CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Clinical Trials
The safety and effectiveness of Restylane in the treatment
of facial folds and wrinkles (nasolabial folds and oral commissures) were
evaluated in three prospective randomized controlled clinical studies involving
430 Restylane-treated subjects.
Restylane was shown to be effective when compared to
crosslinked collagen and crosslinked hyaluronic acid dermal fillers with
respect to the correction of moderate to severe facial folds and wrinkles, such
as nasolabial folds.
Table 1: Maximum Intensity of Symptoms after Initial
Treatment for the Nasolabial Fold Indication, Patient Diary (Study 31GE0003)1
|
Restylane side |
Zyplast side |
Restylane side |
Zyplast side |
Total patients reporting symptoms
n
(%) |
Total patients reporting symptoms
n
(%) |
None
n
(%) |
Mild
n
(%) |
Moderate
n
(%) |
Severe
n
(%) |
None
n
(%) |
Mild
n
(%) |
Moderate
n
(%) |
Severe
n
(%) |
Bruising |
72 (52.2%) |
67 (48.6%) |
63 (45.6%) |
32 (23.2%) |
35 (25.4%) |
5 (3.6%) |
68 (49.3%) |
43 (31.2%) |
23 (16.7%) |
1 (0.7%) |
Redness |
117 (84.8%) |
117 (84.8%) |
17 (12.3%) |
56 (40.6%) |
54 (39.1%) |
7 (5.1%) |
17 (12.3%) |
72 (52.2%) |
37 (26.8%) |
8 (5.8%) |
Swelling |
120 (87.0%) |
102 (73.9%) |
14 (10.1%) |
54 (39.1%) |
61 (44.2%) |
5 (3.6%) |
32 (23.2%) |
65 (47.1%) |
35 (25.4%) |
2 (1.4%) |
Pain |
79 (57.2%) |
58 (42.0%) |
55 (39.9%) |
40 (29.0%) |
34 (24.6%) |
5 (3.6%) |
76 (55.1%) |
46 (33.3%) |
10 (7.2%) |
2 (1.4%) |
Tenderness |
107 (77.5%) |
89 (64.5%) |
27 (19.6%) |
60 (43.5%) |
43 (31.2%) |
4 (2.9%) |
45 (32.6%) |
70 (50.7%) |
17 (12.3%) |
2 (1.4%) |
Itching |
42 (30.4%) |
33 (23.9%) |
91 (65.9%) |
31 (22.5%) |
11 (8.0%) |
0 (0.0%) |
101 (73.2%) |
27 (19.6%) |
6 (4.4%) |
0 (0.0%) |
Other |
34 (24.6%) |
33 (23.9%) |
93 (67.4%) |
14 (10.1%) |
15 (10.9%) |
5 (3.6%) |
94 (68.1%) |
20 (14.5%) |
10 (7.2%) |
3 (2.2%) |
1 Events are reported as local events; because
of the design (split-face) of the study, causality of the systemic adverse
events cannot be assigned. |
Table 2: Duration of Adverse Events after Initial
Treatment for the Nasolabial Fold Indication, Patient Diary (Study 31GE0003)
|
Restylane side |
Zyplast side |
Restylane side |
Zyplast side |
Total patients reporting symptoms
n (%) |
Total patients reporting symptoms
n (%) |
Number of days |
Number of days |
1
n (%) |
2-7
n (%) |
8-13
n (%) |
14
n (%) |
1
n (%) |
2-7
n (%) |
8-13
n (%) |
14
n (%) |
Bruising |
72 (52.2%) |
67 (48.6%) |
7 (5.1%) |
56 (40.6%) |
6 (4.4%) |
3 (2.2%) |
7 (5.1%) |
53 (38.4%) |
5 (3.6%) |
2 (1.4%) |
Redness |
117 (84.8%) |
117 (84.8%) |
19 (13.8%) |
68 (49.3%) |
18 (13.0%) |
12 (8.7%) |
19 (13.8%) |
71 (51.4%) |
15 (10.9%) |
12 (8.7%) |
Swelling |
120 (87.0%) |
102 (73.9%) |
16 (11.6%) |
84 (60.9%) |
16 (11.6%) |
4 (2.9%) |
14 (10.1%) |
70 (50.7%) |
16 (11.6%) |
2 (1.4%) |
Pain |
79 (57.2%) |
58 (42.0%) |
29 (21.0%) |
48 (34.8%) |
2 (1.4%) |
0 (0.0%) |
31 (22.5%) |
25 (18.1%) |
1 (0.7%) |
1 (0.7%) |
Tenderness |
107 (77.5%) |
89 (64.5%) |
21 (15.2%) |
78 (56.5%) |
6 (4.4%) |
2 (1.4%) |
27 (19.6%) |
54 (39.1%) |
6 (4.4%) |
2 (1.4%) |
Itching |
42 (30.4%) |
33 (23.9%) |
11 (8.0%) |
25 (18.1%) |
6 (4.4%) |
0 (0.0%) |
8 (5.8%) |
22 (15.9%) |
3 (2.2%) |
0 (0.0%) |
Other |
34 (24.6%) |
33 (23.9%) |
7 (5.1%) |
23 (16.7%) |
3 (2.2%) |
1 (0.7%) |
10 (7.2%) |
15 (10.9%) |
6 (4.4%) |
2 (1.4%) |
Table 3: Maximum Intensity of Symptoms after Initial Treatment
for the Nasolabial Fold Indication, Patient Diary (Study MA-1400-02)1
|
Restylane |
Perlane |
Restylane Patients |
Perlane Patients |
Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) |
Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) |
None |
Tolerable2 |
Affected Daily Activity2 |
Disabling2 |
None |
Tolerable2 |
Affected Daily Activity2 |
Disabling2 |
n (%) |
n (%) |
n (%) |
n (%) |
n (%) |
n (%) |
n (%) |
n (%) |
Bruising |
111 (78.2%) |
122 (86.5%) |
28 (20.1%) |
82 (59%) |
28 (20.1%) |
1 (0.7%) |
17 (12.2%) |
97 (69.8%) |
24 (17.3%) |
1 (0.7%) |
Redness |
114 (80.3%) |
118 (83.7%) |
25 (18%) |
96 (69.1%) |
17 (12.2%) |
1 (0.7%) |
21 (15.1%) |
105 (75.5%) |
12 (8.6%) |
1 (0.7%) |
Swelling |
127 (89.4%) |
128 (90.8%) |
12 (8.6%) |
102 (73.4%) |
23 (16.5%) |
2 (1.4%) |
11 (7.9%) |
107 (77%) |
19 (13.7%) |
2 (1.4%) |
Pain |
108 (76.1%) |
114 (80.9%) |
31 (22.3%) |
93 (66.9%) |
14 (10.1%) |
1 (0.7%) |
25 (18%) |
96 (69.1%) |
18 (12.9%) |
0 (0%) |
Tenderness |
123 (86.6%) |
130 (92.2%) |
16 (11.5%) |
109 (78.4%) |
12 (8.6%) |
2 (1.4%) |
9 (6.5%) |
112 (80.6%) |
18 (12.9%) |
0 (0%) |
Itching |
67 (47.2%) |
45 (31.9%) |
72 (51.8%) |
66 (47.5%) |
1 (0.7%) |
0 (0%) |
94 (67.6%) |
40 (28.8%) |
3 (2.2%) |
2 (1.4%) |
Other3 |
3 (2.1%) |
1 (0.7%) |
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 4: Duration of Adverse Events after Initial Treatment
for the Nasolabial Fold Indication, Patient Diary (Study MA-1400-02)1
|
Restylane Patients |
Perlane Patients |
Restylane Patients |
Perlane 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 |
111 (78.2%) |
122 (86.5%) |
9 (8.1%) |
69 (62.2%) |
30 (27%) |
3 (2.7%) |
6 (4.9%) |
81 (66.4%) |
28 (23%) |
7 (5.7%) |
Redness |
114 (80.3%) |
118 (83.7%) |
31 (27.2%) |
71 (62.3%) |
9 (7.9%) |
3 (2.6%) |
19 (16.1%) |
87 (73.7%) |
8 (6.8%) |
4 (3.4%) |
Swelling |
127 (89.4%) |
128 (90.8%) |
12 (9.4%) |
93 (73.2%) |
19 (15.0%) |
3 (2.4%) |
6 (4.7%) |
100 (78.1%) |
17 (13.3%) |
5 (3.9%) |
Pain |
108 (76.1%) |
114 (80.9%) |
37 (34.3%) |
69 (63.9%) |
2 (1.9%) |
0 (0%) |
46 (40.4%) |
66 (57.9%) |
2 (1.8%) |
0 (0%) |
Tenderness |
123 (86.6%) |
130 (92.2%) |
21 (17.1%) |
92 (74.8%) |
9 (7.3%) |
1 (0.8%) |
24 (18.5%) |
89 (68.5%) |
16 (12.3%) |
1 (0.8%) |
Itching |
67 (47.2%) |
45 (31.9%) |
22 (32.8%) |
38 (56.7%) |
6 (9.0%) |
1 (1.5%) |
19 (42.2%) |
23 (51.1%) |
3 (6.7%) |
0 (0%) |
Other3 |
3 (2.1%) |
1 (0.7%) |
3 (100%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (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 5: Maximum Intensity of Symptoms after Initial
Treatment for the Nasolabial Fold Indication, Patient Diary (Study MA-1400-01)1,2
|
Restylane |
Perlane |
Restylane Patients |
Perlane 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 |
70 (46.7%) |
74 (49.3%) |
79 (53%) |
66 (44.3%) |
4 (2.7%) |
0 (0%) |
75 (50.3%) |
67 (45%) |
7 (4.7%) |
0 (0%) |
Redness |
87 (58%) |
92 (61.3%) |
62 (41.6%) |
81 (54.4%) |
6 (4%) |
0 (0%) |
57 (38.3%) |
85 (57%) |
7 (4.7%) |
0 (0%) |
Swelling |
125 (83.3%) |
121 (80.7%) |
24 (16.1%) |
109 (73.2%) |
14 (9.4%) |
2 (1.3%) |
28 (18.8%) |
108 (72.5%) |
11 (7.4%) |
2 (1.3%) |
Pain |
96 (64%) |
103 (68.7%) |
53 (35.6%) |
84 (56.4%) |
11 (7.4%) |
1 (0.7%) |
46 (30.9%) |
90 (60.4%) |
12 (8.1%) |
1 (0.7%) |
Tenderness |
122 (81.3%) |
130 (86.7%) |
27 (18.1%) |
110 (73.8%) |
11 (7.4%) |
1 (0.7%) |
19 (12.8%) |
116 (77.9%) |
13 (8.7%) |
1 (0.7%) |
Itching |
53 (35.3%) |
58 (38.7%) |
96 (64.4%) |
49 (32.9%) |
4 (2.7%) |
0 (0%) |
91 (61.1%) |
54 (36.2%) |
4 (2.7%) |
0 (0%) |
Other4 |
3 (2%) |
3 (2%) |
NA |
3 (100%) |
0 (%) |
0 (%) |
NA |
3 (100%) |
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 6: Duration of Adverse Events after Initial
Treatment for the Nasolabial Fold Indication, Patient Diary (Study MA-1400-01)1,2
|
Restylane Patients |
Perlane Patients |
Restylane Patients |
Perlane 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 |
70 (46.7%) |
74 (49.3%) |
13 (18.6%) |
51 (72.9%) |
6 (8.6%) |
0 (0%) |
23 (31.1%) |
44 (59.5%) |
6 (8.1%) |
1 (1.4%) |
Redness |
87 (58%) |
92 (61.3%) |
33 (37.9%) |
52 (59.8%) |
2 (2.3%) |
0 (0%) |
38 (41.3%) |
52 (56.5%) |
2 (2.2%) |
0 (0%) |
Swelling |
125 (83.3%) |
121 (80.7%) |
23 (18.4%) |
89 (71.2%) |
12 (9.6%) |
1 (0.8%) |
22 (18.2%) |
85 (70.2%) |
11 (9.1%) |
3 (2.5%) |
Pain |
96 (64%) |
103 (68.7%) |
27 (28.1%) |
67 (69.8%) |
2 (2.1%) |
0 (0%) |
32 (31.1%) |
67 (65%) |
2 (1.9%) |
2 (1.9%) |
Tenderness |
122 (81.3%) |
130 (86.7%) |
28 (23%) |
87 (71.3%) |
7 (5.7%) |
0 (0%) |
26 (20%) |
94 (72.3%) |
6 (4.6%) |
4 (3.1%) |
Itching |
53 (35.3%) |
58 (38.7%) |
22 (41.5%) |
27 (50.9%) |
4 (7.5%) |
0 (0%) |
29 (50%) |
26 (44.8%) |
2 (3.4%) |
1 (1.7%) |
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 7: All Investigator-Identified Adverse
Experiences (72 Hours) Number of Events per Patient per Study for the
Nasolabial Fold Indication
Study Term |
MA-1400-01 |
MA-1400-02 |
Number of Events Restylane
(n=150) |
Number of Events Perlane
(n=150) |
Number of Events Restylane
(n=142) |
Number of Events Perlane
(n=141) |
Ecchymosis |
9 |
10 |
48 |
44 |
Edema |
4 |
4 |
6 |
10 |
Erythema |
13 |
13 |
3 |
5 |
Tenderness |
4 |
4 |
7 |
5 |
Pain |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
Hyperpigmentation |
2 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
Pruritus |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
Papule |
1 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
Burning |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Hypopigmentation |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Injection site scab |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Table 8: Investigator-Identified Adverse Experiences
(2 Weeks or More After Implantation) (Number of Patients) (Restylane v.
Specified Active Controls—All Studies for the Nasolabial Fold Indication)
Study Term |
MA-1400-01 Restylane
(n=150) (%) |
MA-1400-01 Perlane
(n=150) (%) |
MA-1400-02 Restylane
(n=142) (%) |
MA-1400-02 Perlane
(n=141) (%) |
31GE0003 Restylane
(n=138) (%) |
31GE0003 Zyplast
(n=138) (%) |
Ecchymosis |
4 (2.7%) |
7 (4.6%) |
14 (9.9%) |
15 (10.6%) |
8 (5.8%) |
6 (4.3%) |
Edema |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (1.4%) |
3 (2.1%) |
11 (8.0%) |
14 (10.1%) |
Erythema |
2 (1.3%) |
2 (1.3%) |
1 (0.7%) |
2 (1.4%) |
30 (21.7%) |
37 (26.8 %) |
Tenderness |
0 (0%) |
1 (0.7%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (0.7%) |
8 (5.8%) |
10 (7.2%) |
Pain |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (0.7%) |
0 (0%) |
4 (2.9%) |
3 (2.2%) |
Papule |
1 (0.7%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (1.4%) |
1 (0.7%) |
5 (3.6%) |
13 (9.4%) |
Pruritus |
1 (0.7%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (0.7%) |
0 (0%) |
4 (2.9%) |
8 (5.8%) |
Rash |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
1 (0.7%) |
1 (0.7%) |
Hyper-pigmentation |
8 (5.3%) |
7 (4.7%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
Injection site scab |
1 (0.7%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
Skin exfoliation |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
Table 9:MA-004-03 Adverse Events Reported by Restylane
Patients Treated in the Nasolabial Folds
Adverse Event |
Number of Subjects with Events(%)
N=75 |
Total Number of Events† |
Mild |
Severity Moderate |
Severe |
Swelling |
18 (24%) |
46 |
37 |
9 |
0 |
Bruising |
14 (19%) |
33 |
19 |
12 |
2 |
Pain/Soreness |
4 (5%) |
14 |
12 |
2 |
0 |
Discoloration |
3 (4%) |
5 |
5 |
0 |
0 |
Infection |
1 (1%) |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
Hardness/Nodule |
2 (3%) |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
† Most subjects had bilateral events at either the
initial injection or touch-up. Bilateral events are counted as two events. |
Table 10: MA-1300-15 Intensity of Adverse Event,
Subject Diary for the Lip Augmentation Indication Study
|
No Treatment
(N=45) |
1st Treatment
(N=172) |
2nd treatment
(N=93) |
No Treatment
(N=45) |
1st Treatment with Restylane
(N=172) |
2nd Treatment with Restylane
(N=93) |
Subjects Reporting Symptoms |
Subjects Reporting Symptoms |
Subjects Reporting Symptoms |
None |
Tolerable |
Affects Daily Activity |
Disabling |
None |
Tolerable |
Affects Daily Activity |
Disabling |
None |
Tolerable |
Affects Daily Activity |
Disabling |
Maximum Severity Reported for any Diary AE |
Upper and Lower Lips Combined |
2 |
167 |
89 |
37 (95%) |
2 (5%) |
0 |
0 |
2 (1%) |
88 (52%) |
62 (37%) |
17 (10%) |
1 (1%) |
60 (67%) |
25 (28%) |
4 (4%) |
Bruising |
Upper and Lower Lips Combined |
2 |
147 |
58 |
37 (95%) |
2 (5%) |
0 |
0 |
22 (13%) |
109 (65%) |
33 (20%) |
5 (3%) |
31 (35%) |
48 (53%) |
10 (11%) |
1 (1%) |
Redness |
Upper and Lower Lips Combined |
1 |
130 |
60 |
38 (97%) |
1 (3%) |
0 |
0 |
39 (23%) |
118(70%) |
12 (7%) |
0 |
30 (33%) |
55 (62%) |
2 (2%) |
3 (3%) |
Swelling |
Upper and Lower Lips Combined |
0 |
166 |
89 |
39(100%) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 (2%) |
90 (53%) |
65 (38%) |
11 (7%) |
1 (1%) |
64 (71%) |
22 (25%) |
3 (3%) |
Pain (includes burning) |
Upper and Lower Lips Combined |
1 |
146 |
72 |
38 (97%) |
1 (3%) |
0 |
0 |
23 (14%) |
111 (66%) |
27 (16%) |
8 (5%) |
18 (20%) |
55 (61%) |
14 (16%) |
3 (3%) |
Tenderness |
Upper and Lower Lips Combined |
1 |
164 |
81 |
38 (97%) |
1 (3%) |
0 |
0 |
5 (3%) |
120(71%) |
40 (24%) |
4 (2%) |
9 (10%) |
63 (70%) |
15 (17%) |
3 (3%) |
Itching |
Upper and Lower Lips Combined |
0 |
56 |
23 |
39(100%) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
114 (67%) |
51 (30%) |
5 (3%) |
0 |
67 (74%) |
22 (25%) |
1 (1%) |
0 |
Table 11: MA-1300-15 Duration of Adverse Event,
Subject Diary for the Lip Augmentation Indication Study
Location/Adverse Event |
Any
n (%) |
1
n (%) |
2-7
n (%) |
8-13
n (%) |
14
n (%) |
Upper and Lower Lip Combined |
Bruising |
2 (4%) |
2 (100%) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Redness |
1 (2%) |
1 (100%) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Swelling |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Pain (includes Burning) |
1 (2%) |
1 (100%) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Tenderness |
1 (2%) |
1 (100%) |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Itching |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
Location/Adverse Event |
First Treatment with Restylane ( N=172)Number of Days |
Any1 n (%) |
1 n (%) |
2-7 n (%) |
8-13 n (%) |
14 n (%) |
Upper and Lower Lip Combined |
Bruising |
147 (85%) |
7 (5%) |
93 (63%) |
43 (29%) |
4 (3%) |
Redness |
130 (76%) |
20 (15%) |
86 (66%) |
23 (18%) |
1 ( < 1%) |
Swelling |
166 (97%) |
3 (2%) |
88 (53%) |
50 (30%) |
25 (15%) |
Pain (includes Burning) |
146 (85%) |
35 (24%) |
95 (65%) |
14 (10%) |
2 (1%) |
Tenderness |
164 (95%) |
11 (7%) |
81 (49%) |
49 (30%) |
23 (14%) |
Itching |
55 (32%) |
16 (29%) |
32 (58%) |
7 (13%) |
0 |
Location/Adverse Event |
Second Treatment with Restylane (N=93) Number of Days |
Any1 n (%) |
1 n (%) |
2-7 n (%) |
8-13 n (%) |
14 n (%) |
Upper and Lower Lip Combined |
Bruising |
59 (63%) |
3 (5%) |
40 (68%) |
16 (28%) |
0 |
Redness |
60 (65%) |
16 (27%) |
38 (63%) |
5 (8%) |
1 (2%) |
Swelling |
89 (96%) |
10 (11%) |
54 (61%) |
21 (24%) |
4 (5%) |
Pain (includes Burning) |
72 (77%) |
21 (30%) |
43 (60%) |
5 (7%) |
3 (4%) |
Tenderness |
81 (87%) |
5 (6%) |
52 (65%) |
16 (20%) |
8 (10%) |
Itching |
23 (25%) |
10 (43%) |
13 (57%) |
0 |
0 |
1 Duration of “other” diary symptoms could not
be calculated. |
Table 12: MA-1300-15 Summary of Treatment Emergent
Adverse Events for the Lip Augmentation Indication Study
Adverse Event |
No Treatment at Baseline
(N=45) |
First Treatment with Restylane
(N=172) |
Second Treatment with Restylane
(N=93) |
Events |
Subjects |
Events |
Subjects |
Events |
Subjects |
Pain |
1 |
1 (2%) |
97 |
36 (21%) |
51 |
19 (20%) |
Swelling |
0 |
0 |
224 |
100 (58%) |
103 |
52 (56%) |
Tenderness |
0 |
0 |
69 |
38 (22%) |
29 |
16 (17%) |
Nasopharyngitis |
3 |
2 (4%) |
9 |
9 (5%) |
2 |
2 (2%) |
Contusion (bruising/ ecchymosis) |
0 |
0 |
131 |
76 (44%) |
41 |
26 (28%) |
Headache |
3 |
2 (4%) |
17 |
12 (7%) |
3 |
3 (3%) |
Erythema |
0 |
0 |
57 |
29 (17%) |
19 |
10 (11%) |
Skin Exfoliation** |
0 |
0 |
21 |
14 (8%) |
2 |
2 (2%) |
**Includes sloughing of the skin, peeling, desquamation,
and superficial desquamation. |
Table 13: MA-1300-13K Maximum Intensity of Symptoms
after Initial Treatment, Subject Diary for the Lip Augmentation Indication Pilot
Study
Reaction
(N=20) |
Total subjects reporting symptoms
n (%) |
None
n (%) |
Tolerable
n (%) |
Affected Daily Activity
n (%) |
Disabling
n (%) |
Bruising |
17 (85%) |
3 (15%) |
13 (65%) |
4 (20%) |
0 (0%) |
Redness |
14 (70%) |
6 (30%) |
12 (60%) |
2 (10%) |
0 (0%) |
Swelling |
19 (95%) |
1 (5%) |
12 (60%) |
7 (35%) |
0 (0%) |
Pain |
17 (85%) |
3 (15%) |
17 (85%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
Tenderness |
19 (95%) |
1 (5%) |
18 (90%) |
1 (5%) |
0 (0%) |
Itching |
2 (10%) |
18 (90%) |
2 (10%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
Mass Formation1 |
18 (90%) |
2 (10%) |
17 (85%) |
1 (5%) |
0 (0%) |
1 Documentation of mass formation was the
result of a miscommunication with the subjects. Subjects were specifically
instructed to record any product palpability as mass formation in their diary,
whether or not the palpability was the intended feel of the product. |
U.S. Clinical Studies
31GE0003: Prospective, Randomized, Blinded, Controlled,
Clinical Study
Design
1:1 randomized, prospective study at 6 U.S. centers,
which compared the safety and effectiveness of Restylane and Zyplast in
a “within-patient” control model of augmentation correction of bilateral nasal folds,
using Restylane on the randomized nasal labial fold and the control
treatment on the opposite nasal labial fold. Patients were partially masked;
evaluating physicians were independent and masked; treating physicians were
unmasked.
Effectiveness was studied with 6-month follow-up. Safety
was studied with 12-month follow-up.
Endpoints - Effectiveness
Primary
The difference in effect of Restylane and Zyplast
on the visual severity of the nasolabial folds, as assessed by an Evaluating
Investigator at 6 months after baseline.
Secondary
Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) score assessed at
other follow-up points by the evaluating investigator and by the subject.
Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI): Very much improved /
much improved / improved / no change / worse, assessed at 2, 4, and 6 months by
the evaluating investigator and by the subject.
Number of treatment sessions to achieve optimal cosmesis.
The primary evaluation parameter was the 5-point WSRS
Score. A change in WSRS=1 was considered to be clinically significant during
follow-up. Baseline was defined to begin at the follow-up demonstrating that
optimal correction had been sustained for 2 weeks.
Optimal correction was defined to be the best cosmetic
result obtainable, as determined by the evaluating physician. A specific,
objective score or goal for correction was not defined; 2 injectable implant
sessions were expected.
Outcomes
Demographics
The study enrolled a population of predominately healthy,
female, Caucasian non-smokers with history of prior facial aesthetic procedures
and minimal sun exposure. There were few men or other racial/ ethnic groups;
few smokers or patients with extensive sun exposure.
Gender
Male: 9 (6.6%)
Female: 128 (93.4%)
Tobacco Use
Non-smokers 118 (86.1%)
Smokers: 19 (13.9%)
Ethnicity
Caucasian: 122 (89.0%)
Black: 2 (1.5%)
Asian: 2 (1.5%)
Hispanic: 11 (8.0%)
Sun Exposure
None: 83 (60.6%)
Natural Sun: 52 (38.0%)
Artificial: 2 (1.5%)
Effectiveness
Primary
Based on the per patient evaluation, the WSRS scores at 6
months by the evaluating investigator demonstrated that WSRS for
Restylane was lower (better) than Control: in 78
patients
Restylane was equal to Control: in 46 patients
Restylane was higher (worse) than Control: in 13
patients
For the entire cohort, however, the Mean of the WSRS
Score by evaluating investigator demonstrated that while there was essentially
no difference between Restylane and Control-treated cohort sides at pre-treatment
(0.02 units WSRS) and baseline (0.01 units WSRS), for the cohort of 134
patients, there was a difference of 0.58 units of WSRS at 6 months.
Table 14: Blinded Evaluator Mean Wrinkle Severity
Scores
|
N |
Restylane |
Control |
Absolute Difference |
Pre-treatment |
138 |
3.29 |
3.31 |
0.02 |
Baseline |
138 |
1.80 |
1.79 |
0.01 |
6 months |
134 |
2.36 |
2.94 |
0.58 |
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 Restylane and Perlane following
treatment to baseline condition. Patients were randomized to either Restylane
or Perlane 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 Restylane 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 were calculated for each treatment group. Each group was compared to
its own baseline, with no comparison of Restylane to Perlane.
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 was defined as 6 months or time point,
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 cellmediated
immunity; and the relationship of adverse experiences to injection technique.
Outcomes
Demographics
The study enrolled 283 (i.e., 142 Restylane and
141 Perlane ) patients with moderate to severe NLF wrinkles. The patients were
predominantly healthy ethnically diverse females. Bilateral NLFs and oral commissures
were corrected with 2.1 mL to 5.2 mL of Restylane. The greatest amount
used in any patient was 8.8 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 Restylane and control (Perlane) are presented in
Table 15. In the primary effectiveness assessment at 12 weeks, 77% of the Restylane
and 87% of the control patients had maintained at least a 1-point improvement
over baseline.
Table 15: Blinded Evaluator Wrinkle Severity Response
Scores
Time point |
No. of Restylane Patients |
No. of Restylane Pts. maintaining ≥ 1 Unit Improvement of NLF on WSRS |
No. of Perlane Patients |
No. of Perlane Pts. maintaining ≥ 1 Unit Improvement of NLF on WSRS |
6 weeks |
136 |
113 (83%)1 |
136 |
121 (89%)1 |
12 weeks |
140 |
108 (77%)1 |
141 |
122 (87%)1 |
24 weeks |
140 |
103 (74%)1 |
138 |
87 (63%)1 |
1 All p-values < 0.0001 based on t-test
compared to baseline condition |
Antibody Testing
15/142 (10.6%) subjects displayed a pre-treatment
antibody response against Restylane (which was believed to be related to
co-purifying Streptococcus capsule antigens). One subject also developed measurable
increase in antibody titer after Restylane injection. 7/21 (33.3%)
patients with antibodies against Restylane had adverse experiences at
the injection site, which was similar to the local adverse event rate observed
in the entire Restylane population (i.e., 53/142 (37%)). No severe
events were noted and the subject who developed an antibody response after Restylane
injection did not experience any adverse event at the injection site. Immediate
type skin testing demonstrated that no patient developed IgE to Restylane.
Post-exposure histopathology of skin biopsies of an implant site on each
patient demonstrated that no patient developed cell-mediated immunity to Restylane.
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 Restylane and Perlane following
treatment to baseline condition in 150 patients with pigmented skin and
predominantly African-American ethnicity. Patients were randomized to Restylane
or Perlane 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 Restylane 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 patient successes was
calculated for each group. Each treatment group was compared to its own
baseline, with no comparison of Restylane to Perlane.
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 was defined as 6 months or time point, 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; development of humoral or cellmediated
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 Restylane and control (Perlane) are
presented in Table 16 and are based on the Intent-to-Treat analysis. In the
primary effectiveness assessment at 12 weeks, 93% of the Restylane-treated
and 92% of the Perlane-treated NLF maintained at least a 1-point improvement over
baseline.
Table 16: Live Evaluator Wrinkle Severity Response
Scores
Time point |
No. of patients |
No. of Restylane Pts. maintaining 1 Unit Improvement on WSRS |
95% Restylane Confidence Interval |
No. of Perlane Pts. maintaining 1 1 Unit Improvement on WSRS |
95% Perlane Confidence Interval |
6 weeks |
148 |
142 (96%)1 |
92-99% |
140 (95%)1 |
90-99% |
12 weeks |
149 |
139 (93%)1 |
89-98% |
137 (92%)1 |
87-97% |
24 weeks |
147 |
108 (73%)1 |
66-81% |
104 (71%)1 |
63-77% |
1 All p-values < 0.0001 based on t-test
compared to baseline condition |
Antibody Testing
9/150 (6%) subjects displayed a pre-treatment antibody
response against Restylane (which was believed to be related to
co-purifying Streptococcus capsule antigens). No subjects developed a measurable
increase in antibody titer after Restylane injection. 1/6 (17%) patients
with antibodies against Restylane had adverse experiences at the
injection site as compared to the local adverse event rate observed in the
entire Restylane population (i.e., 28/150 (18.7%)). All the adverse
experiences in the patients with a humoral response against Restylane were
mild in severity. Immediate type skin testing demonstrated that no patient
developed IgE to Restylane. Post-exposure histopathology of skin
biopsies of an implant site on each patient demonstrated that no patient
developed cell-mediated immunity to Restylane.
MA-04-003
The duration of effectiveness of Restylane for
correction of nasolabial folds (NLF) was evaluated in a randomized,
evaluator-blinded, multi-center study. Restylane was shown to have an
overall duration of effectiveness of 18 months from baseline following
re-treatment at 4.5 or 9 months.
MA-04-003: Randomized Clinical Study
Design
Randomized, evaluator-blinded study at 3 U.S. centers,
which compared the safety and effectiveness of Restylane using two
re-treatment schedules. Initially Restylane was injected in both
nasolabial folds (NLF). Subsequently, one NLF was re-treated at 4.5 months
after the initial treatment. The contralateral NLF was treated with Restylane
and re-treated at 9 months (± 1 week). The Blinded Evaluators were blinded to
the re-treatment schedule while patients and treating physicians were not.
Effectiveness was studied at 18 months after the initial
injection (i.e., either 9 or 13.5 months after the second treatment).
Endpoints -Effectiveness
Primary
The difference in effect of Restylane injected 4.5
or 9 months after the initial treatment on the visual severity of the
nasolabial folds was assessed by an Evaluating Investigator at 18 months after
the baseline treatment. The primary study endpoint was the proportion of
subjects with at least one grade improvement in the Wrinkle Severity Rating
Scale (WSRS) from baseline as assessed by the Blinded Evaluator at the 18 month
visit.
Secondary
The Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) score was
assessed by the evaluating investigator at all follow-up visits prior to the 18
month visit and at all visits by subjects and independent photographic
reviewers.
Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) comparing the
pre-treatment appearance at all follow-up visits up to 18 months, was
determined by the treating investigator and patient. The GAIS is a 5-point scale
for assessing global aesthetic improvement: “very much improved / much improved
/ improved / no change / worse.”
Safety
Severity and duration of injection site reactions and
adverse events were recorded.
Demographics
The study enrolled an adult population of predominately
Caucasian, healthy, non-smoking females
Number of Subjects |
Age |
Gender |
Race |
Prior
Augmentation
to NLF |
History of
Tobacco Use |
History of Sun
Exposure |
75 |
Mean ± SD |
53.8 ± 8.4 |
Male |
5 (6.7%) |
White |
50 (66.7%) |
Yes |
6 (8.0%) |
No |
55 (73.3%) |
No |
63 (84.0%) |
|
Median |
54 |
Female |
70 (93.3%) |
Black |
3 (4.0%) |
No |
69 (92.0%) |
Yes |
20 (26.7%) |
Yes |
12 (16.0%) |
|
Minimum |
26 |
|
|
Hispanic |
22 (29.3%) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maximum |
73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of Subjects enrolled and observed at 4.5, 9,
12, 15 and 18 months
|
SCR/TRT |
Touch-up |
Wk2 |
M 4.5 |
M9 |
M12 |
M15 |
M18 |
Enrolled |
75 |
- |
75 |
75 |
75 |
75 |
75 |
75 |
Withdrew Consent (total) |
0 |
|
1 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
Lost to Follow-up |
0 |
|
0 |
2 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Missed Visit |
0 |
|
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
Actual |
75 |
44 |
72 |
67 |
65 |
64 |
64 |
64 |
Volume (mL) of Restylane Treatment Used by
Visit
Visit |
Side Assigned to Re-treatment at 4.5 Months |
Side Assigned to Re-treatment at 9 Months |
Baseline |
N |
75 |
75 |
Mean ± SD |
1.1 ± 0.61 |
1.1 ± 0.56 |
Median |
1.0 |
1.0 |
Minimum |
0.1 |
0.2 |
Maximum |
2.5 |
2.5 |
Touch-up Visit |
N |
44 |
44 |
Mean ± SD |
0.5 ± 0.22 |
0.5 ± 0.21 |
Median |
0.5 |
0.5 |
Minimum |
0.2 |
0.2 |
Maximum |
1.0 |
1.0 |
Re-treatment Visit (4.5 Months/9 months) |
N |
67 |
63 |
Mean ± SD |
0.7 ± 0.33 |
0.7 ± 0.36 |
Median |
0.8 |
0.6 |
Minimum |
0.2 |
0.1 |
Maximum |
1.8 |
2.0 |
Effectiveness
The results of the blinded evaluator assessment of NLF
wrinkle severity for subjects treated at baseline, 4.5 or 9 months is presented
in the Figure below for subject outcomes at 4.5, 9, 12, 15 and 18 months after
initial treatment.
At 18 months after the initial treatment, the blinded
evaluator determined that 97% of the NLFs re-treated at 4.5 months displayed at
least 1 WSRS grade improvement over baseline, with a mean change in wrinkle
severity score of 1.7 units. At 18 months after the initial treatment, the
blinded evaluator determined that 95% of the NLFs re-treated at 9 months
displayed at least 1 WSRS grade improvement over baseline, with a mean change
in wrinkle severity score of 1.6 units.
MA-1300-15
The safety and effectiveness of Restylane for lip
fullness augmentation was evaluated in a randomized, evaluator blinded, no
treatment controlled study.
MA-1300-15: Randomized Clinical Study
Design
This was a randomized, evaluator blinded, no treatment as
a control study of 180 subjects who were seeking lip fullness augmentation at
12 investigational centers. At entry of the study, subjects were randomized in
a 3:1 ratio to (1) Restylane treatment or (2) no treatment. The study
recruited a minimum of 30 subjects with darker skin types based on
classification of Fitzpatrick skin types IV, V, or VI. Each lip qualified by
MLFS score was analyzed for effectiveness and all lips were analyzed for
safety. Subjects randomized to treatment at baseline were re-treated at 6
months and subjects randomized to no treatment at baseline received their first
treatment at 6 months. The safety of all subjects was then monitored for one
month after the 6 month treatment.
Endpoints - Effectiveness
Primary
The primary effectiveness objective was to identify
whether Restylane was more effective in lip augmentation than no
treatment. This was determined by the blinded evaluator assessment of lip fullness
at 8 weeks after the first treatment as compared to the baseline assessment by
the treating investigator, separately in the upper and lower lips (co-primary
endpoints), using separate 5-grade Medicis Lip Fullness Scales (MLFS) with
photoguides for each (one scale for upper lip and one scale for lower lip).
Treatment success was defined as at least a one grade improvement in the MLFS
for the blinded evaluator assessments at Week 8 (as compared to the treating
investigator's baseline assessment of the MLFS) for both the upper and lower
lips.
The primary safety objective was to define the incidence
of all adverse events; including subject complaints reported during the first
fourteen days after treatment as recorded in the subject diary; safety
assessments at the 72 hour visits; treating investigator assessments at 2, 4,
8, 12, 16, 20, 24 weeks as well as 2 and 4 weeks after the 6 month treatment;
and any reported or observed adverse events.
Secondary
Secondary Effectiveness Objectives Included
- Assessment of lip fullness augmentation after treatment
with Restylane as compared to no treatment, as measured by the blinded
evaluator, treating investigator, and IPR at post-baseline time points as
compared to the baseline assessment. Response was determined by at least one
grade improvement from baseline in the upper and lower lips using the MLFS.
- Identification of lip improvement at each time point
after treatment with Restylane as compared to no treatment using the
GAIS by the treating investigator and the subject. Response is defined as a
GAIS rating of “improved” or better in the upper or lower lips.
The secondary safety objectives included assessment of
lip texture, firmness, symmetry, product palpability, mass formation, lip
movement, function, and sensation.
Outcomes
Demographics
The study enrolled an adult population of predominately
Caucasian healthy females.
Characteristics |
Total (N=180) |
Age (years) |
n |
180 |
Mean (S.D.) |
47.6 (10.6) |
Median |
50.0 |
Minimum |
18 |
Maximum |
65 |
Gender |
Male |
1 ( < 1%) |
Female |
179 (99%) |
Characteristics |
Total (N=180) |
Race |
American Indian/Alaskan Native |
2 (1%) |
Black/African American |
2 (1%) |
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander |
1 ( < 1%) |
Asian |
0 |
White |
169 (94%) |
Other |
6 (3%) |
Ethnicity |
Not Hispanic or Latino |
161 (89%) |
Hispanic or Latino |
19 (11%) |
Fitzpatrick Skin |
I, II, and III |
139 (77%) |
IV and V |
41 (23%) |
Volume (mL) of Restylane used:
Assessment (upper and lower lips) |
Initial Treatment |
6 Month Treatment |
No Treatment
(N=45) |
Restylane (1st Treatment)
(N=135) |
No Treatment (1st Treatment)
(N=45) |
Restylane (2nd Treatment)
(N=135) |
Volume of Injection (mL) (includes treatment and touch up) |
n |
- |
135 |
37 |
93 |
Mean (S.D.) |
- |
2.853 (0.984) |
2.387 (1.380) |
1.783 (0.921) |
Median |
- |
3.000 |
2.250 |
1.700 |
Minimum |
- |
0.60 |
0.60 |
0.03 |
Maximum |
- |
5.60 |
8.00 |
5.00 |
Effectiveness
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and
effectiveness of Restylane for soft tissue augmentation of the lips. The
results confirm that Restylane is highly effective for adding fullness
to both the upper and lower lips for at least 6 months.
The results of the blinded evaluator MLFS assessments of
lip fullness are presented in the figure below for subject outcomes 8, 12, 16,
20, and 24 weeks.
Proportion (%) of MLFS Responders Measured by the Blinded
Evaluator
p-value < 0.001 for all time points
Subjects assessed lip improvement at each time point
after treatment with a 7-point non-validated GAIS. When upper and lower lip
outcomes were combined, the following percentage of Restylane subjects
assessed themselves as improved or better from Baseline: 97.7% (Week 2), 99.2%
(Week 4), 96.7% (Week 8), 91.7% (Week 12), 85.0% (Week 16), 76.1% (Week 20),
and 74.1% (Week 24). No patients in the No Treatment group assessed themselves
as improved from Baseline at any visit.
80% of the eligible subjects elected to receive
re-treatment at Week 24 which suggests that subjects believed that the safety
concerns associated with Restylane lip injections were less than the
aesthetic value provided by the device.
MA-1300-13K
Design
A prospective, open label, single center, blinded
evaluator study in 20 subjects
Endpoints
The effectiveness evaluation parameter was the Global
Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS)
To assess the incidence and severity of adverse
experiences from Restylane when used in the lips
Outcomes
A total of 20 subjects (2 male, 18 female) were enrolled
and 19 subjects completed the study. One 80 year old subject died during the
study due to cardio-respiratory arrest. Mean age was 52.8 years old. Seventeen
subjects were white.
At 12 weeks, 7/19 (37%) subjects were rated as improved
on their GAIS assessment by the Blinded Evaluator. At 12 weeks, all (100%)
subjects rated themselves as improved on their GAIS assessment.
Parameter |
N |
n |
Subjects with Lip Improvement |
Percent |
90% Cl |
p-Value1 |
Lip Improvement Using the Blinded Evaluator's Assessment1 |
20 |
19 |
7 |
37% |
(0.19, 0.58) |
0.820 |
Lip Improvement Using the Treating Investigator's Assessment |
20 |
19 |
19 |
100% |
(0.85, 1.00) |
< 0.001 |
Lip Improvement Using the Subject's Assessment |
20 |
17 |
17 |
100% |
(0.84, 1.00) |
< 0.001 |
1 Due to the protocol deviation, the live
blinded evaluator's assessment was a photo assessment. |
Mean Volume Used
Lip |
Statistic |
Volume of Injection (mL) |
Upper |
N |
20 |
Mean (S.D.) |
0.82 (0.30) |
Median |
0.73 |
Min, Max |
0.08, 1.40 |
Lower |
N |
20 |
Mean (S.D.) |
0.88 (0.37) |
Median |
0.80 |
Min, Max |
0.05, 1.80 |
Total |
N |
20 |
Mean (S.D.) |
1.69 (0.62) |
Median |
1.60 |
Min, Max |
0.13, 3.20 |