROVED |
91.0% |
90.1% |
Cheek thickness measurements of patients left and right
cheeks were performed at 18 and 30 months and are one year from last touch up
injection (see Table 32).
Table 32: CHEEK THICKNESS MEASUREMENTS
|
MEAN |
BASELINE
N=100 |
18 MONTHS
N = 93 |
30 MONTHS
N = 91 |
mm |
mm |
ΔFrom Baseline |
p-value |
mm |
Δ From Baseline |
p-value |
Left Side |
4.7 |
6.2 |
1.45 |
< 0.0001 |
6.8 |
2.1 |
< 0.0001 |
Right Side |
4.9 |
6.5 |
1.71 |
< 0.0001 |
7.2 |
2.3 |
< 0.0001 |
Patients provided responses to a 5-question patient
satisfaction questionnaire at 18 and 30 months, one year from last touch up
injection (see Table 33).
Table 33: PATIENT SATISFACTION ASSESSMENT
QUESTIONS |
% ANSWERING “YES” |
18 MONTHS
N=94 |
30 MONTHS
N=91 |
Would you recommend RADIESSE® treatment? |
98.9% |
100% |
Has the RADIESSE® treatment been beneficial to you? |
98.9% |
100% |
Do you feel more attractive since receiving RADIESSE® treatment? |
97.9% |
100% |
Is your emotional wellbeing better since receiving RADIESSE®? |
94.7% |
95.6% |
Do you have more confidence in your appearance since receiving RADIESSE®? |
98.9% |
100% |
Study Limitations
RADIESSE injectable implant was studied in a limited
number of predominately male HIV positive patients. The safety of RADIESSE
injectable implant following treatment of HIV associated Lipoatrophy beyond 30
months was not studied.
Other
Short Term And Long Term Radiographic Evaluation
RADIESSE injectable implant contains calcium
hydroxylapatite particles (25-45 microns) that are radiopaque and suspended in
a water based gel. Therefore a radiographic study was conducted to assess the
radiographic appearance of RADIESSE injectable implant in patients with both
short-term and long-term follow-up after injection for HIV-associated facial
lipoatrophy and treatment of nasolabial folds. The radiographic assessment
consisted of standard, plain radiography and CT scanning. X-rays and CT Scans
were assessed by two blinded, licensed radiologists. The inclusion of these
patients allowed assessment of patients immediately after initial injection, at
least 12 months after initial injection, and patients with varying volumes implanted.
A total of 58 patients in three patients groups were
enrolled into the study. RADIESSE injectable implant was determined to be
visualizable in the X-ray radiographs by both evaluators, but the X-ray
readings were not conclusive for the presence of the implant, when in fact it
was present. This may be due to the fact that the volume of RADIESSE injectable
implant in some patients was small and the sensitivity of X-ray imaging may not
be sufficient to detect small volumes of implant. RADIESSE injectable implant
was more readily visualizable by CT Scan when compared to X-ray and the CT Scan
results were read more consistently between two evaluators. RADIESSE injectable
implant was easily seen when imaging was done soon after an injection and was
also seen when imaging was done several months after injection (minimum of 12
months). As expected, the results for the CT Scan provided a superior image capability
as compared to X-ray when visualizing RADIESSE injectable implant.