Side Effects for Sculptra
SCULPTRA FOR CORRECTION OF SHALLOW TO DEEP NASOLABIAL FOLD CONTOUR DEFICIENCES AND OTHER FACIAL WRINKLES (RECONSTITUTED WITH 5 ML SWFI)
Clinical Studies 5 mL Reconstitution
Controlled Phase Study (0-13 Months)
A prospective, randomized clinical study was conducted at 10 centers in the US. Two hundred thirty-three (233), immune-competent and non-pregnant and non-breastfeeding subjects with previously untreated nasolabial fold wrinkles with wrinkle assessment scale (WAS) of 2 through 4 received bilateral injections of either Sculptra Aesthetic or Cosmoplast in both nasolabial fold wrinkles during a maximum of 4 sessions over 9 weeks. Study treatment was planned to be stopped when the right and left nasolabial fold wrinkle reached WAS of 1 or 0, or the maximum of 4 treatment sessions were completed. Adverse events reported in subject diaries after initial treatment are summarized in Tables 1 (intensity) and 2 (duration) below.
Adverse events described in the physician case reports are summarized in Table 3 below.
TABLE 1
INTENSITY OF ADVERSE EVENTS AFTER THE INITIAL TREATMENT SESSION, RECORDED IN THE 14 DAY SUBJECT DIARY
(Controlled Phase, 0-13 months)
All-Treated Population: Per Subject
| Injection Procedure Related Event |
Sculptra Aesthetic
(First Treatment Session: N=116) |
Cosmoplast
(First Treatment Session: N=117) |
Total
subjects reporting symptomsa
n (%) |
Severity of Adverse Eventa |
Total subjects reporting symptomsa n (%) |
Severity of Adverse Eventa |
|
Mild
n |
Moderate
n |
Severe
n |
Missing
n |
|
Mild
n |
Moderate
n |
Severe
n |
Missing
n |
| Localized Swelling |
94 (81.0) |
64 |
24 |
5 |
1 |
76 (65.0) |
60 |
13 |
1 |
2 |
| Localized Tendernes |
94 (81.0) |
63 |
24 |
2 |
5 |
83 (70.9) |
62 |
16 |
1 |
4 |
| Localized Redness |
90 (77.6) |
63 |
23 |
1 |
3 |
88 (75.2) |
63 |
23 |
1 |
1 |
| Post-Injection Site Pain |
82 (70.7) |
58 |
16 |
1 |
7 |
65 (55.6) |
50 |
7 |
1 |
7 |
| Localized Bruising |
75 (64.7) |
44 |
22 |
6 |
3 |
50 (42.7) |
26 |
18 |
1 |
5 |
| Bleeding from Site(s) |
39 (33.6) |
29 |
3 |
0 |
7 |
43 (36.8) |
33 |
5 |
0 |
5 |
| Localized Itching |
23 (19.8) |
14 |
1 |
0 |
8 |
34 (29.1) |
24 |
6 |
1 |
3 |
| Nodules/ papules/ lumps |
4 (3.4) |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
14 (12.0) |
4 |
7 |
1 |
2 |
| Otherb |
19 (16.4) |
7 |
8 |
1 |
3 |
22 (18.8) |
11 |
6 |
3 |
2 |
| Total |
113 (97.4) |
48 |
54 |
11 |
0 |
110 (94.0) |
61 |
42 |
5 |
2 |
a Subjects experiencing multiple episodes of a given adverse event are counted once for that event within the most severe category.
b Subjects who reported multiple events in the “Other” category are counted only once within the most severe category.
Adverse Events reported as “Others” are headache, dry skin, skin peeling, rash at injection, pimples, improvement of allergy symptoms, needle marks, sinus pressure, bruising, mouth sores, tenderness and twitching of nostril. |
TABLE 2
DURATION OF ADVERSE EVENTS AFTER THE INITIAL TREATMENT SESSION, RECORDED IN THE 14 DAY SUBJECT DIARY
(Controlled Phase, 0-13 months)
All-Treated Population: Per Subject
| Injection Procedure Related Event |
Sculptra Aesthetic
(First Treatment Session: N=116) |
Cosmoplast
(First Treatment Session: N=117) |
Total subjects reporting symptomsa
n (%) |
Duration of Adverse Eventa |
Total subjects reporting symptomsa
n (%) |
Duration of Adverse Eventa |
|
<1
hour |
1-24
hrs |
2-7
days |
8-14 days |
≥15
days |
Missing |
|
<1
hour |
1-24
hrs |
2-7
days |
8-14 days |
≥15
days |
Missing |
| Localized Swelling |
94 (81.0) |
4 |
48 |
35 |
2 |
0 |
5 |
76 (65.0) |
6 |
34 |
29 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
| Localized Tenderness |
94 (81.0) |
7 |
45 |
32 |
1 |
4 |
5 |
83 (70.9) |
6 |
33 |
29 |
2 |
10 |
3 |
| Localized Redness |
90 (77.6) |
13 |
50 |
24 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
88 (75.2) |
11 |
25 |
33 |
3 |
13 |
3 |
| Post-Injection Site Pain |
82 (70.7) |
21 |
44 |
14 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
65 (55.6) |
16 |
35 |
8 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
| Localized Bruising |
75 (64.7) |
6 |
11 |
44 |
7 |
2 |
5 |
50 (42.7) |
3 |
12 |
25 |
9 |
0 |
1 |
| Bleeding from Site(s) |
39 (33.6) |
28 |
6 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
43 (36.8) |
35 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
| Localized Itching |
23 (19.8) |
9 |
5 |
6 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
34 (29.1) |
5 |
8 |
13 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
| Nodules/papules/lumps |
4 (3.4) |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
14 (12.0) |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
9 |
2 |
| Otherb |
19 (16.4) |
0 |
3 |
10 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
22 (18.8) |
1 |
2 |
7 |
2 |
8 |
2 |
| Total |
113 (97.4) |
2 |
24 |
67 |
10 |
9 |
1 |
110 (94.0) |
5 |
18 |
54 |
5 |
27 |
1 |
a Subjects experiencing multiple episodes of a given adverse event are counted once for that event within the longest duration category.
b Subjects who reported multiple events in the “Other” category are counted only once within the longest duration category. For list of adverse events categorized as “other”, see table 1. |
TABLE 3
PHYSICIAN REPORTED* ADVERSE EVENTS AFTER ALL TREATMENTS REGARDLESS OF RELATIONSHIP TO THE DEVICE OCCURING IN >1% OF SUBJECTS
(Controlled Phase, 0-13 months)
All-Treated Population: Per Subject
Adverse Events
(MedDRA Preferred Term) |
Sculptra Aesthetic
N=116
N (%) |
Cosmoplast
N=117
N (%) |
| Injection site pain |
11 (9.5) |
12 (10.3) |
| Application site nodule** |
10 (8.6) |
11 (9.4) |
| Application site papule*** |
10 (8.6) |
4 (3.4) |
| Nasopharyngitis |
7 (6.0) |
9 (7.7) |
| Headache |
5 (4.3) |
4 (3.4) |
| Injection site erythema |
4 (3.4) |
38 (32.5) |
| Acne |
3 (2.6) |
4 (3.4) |
| Pain |
3 (2.6) |
2 (1.7) |
| Injection site dermatitis |
3 (2.6) |
1 (0.9) |
| Hypertension |
3 (26) |
0 (0.0) |
| Injection site haemorrhage |
2 (1.7) |
6 (5.1) |
| Swelling |
2 (1.7) |
2 (1.7) |
| Fracture |
2 (1.7) |
2 (1.7) |
| Urinary tract infection |
2 (1.7) |
2 (1.7) |
| Streptococcal infection |
2 (1.7) |
0 (0.0) |
| Tooth abscess |
2 (1.7) |
0 (0.0) |
| Syncope vasovagal |
2 (1.7) |
0 (0.0) |
| Cough |
2 (1.7) |
0 (0.0) |
| Injection site pruritus |
1 (0.9) |
12 (10.3) |
| Sinusitis |
1 (0.9) |
6 (5.1) |
| Application site dryness |
1 (0.9) |
5 (4.3) |
| Influenza |
1 (0.9) |
5 (4.3) |
| Injection site swelling |
1 (0.9) |
4 (3.4) |
| Bronchitis |
1 (0.9) |
2 (1.7) |
| Upper respiratory tract infection |
1 (0.9) |
2 (1.7) |
| Injection site discoloration |
0 (0.0) |
2 (1.7) |
| Injection site eczema |
0 (0.0) |
2 (1.7) |
| Skin tightness |
0 (0.0) |
2 (1.7) |
*Includes all subjects with nodules and papules regardless of duration.
**Application site nodule is a lesion equal to or greater than to 5 mm, typically palpable, asymptomatic and non-visible.
*** Application site papule is a lesion less than 5 mm, typically palpable, asymptomatic and non-visible. |
Adverse Events That Occurred With Sculptra Aesthetic At An incidence Of <1%
Acrochordon, anxiety, colitis, contusion, corneal abrasion, cyst, depression, dermatitis, eczema, gastritis, herpes simplex, hypercholesterolemia, hypersensitivity, hypothyroidism, injection site desquamation, injection site rash, lower respiratory infection, lymphadenopathy, migraine, muscle injury, muscle twitching, myalgia, osteoarthritis, osteopenia, pruritus, rheumatoid arthritis, gastroenteritis, skin burning sensation, spider vein, staphylococcal infection, stress symptoms, tooth infection, toothache, vaginal infection.
Extension Phase Study (13 To 25 Months)
A total of 106 subjects treated with Sculptra Aesthetic in the initial 13-month study were followed for an additional 12 months (25 months total) after their last treatment. Only Sculptra Aesthetic-related adverse events were collected on the physician case report forms. Five new device-related adverse events were reported in three subjects: 2 subcutaneous papules (1.9%), 1 nodule (0.9%) and 2 injection site pain (0.9%).
Nodules And Papules
In the controlled clinical study, the percentage of subjects with nodules and/or papules was greater after Sculptra Aesthetic [(17.2% (20/116)] than after the control treatment [(12.8%) (15/117)]. This reflects 8 Sculptra Aesthetic subjects who experienced nodules, 10 Sculptra Aesthetic subjects who experienced papules and 2 Sculptra Aesthetic subjects who experienced both nodules and papules.
After the first Sculptra Aesthetic injection session, time to onset for nodules was 160 days (median) and 209 days (mean) and for papules 55 days (median) and 159 days (mean). After Sculptra Aesthetic injection, the duration of nodules was 100 days (median) and 180 days (mean), for papules was 110 days (median) and 176 days (mean). One subject with a papule required a single intralesional corticosteroid injection and the event resolved. For 3 subjects with nodules/papules, no information on outcome was available at the end of the 25-month extension phase study. For all remaining subjects, nodules/papules resolved spontaneously. None of these events were reported as a serious adverse event by the investigator.
Table 4 contains, for the Sculptra Aesthetic (0-25 months) and Cosmoplast (0-13 months) groups, summaries of the number of nodules and papules per baseline skin type, age group, and race stratified by baseline WAS. Summaries of the time to onset and duration of nodules and papules, stratified by baseline WAS are also presented.
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF NODULES AND PAPULES, SCULPTRA AESTHETIC (SA) AND COSMOPLAST (COS)
| Baseline (Pre-Injection, before first treatment) WAS |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
ALL |
| Treatment |
SA |
COS |
SA |
COS |
SA |
COS |
SA |
COS |
SA |
COS |
| Number of pt injected (N) |
6 |
4 |
55 |
41 |
41 |
55 |
14 |
17 |
116 |
117 |
| Patients with nodule |
0 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
10 |
11 |
| 0% |
0% |
7.3% |
9.8% |
9.8% |
10.9% |
14.3% |
5.9% |
8.6% |
9.4% |
| Patients with papule |
0 |
0 |
7 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
12 |
4 |
| 0% |
0% |
12.7% |
2.4% |
12.2% |
1.8% |
0% |
11.8% |
10.3% |
3.4% |
| Demographics |
| Patients Nodules or Papules per Fitzpatrick Skin Type |
| Fitzpatrick Skin Type = 1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
| Fitzpatrick Skin Type = 2 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
7 |
5 |
| Fitzpatrick Skin Type = 3 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
8 |
7 |
| Fitzpatrick Skin Type = 4 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
2 |
| Fitzpatrick Skin Type = 5 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Fitzpatrick Skin Type = 6 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Patients Nodules or Papules per age group |
| Patients < 35y.o |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Patients 35-55y.o |
0 |
0 |
7 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
12 |
10 |
| Patients > 55y.o |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
8 |
5 |
| Patients Nodules or Papules per age race |
| Caucasian |
0 |
0 |
10 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
2 |
3 |
17 |
13 |
| Hispanic |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
2 |
| Black/Asian/other |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
| Time (days) from first device injection to start of event (median, mean, min, max) |
| Nodules-median days to event onset |
0 |
0 |
261 |
4.5 |
66 |
2 |
48.5 |
1 |
160 |
1 |
| Nodules-mean days to event onset |
0 |
0 |
255.4 |
5.0 |
221.1 |
11 |
48.5 |
1 |
208.7 |
7.9 |
| Nodules-time to onset minimum days maximum days |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
447 |
10 |
669 |
43 |
96 |
1 |
669 |
43 |
| Papules-median days to event onset |
0 |
0 |
49 |
1 |
64 |
25 |
0 |
22 |
54.5 |
22 |
| Papules-mean days to event onset |
0 |
0 |
130.7 |
1 |
197.8 |
25 |
0 |
17.7 |
158.7 |
15.8 |
Papules-time to onset
minimum days
maximum days |
0 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
25 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
500 |
1 |
586 |
25 |
|
30 |
586 |
30 |
| Event Duration, days (median, mean, min, max) |
| Nodules-median duration days |
0 |
0 |
357 |
158.5 |
50 |
26 |
56.5 |
97 |
99.5 |
41 |
| Nodules-mean duration days |
0 |
0 |
315.4 |
196.8 |
118.9 |
31 |
56.5 |
97 |
180.1 |
97.3 |
Nodules- duration
minimum days
maximum days |
0 |
0 |
22 |
8 |
4 |
3 |
18 |
97 |
4 |
3 |
|
|
543 |
462 |
489 |
68 |
95 |
97 |
543 |
462 |
| Papule-median duration days |
0 |
0 |
157 |
45 |
62 |
6 |
0 |
16 |
109.5 |
16 |
| Papule-mean duration days |
0 |
0 |
186.1 |
45 |
161.6 |
6 |
0 |
17.7 |
175.9 |
20.8 |
Papule- duration
minimum days
maximum days |
0 |
0 |
9 |
45 |
8 |
6 |
0 |
15 |
8 |
0 |
|
|
407 |
45 |
512 |
6 |
|
22 |
512 |
45 |
No significant associations were found between incidence of nodule/papules and geographic site, volume injected, number of treatment sessions, subject characteristics at baseline (Fitzpatrick skin type, age and race), or baseline WAS (pre-injection, before first treatment).
Post Approval Study (PAS; Through 3 Years Post-Treatment)
A total of 867 subjects have been enrolled/treated in this study at 20 investigational sites in the US. A total of 436 of 867 subjects (50.3%) reported Adverse Events (AEs) through the Year 3 visit of this ongoing study; 29.0% of reported AEs were found to be related to treatment. One Serious Adverse event related to treatment was reported (foreign body granuloma).
Nodules And Papules
The overall incidence rate of injection site nodules and/or papules (NPs) is 28.4% of subjects treated with Sculptra Aesthetic in all treated facial areas (i.e. nasolabial folds (NLFs), marionette lines (MLs), cheek folds, and chin crease). The incidence rates of NPs in each anatomic area varied (27.0% in the MLs, 19.0% in the NLFs, 5.4% in the cheek folds, and 3.6% in the chin creases). See Tables 5-7 below.
The overall mean total treatment volume was similar in anatomic sides with a NP (3.91± 1.91mL) as compared to anatomic sides without a NP (3.65 ± 2.16 mL). However, increased injection volumes may be associated with higher frequencies of NPs, particularly in the MLs (treatment volume in the MLs with a NP [3.13 ± 1.49 mL] as compared to treatment volume in MLs without a NP [2.67 ± 1.44 mL]). When comparing treatment volumes, the reported incidence rates for NPs at the MLs was higher when compared to other treated facial areas (i.e. NLF, cheek folds, chin crease). Further, for treatment volumes greater than 2 mL per ML, the incidence rate of NPs exceeded the 21% protocol threshold.
Overall, there was a slight increase in the overall rate of NPs with increasing wrinkle severity: Baseline WAS 2 (9.9%); baseline WAS 3 (12.1%); baseline WAS 4 (17.4%).
Treatment of nodules and/or papules in this study included injections of: Sodium chloride, triamcinolone, 5-Fluorouracil/triamcinolone/lidocaine; and/or oral: Diphenhydramine, doxycycline, ibuprofen; and/or topical: Benzocaine, mometasone cream.
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF TOTAL TREATMENT VOLUME (ML) BY ANATOMIC AREA, NODULE/PAPULE PER ANATOMIC SIDES, AND FITZPATRICK SKIN TYPE
Anatomic Area
Nodule/Papulea Anatomic Sidesb |
Fitzpatrick Skin Type
I-III (N=557) |
Fitzpatrick Skin Type
IV-VI (N=310) |
Overall
(N=867) |
| Nasolabial Folds |
| All Anatomic Sides |
| Number of Anatomic Sides |
1114 |
620 |
1734 |
| Mean (SD) |
4.596 (2.1660) |
4.425 (2.0762) |
4.535 (2.1353) |
| Median |
4.270 |
4.000 |
4.200 |
| Min, Max |
0.50, 10.00 |
0.60, 10.00 |
0.50, 10.00 |
| Anatomic Sides with Any Nodule and/or Papules |
| Number of Anatomic Sides |
158 |
77 |
235 |
| Mean (SD) |
4.759 (1.9473) |
4.308 (1.9864) |
4.611 (1.9675) |
| Median |
4.400 |
4.000 |
4.200 |
| Min, Max |
0.90, 10.00 |
1.40, 9.50 |
0.90, 10.00 |
| Anatomic Sides without Any Nodule and/or Papules |
| Number of Anatomic Sides |
956 |
543 |
1499 |
| Mean (SD) |
4.569 (2.1998) |
4.442 (2.0899) |
4.523 (2.1608) |
| Median |
4.250 |
4.000 |
4.200 |
| Min, Max |
0.50, 10.00 |
0.60, 10.00 |
0.50, 10.00 |
| Cheek Folds |
| All Anatomic Sides |
| Number of Anatomic Sides |
261 |
57 |
318 |
| Mean (SD) |
3.399 (2.3346) |
3.165 (1.9523) |
3.357 (2.2697) |
| Median |
3.000 |
3.000 |
3.000 |
| Min, Max |
0.23, 13.00 |
0.70, 7.00 |
0.23, 13.00 |
| Anatomic Sides with Any Nodule and/or Papules |
| Number of Anatomic Sides |
9 |
2 |
11 |
| Mean (SD) |
3.311 (2.0751) |
3.250 (0.0707) |
3.300 (1.8563) |
| Median |
3.500 |
3.250 |
3.300 |
| Min, Max |
1.00, 6.30 |
3.20, 3.30 |
1.00, 6.30 |
| Anatomic Sides without Any Nodule and/or Papules |
| Number of Anatomic Sides |
252 |
55 |
307 |
| Mean (SD) |
3.402 (2.3470) |
3.162 (1.9880) |
3.359 (2.2857) |
| Median |
4.250 |
4.000 |
4.200 |
| Min, Max |
0.50, 10.00 |
0.60, 10.00 |
0.50, 10.00 |
| Marionette Lines |
| All Anatomic Sides |
| Number of Anatomic Sides |
676 |
244 |
920 |
| Mean (SD) |
2.802 (1.4687) |
2.657 (1.4276) |
2.764 (1.4585) |
| Median |
2.500 |
2.550 |
2.500 |
| Min, Max |
0.20, 8.00 |
0.20, 6.00 |
0.20, 8.00 |
| Anatomic Sides with Any Nodule and/or Papules |
| Number of Anatomic Sides |
144 |
42 |
186 |
| Mean (SD) |
3.203 (1.4897) |
2.887 (1.4890) |
3.132 (1.4914) |
| Median |
3.050 |
2.925 |
3.000 |
| Min, Max |
0.30, 7.25 |
0.50, 6.00 |
0.30, 7.25 |
| Anatomic Sides without Any Nodule and/or Papules |
| Number of Anatomic Sides |
532 |
202 |
734 |
| Mean (SD) |
2.694 (1.4453) |
2.609 (1.4136) |
2.671 (1.4362) |
| Median |
2.500 |
2.500 |
2.500 |
| Min, Max |
0.20, 8.00 |
0.20, 5.80 |
0.20, 8.00 |
| Chin Crease |
| All Anatomic Sides |
| Number of Anatomic Sides |
222 |
85 |
307 |
| Mean (SD) |
2.043 (1.1005) |
1.945 (1.2844) |
2.016 (1.1530) |
| Median |
2.000 |
1.600 |
2.000 |
| Min, Max |
0.14, 5.60 |
0.10, 5.25 |
0.10, 5.60 |
| Anatomic Sides with Any Nodule and/or Papules |
| Number of Anatomic Sides |
8 |
3 |
11 |
| Mean (SD) |
2.351 (1.0788) |
3.400 (1.1533) |
2.637 (1.1492) |
| Median |
2.000 |
3.500 |
2.200 |
| Min, Max |
0.71, 4.00 |
2.20, 4.50 |
0.71, 4.50 |
| Anatomic Sides without Any Nodule and/or Papules |
| Number of Anatomic Sides |
214 |
82 |
296 |
| Mean (SD) |
2.031 (1.1021) |
1.892 (1.2636) |
1.993 (1.1486) |
| Median |
2.000 |
1.550 |
2.000 |
| Min, Max |
0.14, 5.60 |
0.10, 5.25 |
0.10, 5.60 |
a: For purposes of this study, a nodule or papule is conservatively defined to include investigator-confirmed lumps, bumps, etc (by visual examination or palpation), regardless of onset time or duration, including induration (not generalized swelling) occurring in the injection area, as well as non-uniform distribution of study product.
b: This table summarizes the relationship between nodules /papules and injection frequency by anatomic sides (left or right), as every anatomic side may not have been treated at each injection session. Anatomic sides include the chin crease and the left and right sides for nasolabial folds, cheek folds, and marionette lines.
Source: Year 3 CSR Listings 16.2.5.1, 16.2.5.2, 16.2.7.5.1, and 16.2.7.5.2 |
TABLE 6
SUMMARY OF INCIDENCE OF INJECTION SITE NODULE AND/OR PAPULE a,b BY TOTAL TREATMENT VOLUME, ANATOMIC SIDES, AND FITZPATRICK SKIN TYPE
Total Injection Volume
Anatomic Sidesb |
Fitzpatrick Skin Type
I-III
(N=557) |
Fitzpatrick Skin Type
IV-VI
(N=310) |
Overall
(N=867) |
Anatomic Sidesc
n / N (%) |
Events n |
Anatomic Sidesc
n / N (%) |
Events n |
Anatomic Sidesc
n / N (%) |
Events n |
| Total Injection Volume < 2 mL |
| All Anatomic Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
38 / 494 (7.7) |
38 |
13 / 210 (6.2) |
14 |
51 / 704 (7.2) |
52 |
| NLF Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
8 / 123 (6.5) |
8 |
2 / 55 (3.6) |
2 |
10 / 178 (5.6) |
10 |
| Anatomic Sides other than NLF with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
30 / 371 (8.1) |
30 |
11 / 155 (7.1) |
12 |
41 / 526 (7.8) |
42 |
| Cheek Fold Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
3 / 75 (4.0) |
3 |
0 / 21 (0.0) |
0 |
3 / 96 (3.1) |
3 |
| Marionette Line Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
25 / 198 (12.6) |
25 |
11 / 86 (12.8) |
12 |
36 / 284 (12.7) |
37 |
Chin Crease Sides with Injection Site
Nodule and/or Papule |
2 / 98 (2.0) |
2 |
0 / 48 (0.0) |
0 |
2 / 146 (1.4) |
2 |
| Total Injection Volume 2 to < 3.5 mL |
| All Anatomic Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
99 / 657 (15.1) |
107 |
48 / 280 (17.1) |
54 |
147 /937 (15.7) |
161 |
| NLF Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
38 / 233 (16.3) |
41 |
28 / 161 (17.4) |
33 |
66 / 394 (16.8) |
74 |
| Anatomic Sides other than NLF with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
61 / 424 (14.4) |
66 |
20 / 119 (16.8) |
21 |
81 / 543 (14.9) |
87 |
| Cheek Fold Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
1 / 74 (1.4) |
1 |
2 / 13 (15.4) |
2 |
3 / 87 (3.4) |
3 |
| Marionette Line Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
56 / 254 (22.0) |
61 |
17 / 81 (21.0) |
18 |
73 / 335 (21.8) |
79 |
| Chin Crease Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
4 / 96 (4.2) |
4 |
1 / 25 (4.0) |
1 |
5 / 121 (4.1) |
5 |
| Total Injection Volume 3.5 to < 5 mL |
| All Anatomic Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
89 / 554 (16.1) |
94 |
31 / 248 (12.5) |
31 |
120 / 802 (15.0) |
125 |
| NLF Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
44 / 317 (13.9) |
44 |
21 / 174 (12.1) |
21 |
65 / 491 (13.2) |
65 |
| Anatomic Sides other than NLF with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
45 / 237 (19.0) |
50 |
10 / 74 (13.5) |
10 |
55 / 311 (17.7) |
60 |
| Cheek Fold Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
2 / 46 (4.3) |
2 |
0 / 9 (0.0) |
0 |
2 / 55 (3.6) |
2 |
| Marionette Line Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
41 / 164 (25.0) |
46 |
8 / 56(14.3) |
8 |
49 / 220 (22.3) |
54 |
| Chin Crease Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
2 / 27 (7.4) |
2 |
2 / 9 (22.2) |
2 |
4 / 36 (11.1) |
4 |
| Total Injection Volume ≥ 5 mL |
| All Anatomic Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
93 / 568 (16.4) |
102 |
32 / 268 (11.9) |
38 |
125 / 836 (15.0) |
140 |
| NLF Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
68 / 441 (15.4) |
75 |
26 / 230 (11.3) |
30 |
94 / 671 (14.0) |
105 |
| Anatomic Sides other than NLF with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
25 / 127 (19.7) |
27 |
6 / 38(15.8) |
8 |
31 / 165 (18.8) |
35 |
| Cheek Fold Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
3 / 66 (4.5) |
3 |
0 / 14 (0.0) |
0 |
3 / 80 (3.8) |
3 |
| Marionette Line Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
22 / 60 (36.7) |
24 |
6 / 21 (28.6) |
8 |
28 / 81 (34.6) |
32 |
| Chin Crease Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
0 / 1 (0.0) |
0 |
0 / 3 (0.0) |
0 |
0 / 4 (0.0) |
0 |
a: For purposes of this study, a nodule or papule is conservatively defined to include investigator-confirmed lumps, bumps, etc (by visual examination or palpation), regardless of onset time or duration, including induration (not generalized swelling) occurring in the injection area, as well as non-uniform distribution of study product.
b: This table summarizes incidence of nodules/papules by injection volume frequency and anatomic sides (left or right), as the injection volume may vary by side. Anatomic sides include the chin crease and the left and right sides for NLFs, cheek folds and marionette lines.
c: Anatomic sides experiencing multiple episodes of event are counted once within each event category.
Source: Listings 16.2.5.2 and 16.2.7.5.1 |
TABLE 7
SUMMARY OF INCIDENCE OF INJECTION SITE NODULE AND/OR PAPULE a,b BY BASELINE WRINKLE ASSESSMENTS (WAS), ANATOMIC SIDES, AND FITZPATRICK SKIN TYPE
Baseline Wrinkle
Assessments Anatomic Sidesb |
Fitzpatrick Skin Type
I-III
(N=557) |
Fitzpatrick Skin Type
IV-VI
(N=310) |
Overall
(N=867) |
Anatomic Sidesc
n / N (%) |
Events n |
Anatomic Sidesc
n / N (%) |
Events n |
Anatomic Sidesc
n / N (%) |
Events n |
| Baseline Wrinkle Assessments: 2 |
| All Anatomic Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
53 / 574 (9.2) |
54 |
32 / 281 (11.4) |
35 |
85 / 855 (9.9) |
89 |
| NLF Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
19 / 210 (9.0) |
19 |
20 / 143 (14.0) |
23 |
39 / 353 (11.0) |
42 |
| Cheek Fold Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
7 / 114 (6.1) |
7 |
0 / 21 |
0 |
7 / 135 (5.2) |
7 |
| Marionette Line Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
26 / 190 (13.7) |
27 |
12 / 77 (15.6) |
12 |
38 / 267 (14.2) |
39 |
| Chin Crease Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
1 / 60 (1.7) |
1 |
0 / 40 |
0 |
1 / 100 (1.0) |
1 |
| Baseline Wrinkle Assessments: 3 |
| All Anatomic Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
108 / 854 (12.6) |
115 |
36 / 341 (10.6) |
39 |
144 / 1195 (12.1) |
154 |
| NLF Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
55 / 429 (12.8) |
59 |
23 / 208 (11.1) |
24 |
78 / 637 (12.2) |
83 |
| Cheek Fold Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
2 / 104 (1.9) |
2 |
2 / 28 (7.1) |
2 |
4 / 132 (3.0) |
4 |
| Marionette Line Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
49 / 231 (21.2) |
52 |
10 / 76 (13.2) |
12 |
59 / 307 (19.2) |
64 |
| Chin Crease Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
2 / 90 (2.2) |
2 |
1 / 29 (3.4) |
1 |
3 / 119 (2.5) |
3 |
| Baseline Wrinkle Assessments: 4 |
| All Anatomic Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
158 / 845 (18.7) |
172 |
56 / 384 (14.6) |
63 |
214 / 1229 (17.4) |
235 |
| NLF Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
84 / 475 (17.7) |
90 |
34 / 269 (12.6) |
39 |
118 / 744 (15.9) |
129 |
| Cheek Fold Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
0 / 43 |
0 |
0 / 8 |
0 |
0 / 51 |
0 |
| Marionette Line Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
69 / 255 (27.1) |
77 |
20 / 91 (22.0) |
22 |
89 / 346 (25.7) |
99 |
| Chin Crease Sides with Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule |
5 / 72 (6.9) |
5 |
2 / 16 (12.5) |
2 |
7 / 88 (8.0) |
7 |
a: For purposes of this study, a nodule or papule is conservatively defined to include investigator-confirmed lumps, bumps, etc. (by visual examination or palpation), regardless of onset time or duration, including induration (not generalized swelling) occurring in the injection area, as well as non-uniform distribution of study product.
b: This table summarizes incidence of nodules/papules by injection frequency and anatomic sides (left or right), as the injection frequency may vary by side. Anatomic sides include the chin crease and the left and right sides for NLFs, cheek folds and marionette lines.
c: Anatomic sides experiencing multiple episodes of event are counted once within each event category.
Source: Year 3 CSR Listings 16.2.6.1.1 and 16.2.7.5.1 |
Across the investigational sites, there was substantial site-to-site variability in the incidence of overall NPs ranging from 0 – 79.1%.
Other Adverse Events of Interest
The overall incidence of Adverse Events of Interest (AEIs) other than NPs (including changes in skin pigmentation, granuloma, and unexpected change in wrinkle contour) is 1.0% of subjects treated with Sculptra Aesthetic in all treated facial areas (i.e. NLFs, MLs, cheek folds, and chin crease).
SCULPTRA FOR CORRECTION OF SHALLOW TO DEEP NASOLABIAL FOLD CONTOUR DEFICIENCIES (RECONSTITUTED WITH 8 ML SWFI WITH THE ADDITION OF 1 ML 2% LIDOCAINE)
Clinical Studies 8 mL Reconstitution
Base Study (0-48 Weeks)
Eighty subjects were enrolled in a randomized, treatment-controlled, evaluator-blinded, multicenter study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Sculptra Aesthetic reconstituted in 8 mL SWFI with the addition of 1 mL 2% lidocaine for treatment of nasolabial folds. Subjects were treated to optimal correction at four-week intervals, with a maximum of four treatment sessions. Out of the 80 subjects enrolled, 59 subjects received Sculptra Aesthetic reconstituted in 8 mL SWFI with the addition of 1 mL 2% lidocaine (treatment group) and 21 subjects received Sculptra Aesthetic reconstituted in 5 mL SWFI (control group).
Pre-printed diary forms were used by subjects to record the presence of pre-defined expected post-treatment events in the treated area, i.e. bruising, redness, swelling, pain, tenderness, itching, lumps/bumps, and “other” for 28 days following each treatment. Subjects rated each treatment site response as “None”, “Mild”, “Moderate” or “Severe”.
Vision function assessments: Snellen Visual Acuity Test, Extraocular Muscle Function Test and Confrontation Visual Field Test, was performed both prior to and post injection of the study product at baseline, before and after treatments, and all physical scheduled follow-up visits.
Subjects assessed their pain, for each treatment area individually, before (prior to application of any anesthetic) and immediately after (before any post-injection therapy was provided, e.g., ice packs) each treatment session. Subjects rated their pain using an 11-point NPS where 0 was no pain and 10 was the worst pain imaginable.
AEs were also reported by the Treating Investigator at all follow-up visits when applicable.
Out of the 59 subjects in the 8 mL treatment group, the Investigator reported a total of 18 treatment-related events for 7 subjects (11.9%), all categorized as mild in severity. In the control group, 7 out of 21 (33.3%) had a total of 12 treatment-related events reported, most were mild, but three of these were considered moderate in severity (one event of rhinorrhea and two events of headache). The Investigator-reported AEs by percentage of treated population in the 8 mL treatment group were injection site hypoaesthesia, oral disorder, injection site paresthesia, injection site induration, herpes simplex, oral herpes, headache, dry skin, skin mass – all reported at a frequency of 1.7%, i.e. these events occurred in one subject out of the 59 in the treatment group respectively. In the 5 mL treatment group, rhinorrhea was reported for two subjects (9.5%), and the following: hypoaesthesia, injection site nodule, injection site pain, injection site swelling, contusion, headache, nasal congestion and papule were reported for one subject respectively.
Two subjects reported one serious adverse event each, retinal detachment and anxiety requiring hospitalization. None of these events were considered related to study treatment.
The frequency, intensity and duration of pre-defined events reported by the subject in the daily diary are presented in Tables 8 and 9. Pain, tenderness and swelling were the three events most commonly reported in all subjects, both from the 8 mL and 5 mL group. The majority were mild in intensity and resolved within two weeks.
TABLE 8
FREQUENCY AND INTENSITY OF PRE-DEFINED EVENTS
REPORTED IN THE DAILY DIARY
| Summary of Subject Diary Symptoms by Session and Maximum Severity Safety Population |
|
All 5 mL
(N=21) |
All 8 mL
(N=59) |
Any
n (%) |
Mild
n (%) |
Moderate
n (%) |
Severe
n (%) |
Any
n (%) |
Mild
n (%) |
Moderate
n (%) |
Severe
n (%) |
| Overall, NLF Any Symptom |
21 (100.0) |
9 (42.9) |
11 (52.4) |
1 (4.8) |
56 (94.9) |
27 (45.8) |
26 (44.1) |
3 (5.1) |
| Pain (including burning) |
20 (95.2) |
13 (61.9) |
6 (28.6) |
1 (4.8) |
38 (64.4) |
33 (55.9) |
5 (8.5) |
0 |
| Tenderness |
21 (100.0) |
14 (66.7) |
7 (33.3) |
0 |
49 (83.1) |
39 (66.1) |
9 (15.3) |
1 (1.7) |
| Redness |
15 (71.4) |
13 (61.9) |
2 (9.5) |
0 |
37 (62.7) |
28 (47.5) |
9 (15.3) |
0 |
| Bruising |
15 (71.4) |
9 (42.9) |
5 (23.8) |
1 (4.8) |
36 (61.0) |
21 (35.6) |
13 (22.0) |
2 (3.4) |
| Swelling |
16 (76.2) |
8 (38.1) |
8 (38.1) |
0 |
48 (81.4) |
29 (49.2) |
18 (30.5) |
1 (1.7) |
| Itching |
3 (14.3) |
3 (14.3) |
0 |
0 |
13 (22.0) |
13 (22.0) |
0 |
0 |
| Lumps/Bumps |
10 (47.6) |
7 (33.3) |
3 (14.3) |
0 |
21 (35.6) |
18 (30.5) |
2 (3.4) |
1 (1.7) |
Note: N = Number of subjects, n = Number of subjects in specific category. Percentages calculated as 100 x (n/number of subjects with response at visit for applicable question).
Subjects reporting multiple events of the same symptom are counted once for that event within the most severe category. For the Overall, the maximum severity from each session was determined for each subject and summarized. |
TABLE 9
FREQUENCY AND DURATION OF PRE-DEFINED EVENTS REPORTED IN THE DAILY DIARY
| Summary of Subject Diary Symptoms by Session and Number of Days with Symptoms Safety Population |
|
All 5 mL
(N=21) |
All 8 mL
(N=59) |
1 Day
n (%) |
2-7 Days
n (%) |
8-14 Days
n (%) |
15-28 Days
n (%) |
1 Day
n (%) |
2-7 Days
n (%) |
8-14 Days
n (%) |
15-28 Days
n (%) |
| Overall, NLF Any Symptom |
3 (14.3) |
8 (38.1) |
7 (33.3) |
3 (14.3) |
4 (7.1) |
41 (73.2) |
8 (14.3) |
3 (5.4) |
| Pain (including burning) |
8 (38.1) |
12 (57.1) |
0 |
0 |
21 (37.5) |
17 (30.4) |
0 |
0 |
| Tenderness |
5 (23.8) |
15 (71.4) |
1 (4.8) |
0 |
11 (19.6) |
36 (64.3) |
2 (3.6) |
0 |
| Redness |
9 (42.9) |
5 (23.8) |
1 (4.8) |
0 |
24 (42.9) |
13 (23.2) |
0 |
0 |
| Bruising |
2 (9.5) |
7 (33.3) |
6 (28.6) |
0 |
5 (8.9) |
24 (42.9) |
6 (10.7) |
1 (1.8) |
| Swelling |
2 (9.5) |
12 (57.1) |
2 (9.5) |
0 |
14 (25.0) |
31 (55.4) |
2 (3.6) |
1 (1.8) |
| Itching |
1 (4.8) |
1 (4.8) |
1 (4.8) |
0 |
6 (10.7) |
7 (12.5) |
0 |
0 |
| Lumps/Bumps |
1 (4.8) |
5 (23.8) |
1 (4.8) |
3 (14.3) |
9 (16.1) |
11 (19.6) |
1 (1.8) |
0 |
| Note: N = Number of subjects, n = Number of subjects in specific category. Percentages calculated as 100 x (n/number of subjects with response at visit for applicable question). For the Overall, the maximum of the durations from each session was determined for each subject and summarized. |
No clinically meaningful changes from baseline were observed in any visual function test for the 5-mL or 8-mL groups.
The mean pain score difference (after treatment score minus before treatment score) was lower after all treatments in the 8-mL group (range: 0.4 to 1.3) compared with the 5-mL group (range: 2.1 to 3.0) based on the 11-point NPS. These results reflect that the addition of 1 mL of 2% lidocaine HCl in the 8-mL group was effective to manage pain during injection.
Extension Study (48-96 Weeks)
Study subjects randomized and treated with Sculptra Aesthetic reconstituted with 8 mL of SWFI in the base study were followed for an additional 48 weeks in this extension study. Out of the 58 eligible subjects that completed the base study, 38 subjects were enrolled in this extension study. 20 subjects were not enrolled, the most common reason for non-enrollment was the subject intended to have facial cosmetic procedures/treatments that were prohibited in the extension study (9 [45.0%] subjects). 35 subjects completed the study.
Safety evaluations for this extension study included an interview of the subjects at each visit to obtain information about any medical occurrence that met the definition of an AE. Information on AEs was also obtained from signs and symptoms detected during each examination by the Investigator or designee, which included visual inspection of the treatment area.
No subjects experienced a related AE during this extension study and no SAEs were reported. One subject experienced an AE of skin mass during the base study; the event was considered related to study product and injection procedure, mild in intensity, and had not recovered during the base study but was considered chronic and/or stable during this extension study.
Post Marketing Surveillance
The adverse events received from post-marketing surveillance (voluntary reporting and published literature) for Sculptra in the US and other countries include:
- papules/nodules with or without inflammation or discoloration,
- lack of effect,
- swelling,
- mass formation/induration,
- pain/tenderness,
- granuloma (including ectropion)/foreign body reaction,
- visual disturbance including transient blurred vision, reduced visual acuity, increased lacrimation, eyelid ptosis, dry eye and blindness,
- bruising/hematoma,
- erythema,
- nerve injury including paresthesia, hypoesthesia and facial nerve paralysis,
- bacterial infections and abscess formation,
- inflammation,
- skin discoloration,
- injection site reactions including burning sensation, warmth and irritation,
- atrophy/scarring,
- pruritus,
- deformity/facial asymmetry,
- rash,
- hypersensitivity/allergic reaction and angioedema,
- dermatitis,
- bleeding,
- symptoms of reactivation of herpes infection,
- urticaria,
- vesicles/blisters/pustules,
- ischemia/necrosis,
- acne,
- device dislocation,
- telangiectasia,
- discharge,
- other dermatological events including alopecia, skin wrinkling, skin tightness, skin dryness, skin hypertrophy and photosensitive reaction,
- non-dermatological events including headache, pyrexia, malaise, arthralgia, anxiety, nausea, insomnia, dyspnea, fatigue, dizziness, muscular weakness or twitching, lymphadenopathy, and depression
When required, depending on event, treatments may include massage/manipulation, warm compress, nitroglycerine paste, corticosteroids, antibiotics, antihistamines, NSAIDs, aspiration/drainage of the product, saline injections and surgery. Events which did not resolve or where resolution information is not available at last contact were reported.
Scarring, mostly a non-serious event, was reported in association with skin discoloration, nodules, lumps, indurations, granulomas, hyperpigmentation, hypertrophic scars, and suspicion of keloid formation. Time to onset when specified ranged from within 1 week to 24 months post-Sculptra injection and outcome ranged from ‘recovered’ to ‘ongoing’ at last contact.
Skin discoloration was reported as a non-serious event, typically reported in association with lumps and nodules. It has also been reported with blanching and telangiectasias. Time to onset when specified usually ranged from within 1 week to 12 months post-injection. Outcome ranged from ‘recovered’ to ‘ongoing’ at last contact.
Serious adverse events have rarely been reported. The most commonly reported serious adverse events for Sculptra with more than 5 reported events include papule/nodule, swelling/edema, pain, granuloma, symptoms of visual disturbance, infection/abscess, mass/induration, paresthesia and facial nerve paralysis, erythema, inflammation, bruising/hematoma, discoloration, deformity, scaring/atrophy, hypersensitivity, pruritus, rash, muscle disorders, ischemia/necrosis, urticaria and blisters.
Injection site nodules mostly occurred several months post-injection. Such nodules are occasionally associated with inflammation or discoloration, with time to onset ranging from 1-2 months to 14 months post-last injection. In some cases, the nodules were reported to resolve spontaneously or following treatment with, e.g. intralesional corticosteroids, others were described with a prolonged duration of up to 2 years. For those nodules that were larger in size, occurring in difficult anatomical regions (e.g. lower eyelid) or persisted after other treatments such as intralesional corticosteroids failed, surgical excision of the nodules was required.
Granulomas usually occur several months after injection; in few cases onset was more than 1-year post-injection. While events were reported as granuloma, only a few cases were confirmed by biopsy. Treatment ranged from subcision or intralesional corticosteroid with subsequent improvement, to surgical extraction. Of the few granuloma cases that required hospitalization, these were associated with infraorbital use or injection in the lip vermilion.
Vascular compromise may occur due to an inadvertent intravascular injection or as a result of vascular compression associated with implantation of any injectable product. This may manifest as blanching, discoloration, necrosis or ulceration at the implant site or in the area supplied by the blood vessels affected; or rarely as ischemic events in other organs due to embolization. Isolated rare cases of ischemic events affecting the eye leading to visual loss, and the brain resulting in cerebral infarction, following facial aesthetic treatments have been reported. Visual disturbances including blindness have been reported following injection of Sculptra into the temple area, periorbital areas, and/or cheek. Events requiring medical intervention, and events which did not resolve or where resolution information is not available were reported.
Serious edema was reported in association with erythema, pain, and heat sensation. The symptoms were mostly temporary, and with no significant impact on the quality of daily life reported. Treatment included corticosteroids, antihistamines and/or anti-inflammatories. Recovery occurred within 7-10 days without sequelae.
Serious erythema, serious pain, and serious pruritus reported with bruising and heat sensation, were reported within 24 hours post-injection. Treatment included corticosteroids, antihistamines and/or anti-inflammatories. Events resolved within 7-10 days post-injection without sequelae and with no significant impact on daily life.
Serious hypersensitivity reactions were reported mainly in association with facial swelling and Quincke’s edema, with symptoms appearing from 1 day to 1-week post-injection. Patients recovered without sequelae after treatment with intravenous corticosteroids and antihistamines.
Serious infections such as subcutaneous abscesses, cellulitis, folliculitis, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus at the injection site, were reported. Time to onset of event ranged from 1 day to 1 week. Of these cases a few required hospitalization with administration of intravenous antibiotics. All patients recovered or were recovering at the last contact.
Adverse reactions should be reported to Galderma Laboratories, L.P. at 1-855-425-8722.
Effectiveness
SCULPTRA FOR CORRECTION OF SHALLOW TO DEEP NASOLABIAL FOLD CONTOUR DEFICIENCES AND OTHER FACIAL WRINKLES (RECONSTITUTED WITH 5 ML SWFI)
Clinical Studies 5 mL Reconstitution
Study Design
Controlled Phase Study (0-13 Months)
The safety and effectiveness of Sculptra Aesthetic use to correct WAS 2 (shallow) to 4 (deep) nasolabial fold wrinkles was evaluated in a randomized, multicenter, evaluator blinded, controlled study of otherwise healthy and immune-competent, not pregnant or breast-feeding subjects with previously untreated nasolabial fold wrinkles and WAS of 2 through 4.
The subjects received bilateral injections of either Sculptra Aesthetic or Cosmoplast in both nasolabial fold wrinkles during a maximum of 4 sessions over 9 weeks. Study treatment was planned to be stopped when both nasolabial fold wrinkles reached optimal correction of WAS equal to 1 or 0, or until the maximum of 4 treatment sessions were completed.
The study subjects recorded adverse events in a subject diary after each treatment visit and were followed by investigators at Week 3 and Months 3, 6, 9, and 13, after the last injection session. Standardized photographs were taken at screening, before each injection session and at each follow up visit.
Extension Phase Study (13-25 Months)
Study subjects who had received Sculptra Aesthetic were followed for safety and efficacy at months 19 and 25 after the last injection session. Standardized photographs were taken at each follow-up visit.
Post Approval Study (PAS; through 3 Years Post-Treatment)
This is an ongoing prospective, open-label, multicenter (at up to 20 sites) US study to evaluate the long-term safety of Sculptra Aesthetic (injectable PLLA) in immuno-competent subjects, stratified by Fitzpatrick Skin Types (FST) I-III, IV, and V-VI.
Study Endpoints
Controlled Phase Study (0-13 Months)
The primary efficacy endpoint was defined as the difference between Sculptra Aesthetic and control cohorts on the mean change from baseline in the WAS of the nasolabial folds at the 13- month follow-up time point as determined by the Blinded Evaluation Committee (BEC). Evaluation was based on the 6-point photo-numeric Wrinkle Assessment Scale (see INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE)
Optimal correction was defined as a WAS of 0 or 1.
Secondary effectiveness endpoints were: 1) Mean change from pre-treatment baseline in the WAS as determined by the BEC at the non-primary follow-up time points (Week 3 and Months 3, 6, 9, following the last treatment); 2) Treatment success rate defined as the proportion of subjects with a photographic WAS of <2 as defined by the BEC at each follow-up time point; 3) Investigator/Subject Global Assessments (4= Excellent Improvement, 3= Much Improved, 2= Improved, 1= No Change, 0= Worse) and the Subject Satisfaction Scores (4= Excellent, 3= Very Good, 2= Good, 1= Satisfactory, 0= Not Satisfied) at each follow-up time point compared between treatments; and 4) Time to peak correction, defined as the length of time between pretreatment baseline and the first time point at which the best score assessed by the BEC was obtained over the length of the follow up period. Degree of peak correction was also assessed.
Extension Phase Study (13-25 Months)
All secondary effectiveness endpoints described above were evaluated for the long- term extension study time points at 19 and 25 months.
Post Approval Study (PAS; through 3 Years Post-Treatment)
All primary and secondary safety endpoints, as well as secondary effectiveness endpoints, were evaluated through Year 3 of the 5-year study period.
Study Population
Controlled Phase Study (0-13 Months)
A total of 233 subjects (age 26 to 73 years) were randomized and treated. At the conclusion of 13 months 106 out of 116 Sculptra Aesthetic subjects and 111 out of 117 control subjects completed the controlled phase of the study. Demographics are outlined in Table 10.
Extension Phase Study (13-25 Months)
One hundred and six subjects, who had received Sculptra Aesthetic and completed the controlled phase study, entered the extension phase. The demographic and background characteristics of all subjects were similar to the overall population randomized in the controlled phase study.
At the end of the 25-month follow-up phase, 95 out of 106 of the subjects completed (see Table 10).
TABLE 10
STUDY POPULATION DEMOGRAPHICS
|
Controlled Phase Study |
Extension Phase Study |
| Sculptra Aesthetic |
Cosmoplast |
Sculptra Aesthetic |
| Demographic |
N(%) |
N(%) |
N(%) |
| Total study enrollment (randomized) |
116 |
117 |
106 |
| Age |
| Mean (SD) |
51.2 (7.8) |
51.6 (8.4) |
51.5 (7.9) |
| Gender |
| Male |
3 (2.6) |
10 (8.5) |
3 (2.8) |
| Female |
113 (97.4) |
107 (91.5) |
103 (97.2) |
| Race |
| Caucasian |
96 (92.8) |
89 (76.1) |
86 (81.1) |
| Black |
1 (0.9) |
5 (4.3) |
1 (0.9) |
| Asian |
0 |
1 (0.9) |
0 |
| Hispanic |
19 (16.4) |
21 (17.9) |
19 (17.9) |
| Other |
0 |
1 (0.9) |
0 |
| Fitzpatrick skin type |
| Type I |
11 (9.5) |
5 (4.3) |
10 (9.4) |
| Type II |
39 (33.6) |
43 (36.8) |
34 (32.1) |
| Type III |
44 (37.9) |
48 (41.0) |
41 (38.7) |
| Type IV |
16 (13.8) |
15 (12.8) |
16 (15.1) |
| Type V |
5 (4.3) |
4 (3.4) |
4 (3.8) |
| Type VI |
1 (0.9) |
2 (1.7) |
1 (0.9) |
| Nasolabial fold WAS before injection |
| 1 |
6 (5.2) |
4 (3.4) |
4 (3.8) |
| 2 |
55 (47.6) |
41 (35.3) |
50 (47.2) |
| 3 |
41 (35.3) |
55 (47.6) |
39 (36.8) |
| 4 |
14 (12.1) |
17(14.7) |
13 (12.3) |
| Total completed |
106 |
111 |
95 |
Post Approval Study (PAS; through 3 Years Post-Treatment)
A total of 867 subjects were enrolled and treated. No subjects have completed all of the protocol-required visits yet as 5-year follow up is ongoing.
Treatments Delivered
Controlled Phase Study (0-13 Months)
Treatment was planned for one to four sessions at 3-week intervals until optimal correction (WAS = 1 or 0) was achieved or four sessions were completed. At each treatment with Sculptra Aesthetic, multiple deep dermal injections in cross hatch grid pattern of 0.1-0.2 mL Sculptra Aesthetic (up to a maximum of 2.5 mL per nasolabial fold per session) were performed into the left and right nasolabial folds. At each treatment session with control, multiple mid to deep dermal injections of an average of 1.0 mL Cosmoplast per nasolabial fold per session were performed into the left and right nasolabial folds according to product Instructions for Use. Table 11 presents the amount of Sculptra Aesthetic injected as a function of baseline wrinkle severity.
TABLE 11
SUMMARY SCULPTRA AESTHETIC AND CONTROL INJECTIONS
| Baseline (Pre-Injection, before first treatment) WAS |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
ALL |
|
SA |
COS |
SA |
COS |
SA |
COS |
SA |
COS |
SA |
COS |
| Number of pts injected (N) |
6 |
4 |
55 |
41 |
41 |
55 |
14 |
17 |
116 |
117 |
| Injection volume, mL |
| Session 1 |
| n |
6 |
4 |
55 |
41 |
41 |
55 |
14 |
17 |
116 |
117 |
| Mean |
4.4 |
2.7 |
4.0 |
2.8 |
4.2 |
3.3 |
4.0 |
3.5 |
4.1 |
3.1 |
| Median |
5.0 |
2.5 |
4.4 |
2.9 |
4.8 |
3.8 |
4.0 |
3.6 |
4.5 |
3.0 |
| Range |
2.0, 5.0 |
2.0, 4.0 |
1.5, 5.0 |
1.4, 4.0 |
1.7, 5.0 |
0.9, 6.0 |
2.6, 5.0 |
1.0, 6.0 |
1.5, 5.0 |
0.9, 6.0 |
| Session 2 |
| n |
5 |
3 |
52 |
28 |
39 |
47 |
14 |
16 |
110 |
94 |
| Mean |
3.7 |
1.9 |
3.3 |
1.8 |
3.8 |
2.2 |
3.9 |
2.2 |
3.5 |
2.1 |
| Median |
4.0 |
2.0 |
3.5 |
1.8 |
4.0 |
2.0 |
4.0 |
1.9 |
3.8 |
2.0 |
| Range |
2.0, 5.0 |
1.6, 2.0 |
1.4, 5.0 |
0.9, 4.0 |
0.4, 5.0 |
0.9, 4.0 |
2.7, 5.0 |
0.6, 5.0 |
0.4,5.0 |
0.6, 5.0 |
| Session 3 |
| n |
4 |
1 |
32 |
18 |
35 |
30 |
14 |
11 |
85 |
60 |
| Mean |
3.4 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
1.6 |
3.4 |
2.0 |
4.0 |
2.0 |
3.3 |
1.9 |
| Median |
3.8 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
1.4 |
3.5 |
2.0 |
4.2 |
1.9 |
3.5 |
2.0 |
| Range |
1.6, 4.5 |
3.0, 3.0 |
0.8, 5.0 |
0.8, 4.0 |
0.9, 5.0 |
0.5, 5.0 |
2.0, 4.6 |
0.6, 4.0 |
0.8, 5.0 |
0.5, 5.0 |
| Session 4 |
| n |
3 |
1 |
18 |
8 |
25 |
17 |
13 |
6 |
59 |
32 |
| Mean |
3.5 |
2.0 |
3.4 |
1.3 |
3.3 |
2.0 |
4.1 |
1.2 |
3.5 |
1.7 |
| Median |
3.4 |
2.0 |
3.7 |
1.0 |
3.3 |
2.0 |
4.0 |
1.0 |
3.7 |
2.0 |
| Range |
3.0, 4.0 |
2.0, 2.0 |
1.5, 5.0 |
0.5, 2.6 |
1.0, 5.0 |
0.4, 4.0 |
3.0, 5.0 |
0.5, 2.0 |
1.0, 5.0 |
0.4, 4.0 |
| Total Volume Injected, mL |
| Mean |
11.5 |
5.4 |
9.9 |
5.0 |
12.7 |
6.9 |
15.7 |
7.3 |
11.7 |
6.2 |
| Median |
11.9 |
4.3 |
8.8 |
4.5 |
13.3 |
5.5 |
15.9 |
5.8 |
11.5 |
5.0 |
| Range |
4.7, 17.9 |
4.0 ,9.0 |
4.5, 18.2 |
1.6, 14.0 |
28, 20.0 |
1.9, 16.0 |
11.7, 19.0 |
27, 16.0 |
28, 20.0 |
1.6, 16.0 |
| Number of Session |
Total Number
of Sessions |
18 |
9 |
157 |
95 |
140 |
149 |
55 |
50 |
370 |
303 |
| Mean |
3 |
2.3 |
2.9 |
2.3 |
3.4 |
2.7 |
3.9 |
2.9 |
3.2 |
2.6 |
| Range |
1.0, 4.0 |
1.0, 4.0 |
1.0, 4.0 |
1.0, 4.0 |
1.0, 4.0 |
1.0, 4.0 |
1.0, 4.0 |
1.0, 4.0 |
1.0, 4.0 |
1.0 ,4.0 |
The mean total volume injected per subject was 11.7 and 6.2 mL for Sculptra Aesthetic and control treatments, respectively.
The mean total volume injected per session, for both nasolabial folds, for Sculptra Aesthetic was 3.7 mL and 2.4 mL for control. A mean number of 3.2 and 2.6 injection sessions were required for Sculptra Aesthetic and control subjects, respectively to achieve WAS of 1 or 0, or until the maximum of 4 treatment sessions with 3-week interval was reached in the study population.
Extension Phase Study (13-25 Months)
Of the 106 subjects who entered the extension phase study, 105 (99%) did not receive any additional Sculptra Aesthetic treatments after optimal correction was achieved in the controlled study. One subject in the extension phase study received one treatment session of Sculptra Aesthetic at Month 19.
Post Approval Study (PAS; through 3 Years Post-Treatment)
The study enrolled and treated 867 subjects treated with a single regimen of Sculptra Aesthetic to correct shallow to deep (WAS 2 to 4) NLF contour deficiencies and if present, other facial wrinkles (i.e. marionette lines, cheek folds, and chin crease) as needed. A treatment regimen consisted of up to 4 injection sessions spaced at 3-week intervals. The mean total volume of Sculptra Aesthetic injected per subject was 13.9 mL overall (9.1 mL for NLFs, 5.4 mL for MLs, 6.4 mL for cheek folds, and 2.0 mL for chin crease). Follow-up visits continue at Months 3, 6, 9, and 13, and Years 2, 3, 4, and 5. Results are up to and include Year 3 of this 5-year study.
Effectiveness Results
Controlled Phase (0-13 month) and Extension Phase (13-25 Months)
Primary Effectiveness Endpoint
The difference between Sculptra Aesthetic and control cohorts on the mean change from baseline in the WAS of the nasolabial folds at the Month 13 follow up time point as determined by the Blinded Evaluation Committee was predicted to be 1.0 unit.
For the intended use population, Figure 1 demonstrates the observed WAS change from pre-treatment baseline through each treatment and follow-up point, individually for pre-treatment WAS = 2, 3, and 4. Table 12 presents the WAS change from pre-treatment baseline at each time point stratified by pre-treatment baseline score.
Sculptra Aesthetic (N=116) demonstrated improved WAS as compared to control (N=117) in correcting the contour deficiency of shallow (W=2) to deep (W=4) nasolabial folds at 13 months follow up after a single treatment regimen of up to four sessions of 2.5 mL maximum injections to the deep dermis with 3 week intervals. During the extension phase study (19 and 25 months follow up) Sculptra Aesthetic (N=106) continued to demonstrate improvements in WAS.
FIGURE 1
WRINKLE SCALE (WAS) THROUGHOUT THE STUDY SCULPTRA AESTHETIC TREATED SUBJECTS
TABLE 12
WAS SUMMARY AT EACH TIME POINT STRATIFIED BY BASELINE SCORE
(Controlled and Extension Phase Study, 0-25 months)
Intent-to-Treat Population, Sculptra Aesthetic Subjects Only
| Baseline WAS |
|
Baseline (Pre-injection) |
Trt Session 2 |
Trt Session 3 |
Trt Session 4 |
Wk 3 |
Month 3 |
Month 6 |
Month 9 |
Month 13 |
Month 19 |
Month 25 |
| 1 |
N |
6 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
Mean
(SE) |
1.33 (0.086) |
1.50 (0.245) |
1.39 (0.111) |
1.06 (0.147) |
1.13 (0.200) |
1.33 (0.289) |
1.10 (0.155) |
1.40 (0.201) |
1.08 (0.337) |
1.17 (0.180) |
1.25 (0.160) |
| Median |
1.42 |
1.58 |
1.50 |
1.00 |
1.33 |
1.33 |
1.17 |
1.50 |
1.25 |
1.25 |
1.33 |
| Mean Change from Baseline (SE) |
N/A |
0.17 (0.236) |
-0.06
(0.056) |
-0.22
(0.056) |
-0.17
(0.190) |
-0.11
(0.242) |
-0.27
(0.113) |
0.03
(0.111) |
-0.25
(0.220) |
-0.17
(0.068) |
-0.08
(0.048) |
| P-Value for Change from Baseline |
N/A |
0.530 |
0.423 |
0.057 |
0.430 |
0.691 |
0.078 |
0.078 |
0.339 |
0.092 |
0.182 |
| 2 |
N |
55 |
50 |
27 |
16 |
48 |
48 |
48 |
46 |
48 |
42 |
44 |
Mean
(SE) |
2.19
(0.037) |
2.02
(0.060) |
1.75
(0.112) |
1.69
(0.147) |
1.63
(0.073) |
1.64
(0.070) |
1.69
(0.051) |
1.60
(0.063) |
1.60
(0.063) |
1.51
(0.082) |
1.58
(0.076) |
| Median |
2.17 |
2.00 |
1.83 |
1.92 |
1.67 |
1.67 |
1.83 |
1.50 |
1.67 |
1.50 |
1.58 |
Mean Change from
Baseline (SE) |
N/A |
-0.17
(0.057) |
-0.46
(0.107) |
-0.57
(0.145) |
-0.53
(0.077) |
-0.53
(0.077) |
-0.50
(0.054) |
-0.59
(0.062) |
-0.59
(0.067) |
-0.69
(0.084) |
-0.61
(0.079) |
| P-Value for Change from Baseline |
N/A |
0.005 |
<0.001 |
0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
| 3 |
N |
41 |
38 |
33 |
21 |
39 |
34 |
35 |
36 |
37 |
36 |
36 |
Mean
(SE) |
2.99
(0.043) |
2.64
(0.065) |
2.52
(0.067) |
2.21
(0.084) |
2.21
(0.068) |
2.13
(0.066) |
2.06
(0.088) |
2.03
(0.084) |
1.84
(0.068) |
2.08
(0.098) |
2.03
(0.090) |
| Median |
2.83 |
2.67 |
2.33 |
2.17 |
2.17 |
2.08 |
2.00 |
2.08 |
1.83 |
2.08 |
2.00 |
| Mean Change from Baseline (SE) |
N/A |
-0.37
(0.066) |
-0.52
(0.053) |
-0.83
(0.085) |
-0.77
(0.069) |
-0.83
(0.068) |
-0.94
(0.083) |
-0.97
(0.078) |
-1.15
(0.065) |
-0.94
(0.097) |
-0.96
(0.089) |
| P-Value for Change from Baseline |
N/A |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
| 4 |
N |
14 |
14 |
13 |
13 |
11 |
12 |
11 |
11 |
13 |
10 |
9 |
Mean
(SE) |
4.07
(0.078) |
3.74
(0.107) |
3.58
(0.129) |
3.40
(0.166) |
3.15
(0.220) |
3.18
(0.168) |
3.11
(0.151) |
3.09
(0.196) |
3.26
(0.169) |
3.60
(0.161) |
3.85
(0.207) |
| Median |
4.08 |
3.67 |
3.67 |
3.33 |
3.17 |
3.17 |
3.17 |
3.00 |
3.17 |
3.75 |
3.83 |
| Mean Change from Baseline (SE) |
N/A |
-0.33
(0.103) |
-0.49
(0.112) |
-0.71
(0.145) |
-0.92
(0.232) |
-0.94
(0.167) |
-1.02
(0.138) |
-0.97
(0.194) |
-0.85
(0.164) |
-0.53
(0.108) |
-0.31
(0.168) |
| P-Value for Change from Baseline |
N/A |
0.007 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
0.003 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
<0.001 |
0.097 |
Post Approval Study (PAS; through 3 Years Post-Treatment)
Overall, efficacy data through the Year 3 visits indicate significant improvements in all treated facial areas with a long-lasting treatment effect of Sculptra Aesthetic treatment. Using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), Investigators reported overall improvements from baseline for 99.5%, 99.3%, 96.4%, and 91.2% of the subjects at Month 6, Month 13, Year 2, and Year 3 visits, respectively. Similar efficacy results were observed for the Subject Global Evaluations (SGEs) using the GAIS.
SCULPTRA FOR CORRECTION OF SHALLOW TO DEEP NASOLABIAL FOLD CONTOUR DEFICIENCIES (RECONSTITUTED WITH 8 ML SWFI WITH THE ADDITION OF 1 ML 2% LIDOCAINE)
Clinical Studies 8 mL Reconstitution
Study Design
Base Study (0 to 48 weeks)
A randomized, treatment-controlled, evaluator-blinded, multicenter study was conducted to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Sculptra Aesthetic for correction of nasolabial fold contour deficiencies. Sixty-four (64) subjects requiring correction of NLFs were enrolled and randomized in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with Sculptra Aesthetic reconstituted with 8 mL of SWFI with the addition of 1 mL 2% lidocaine (treatment group) or to Sculptra Aesthetic reconstituted with 5 mL of SWFI (reference group). Eight (8) subjects with FST IV and eight (8) subjects with FST V-VI were included but not randomized. These subjects were treated with Sculptra Aesthetic reconstituted with 8 mL of SWFI with the addition of 1 mL 2% lidocaine.
Subjects were treated to optimal correction at four-week intervals, with a maximum of four treatment sessions. Follow-up visits were conducted at Weeks 16, 24, 32, 40 and 48 after initial treatment.
Extension study (48 to 96 weeks)
Study subjects randomized and treated with Sculptra Aesthetic reconstituted with 8 mL of SWFI and completed the base study were followed for an additional 48 weeks in this extension study.
Study Endpoints
Base Study (0 to 48 weeks)
The primary purpose was to evaluate the safety of Sculptra Aesthetic as a single regimen for correction of NLF contour deficiencies after changes in reconstitution to 8 mL SWFI with the addition of 1 mL 2% lidocaine and additional injection techniques compared to the originally approved label.
Primary Effectiveness Endpoint
Change from baseline on both sides of the face as assessed by the Blinded Evaluator using WAS at 48 Weeks after the first treatment session.
Secondary Effectiveness Endpoints
Secondary effectiveness endpoints included Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), subject satisfaction and change from baseline on both sides of the face as assessed by the Blinded Evaluator using WAS, at Weeks 16, 24, 32 and 40 as well as FACE-Q Appraisal of Lines: Nasolabial Folds Questionnaire at Baseline and at Weeks 24, 32, 40 and 48 and time in hours from treatment procedure until the earliest time the subject reported feeling comfortable returning to social engagement based on subject diary reporting.
Extension Study (48 to 96 weeks)
All effectiveness endpoints described above were evaluated for the long- term extension study time points at Weeks 72 and 96 after the initial treatment.
Study Population
Base study (0 to 48 weeks): A total of 80 subjects were enrolled, two prematurely discontinued from the study due to lost to follow-up. At baseline, all subjects had a WAS score of both NLFs of 2 (shallow wrinkles) to 4 (deep wrinkles) as assessed by the Treating Investigator. Subject demographics are presented in Table 13.
TABLE 13
DEMOGRAPHICS
| Characteristic |
Sculptra Aesthetic
5 mL
(N=21) |
Sculptra Aesthetic
8 mL
(N=59) |
Total (N=80) |
| Gender |
Female / Male |
20 (95.2%) / 1 (4.8%) |
56 (94.9%) / 3 (5.1%) |
76 (95.0%)/ 4 (5.0%) |
| Age (years) |
Mean (SD) |
51.4 (9.93) |
51.6 (10.49) |
51.5 (10.28) |
| Min, Max |
32, 69 |
23, 75 |
23, 75 |
| Race |
White |
21 (100.0%) |
51 (86.4%) |
72 (90.0%) |
| Black/African American |
0 |
5 (8.5%) |
5 (6.3%) |
| Asian |
0 |
1 (1.7%) |
1 (1.3%) |
| Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| American Indian or Alaska Native |
0 |
1 (1.7%) |
1 (1.3%) |
| Other |
0 |
1 (1.7%) |
1 (1.3%) |
| Ethnicity |
Not Hispanic or Latino |
15 (71.4%) |
47 (79.7%) |
62 (77.5%) |
| Hispanic or Latino |
6 (28.6%) |
12 (20.3%) |
18 (22.5%) |
| Fitzpatrick Skin Type (FST) n (%) |
I |
0 |
2 (3.4) |
2 (2.5) |
| II |
6 (28.6) |
11 (18.6) |
17 (21.3) |
| III |
12 (57.1) |
25 (42.4) |
37 (46.3) |
| IV |
2 (9.5) |
9 (15.3) |
11 (13.8) |
| V |
1 (4.8) |
9 (15.3) |
10 (12.5) |
| VI |
0 |
3 (5.1) |
3 (3.8) |
| Wrinkle Assessment Scale, Blinded Evaluator Left |
Mean (SD) |
3.0 (0.86) |
3.0 (0.73) |
3.0 (0.76) |
| Median |
3.0 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
| Min, Max |
2, 4 |
2, 4 |
2, 4 |
| Wrinkle Assessment Scale, Blinded Evaluator Right |
Mean (SD) |
2.9 (0.57) |
2.8 (0.76) |
2.8 (0.71) |
| Median |
3.0 |
3.0 |
3.0 |
| Min, Max |
2, 4 |
2, 4 |
2, 4 |
Abbreviations: BMI = body mass index; cm = centimeters; kg = kilograms; SD = standard deviation;
*Other category includes 1 subject who was specified as Middle Eastern. |
Extension Study (48 to 96 weeks)
Of the 58 eligible subjects, 38 (65.5%) subjects were enrolled and 20 (34.5%) subjects were not enrolled. Of these 20 subjects not enrolled, the most common reason for non-enrollment was the subject intended to have facial cosmetic procedures/treatments that were prohibited in the extension study (9 [45.0%] subjects). A total of 35 (92.1%) subjects completed the study; 3 (7.9%) subjects prematurely discontinued the study due to being lost to follow-up.
Treatments Delivered
Base Study (0 to 48 weeks)
The first treatment was administered at the baseline visit. At weeks 4, 8, and 12, additional treatments were performed if deemed necessary to obtain optimal aesthetic result. Subjects were treated to optimal correction, which was defined as a grade of 0 (no wrinkle) or grade 1 (just perceptible wrinkle) on the WAS and best correction that can be achieved as agreed upon by the Treating Investigator and the subject. Sculptra Aesthetic was injected using a linear threading, bolus or fanning technique in the subdermal plane; subcutaneously or supraperiosteally. Subjects were given a maximum of one vial per session, with a maximum of half the reconstituted product per side, (i.e. maximum 2.5 mL per side for subjects in the control group (5 mL reconstitution) and 4.5 mL per side for subjects in the treatment group (8 mL reconstitution with the addition of 1 mL 2% lidocaine). The median number of sessions per subject was 4.0 for both the 5-mL and 8-mL groups. The minimum number of sessions was 2 in the 5-mL group and 1 in the 8-mL group.
For the 8 mL treatment group, the median total volume injected (both sides) into the NLFs was 18.90 mL for all treatment sessions (range from 3.1 to 33.6 mL). In the 5 mL control group, the median total volume injected (both sides) into the NLFs was 10.3 mL for all treatment sessions (range from 4.2 to 17.0 mL).
Extension Study (48 to 96 weeks)
No treatments were delivered in the extension study.
Effectiveness Results
Base Study (0 to 48 weeks)
The Week 48 change from baseline in WAS demonstrated comparable treatment effect in reducing wrinkle severity of NLFs with Sculptra Aesthetic reconstituted in 8 mL SWFI with the addition of 1 mL 2% lidocaine injected subdermally immediately after reconstitution with a linear threading, bolus and/or fanning technique to the control group. The mean change from baseline in the control group was -1.3 on both sides of the face, the mean change from baseline in the 8 mL treatment group was -1.3 on the left side and -1.2 on the right side, hence the pre-defined success criteria for the primary effectiveness analysis were met as shown in Table 14 and Figure 2.
TABLE 14
CHANGE FROM BASELINE, WAS SCORES (BLINDED EVALUATOR) AT WEEK 48: BOCF (ITT POPULATION)
| Characteristic |
All 5 mL
(N=21) |
All 8 mL
(N=59) |
| Left nasolabial fold change from baseline |
| Mean (standard deviation) |
-1.3 (1.06) |
-1.3 (0.97) |
| Median |
-1.0 |
-1.0 |
| Minimum, maximum |
-4, 0 |
-3, 1 |
| p-value |
|
<0.001 |
| 95% confidence interval |
-1.8, -0.8 |
-1.6, -1.1 |
| Right nasolabial fold change from baseline |
| Mean (standard deviation) |
-1.3 (1.02) |
-1.2 (0.81) |
| Median |
-1.0 |
-1.0 |
| Minimum, maximum |
-3, 0 |
-3, 0 |
| p-value |
|
<0.001 |
| 95% confidence interval |
-1.8, -0.9 |
-1.4, -1.0 |
WAS = Wrinkle Assessment Scale, BOCF = Baseline Observation Carried Forward.
One-sided test of the null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline was ≥0.
P-value and confidence interval calculated using t-test. Note: N = number of subjects; n = number of subjects in specific category |
FIGURE 2
95% CONFIDENCE INTERVALS: WRINKLE ASSESSMENT SCALE MEAN CHANGE FROM BASELINE TO WEEK 48: BOCF (ITT POPULATION)
Additional analysis of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in change from baseline in the Blinded Evaluator WAS for the right side of the face was (-0.3, 0.7) and for the left side of the face (-0.6, 0.5). Thus, both intervals include 0 and comparable treatment effect between the two groups has been demonstrated, displayed in Table 15.
TABLE 15
ANALYSIS OF WAS (BLINDED EVALUATOR) AT WEEK 48 BASELINE OBSERVATION CARRIED FORWARD ANALYSIS INTENT-TO-TREAT POPULATION
|
All 5mL
(N=21) |
All 8mL
(N=59) |
| Week 48/Early Term. - Wrinkle Assessment Scale |
| Left NLF |
|
|
| n |
21 |
59 |
| Mean (SD) |
1.7 (0.97) |
1.7 (1.09) |
| Median |
2.0 |
2.0 |
| Min, Max |
0, 3 |
0, 4 |
| Left NLF Change from Baseline |
| n |
21 |
59 |
| Mean (SD) |
-1.3 (1.06) |
-1.3 (0.97) |
| Median |
-1.0 |
-1.0 |
| Min, Max |
-4, 0 |
-3, 1 |
| p-value [1] |
|
<0.001 |
| 95% Confidence Interval |
( -1.8, -0.8) |
( -1.6, -1.1) |
| Difference 95% Confidence interval [2] |
|
( -0.6, 0.5) |
| Right NLF |
| n |
21 |
59 |
| Mean (SD) |
1.5 (0.81) |
1.6 (1.03) |
| Median |
1.0 |
2.0 |
| Min, Max |
0, 3 |
0, 4 |
| Right NLF Change from Baseline |
| n |
21 |
59 |
| Mean (SD) |
-1.3 (1.02) |
-1.2 (0.81) |
| Median |
-1.0 |
-1.0 |
| Min, Max |
-3, 0 |
-3, 0 |
| p-value [1] |
|
<0.001 |
| 95% Confidence Interval |
( -1.8, -0.9) |
( -1.4, -1.0) |
| Difference 95% Confidence interval [2] |
|
( -0.3, 0.7) |
[1] One-sided test of the null hypothesis that the mean change from baseline is greater than or equal to 0. P-value and confidence interval calculated using t-test.
[2] Difference confidence interval calculated using normal approximation. Note: N = Number of subjects, n = Number of subjects in specific category. SD = Standard Deviation. |
At Week 48, Sculptra Aesthetic reconstituted in 8 mL SWFI (+1 mL of lidocaine), effectively reduced the severity of NLFs in the majority of subjects resulting in a WAS responder rate (defined as at least 1 grade improvement on the WAS from baseline) of 74.1%. Responder rates over time based on Blinded Evaluator assessment are displayed in Table 16.
TABLE 16
RESPONDER RATE BASED ON WRINKLE ASSESSMENT SCALE (BLINDED EVALUATER) BY VISIT
| Responder Rate |
n/N (%) |
All 5 mL
(N=21) |
All 8 mL
(N=59) |
| Week 16 |
20/21 (95.2) |
43/57 (75.4) |
| 95% confidence interval |
76.2%, 99.9% |
62.2%, 85.9% |
| Week 24 |
17/21 (81.0) |
44/58 (75.9) |
| 95% confidence interval |
58.1%, 94.6% |
62.8%, 86.1% |
| Week 32 |
17/21 (81.0) |
37/55 (67.3) |
| 95% confidence interval |
58.1%, 94.6% |
53.3%, 79.3% |
| Week 40 |
17/21 (81.0) |
46/59 (78.0) |
| 95% confidence interval |
58.1%, 94.6% |
65.3%, 87.7% |
| Week 48 |
14/21 (66.7%) |
43/58 (74.1%) |
| 95% confidence interval |
43.0%, 85.4% |
61.0%, 84.7% |
Confidence interval calculated using Clopper-Pearson method (based on binomial distribution).
N = number of subjects; n = number of subjects in specific category. Percentages calculated as 100 × (n/N) out of the number of subjects at each visit. |
GAIS assessment. As shown in Table 17, all subjects in both the 5-mL and 8-mL groups showed aesthetic improvement compared to baseline at all visits for both sides of the face concurrently, as assessed by Treating Investigator Assessment (GAIS). Confidence intervals were >80% for both groups at all visits. No subject in either group experienced any worsening at any visit.
Aesthetic improvement compared to baseline, as evaluated by subject assessment (GAIS), is also summarized in Table7. The majority of subjects in both the 5-mL and 8-mL groups showed aesthetic improvement (Subject Assessment) by GAIS at all visits. Confidence intervals were ≥75% for both groups at all visits. No subject in either the 5-mL or 8-mL group experienced any worsening at any visit.
TABLE 17
GAIS (SUBJECT AND TREATING INVESTIGATOR) BY VISIT, ITT POPULATION, OBSERVED CASES
| Characteristic |
GAIS, Treating Investigator |
GAIS, Subject Assessment |
All 5 mL
(N=21) |
All 8 mL
(N=59) |
All 5 mL
(N=21) |
All 8 mL
(N=59) |
| Week 16 |
|
n=56 |
|
n=57 |
| Any improvement, n (%)a |
21 (100) |
56 (100) |
20 (95.2) |
54 (94.7) |
| 95% confidence intervalb |
83.9%, 100% |
93.6%, 100% |
76.2%, 99.9% |
85.4%, 98.9% |
| Any worseningc |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Week 24 |
|
n=58 |
|
n=58 |
| Any improvement, n (%)a |
21 (100) |
58 (100) |
20 (95.2%) |
53 (91.4%) |
| 95% confidence intervalb |
83.9%, 100% |
93.8%, 100% |
76.2%, 99.9% |
81.0%, 97.1% |
| Any worseningc |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Week 32 |
n=57 |
|
|
n=57 |
| Any improvement, n (%)a |
21 (100) |
57 (100) |
20 (95.2%) |
52 (91.2%) |
| 95% confidence intervalb |
83.9%, 100% |
93.7%, 100% |
76.2%, 99.9% |
80.7%, 97.1% |
| Any worseningc |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Week 40 |
|
|
|
|
| Any improvement, n (%)a |
21 (100) |
59 (100) |
20 (95.2) |
51 (86.4%) |
| 95% confidence intervalb |
83.9%, 100% |
93.9%, 100% |
76.2%, 99.9% |
75.0%, 94.0% |
| Any worseningc |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Week 48 |
|
n=57 |
|
n=58 |
| Any improvement, n (%)a |
21 (100) |
57 (100) |
21 (100) |
51 (87.9%) |
| 95% confidence intervalb |
83.9%, 100% |
93.7%, 100% |
83.9%, 100% |
76.7%, 95.0% |
| Any worseningc |
0 |
0 |
|
|
a At least improved on both sides of the face concurrently and combined the categories of “very much improved”, “much improved”, and “improved.”
b Confidence interval calculated using Clopper-Pearson method (based on binomial distribution).
c Any worsening on either side of the face and combined the categories of “worse”, “much worse”, and “very much worse.”
Note: N = number of subjects; n = number of subjects in specific category. Percentages calculated as 100 × (n/N) out of the number of subjects at each visit. |
Subject Satisfaction Questionnaire. Across Week 16 to Week 48, the majority of subjects in both the 5-mL and 8-mL groups responded as “satisfied” or “very satisfied” that the treatment, responding that the treatments made them look younger, improved their attractiveness and overall satisfaction with their appearance; made them feel better about themselves/improved self-confidence/confidence in life, made them look the way they felt, and improved facial symmetry/balance.
Likewise, across Week 16 to Week 48 the majority of subjects in both groups responded as “agree” or “strongly agree” that the treatments were natural looking, and the subtle treatment results over time were worth it. Additionally, the majority of subjects would recommend both the 5-mL and 8-mL treatment with Sculptra to a friend and have the treatment again, as assessed at all visits.
FACE-Q change from baseline scores indicated subjects were less bothered by the NLFs and more satisfied with their appearance. The sum of the subject’s FACE-Q™ appraisal of lines NLF scores was converted to a Rasch transformed total score according to the FACE-Q™ manual; a higher total score indicated greater subject satisfaction. The mean total FACE-Q™ scores at baseline (prior to treatment) were 39.4 and 37.8 in the 5-mL and 8-mL groups, respectively. The change from baseline in FACE-Q™ appraisal of lines NLF Rasch-transformed total scores, through Week 48, in both the 5-mL (mean increase from baseline range: 33.9 to 41.9) and 8-mL (mean increase from baseline range: 33.5 to 37.2) showed that subjects were more satisfied with how their NLFs looked following treatment at all post-baseline visits.
The median time in hours to feeling comfortable returning to social engagements was two hours or less in both group at all sessions.
Extension Study (48 to 96 weeks)
The effectiveness of Sculptra Aesthetic, reconstituted with 8 mL SWFI + 1 mL of 2% lidocaine hydrochloride (HCl), in the treatment of both the left and right NLFs was maintained throughout this extension study, with mean reductions from baseline in left NLFs of -1.3 and -1.2 at Weeks 72 and 96, respectively, and mean reductions from baseline in right NLFs of -1.2 and -1.1 at Weeks 72 and 96, respectively, based on the WAS (Evaluator).
All subjects (100%) showed aesthetic improvement at all visits for both sides of the face concurrently, as assessed by the GAIS (Investigator assessment). The majority of subjects showed aesthetic improvement at all visits, as assessed by the GAIS (subject assessment). The percentage of subjects improved are displayed in Table 18.
TABLE 18
GLOBAL AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENT SCALE (SUBJECT ASSESSMENT) BY VISIT (EXTENSION POPULATION)
| Characteristic |
Extension 8 mL |
| Week 24 |
n=38 |
| Any improvement, n (%)a |
35 (92.1) |
| 95% confidence intervalb |
78.6, 98.3 |
| Any worseningc |
0 |
| Week 48 |
n=38 |
| Any improvement, n (%)a |
34 (89.5) |
| 95% confidence intervalb |
75.2, 97.1 |
| Any worseningc |
0 |
| Week 72 - extension |
n=35 |
| Any improvement, n (%)a |
30 (85.7) |
| 95% confidence intervalb |
69.7, 95.2 |
| Any worseningc |
1 (2.9) |
| Week 96 - extension |
n = 35 |
| Any improvement, n (%)a |
30 (85.7) |
| 95% confidence intervalb |
69.7, 95.2 |
| Any worseningc |
2 (5.7) |
a At least improved on both sides of the face concurrently and combined the categories of “very much improved,” “much improved,” and “improved.”
b Confidence interval calculated using Clopper-Pearson method (based on binomial distribution).
c Any worsening on either side of the face and combined the categories of “worse,” “much worse,” and “very much worse.”
Note: n = number of subjects in specific category. Percentages calculated as 100 × (n/N) out of the number of subjects at each visit. |
The FACE-Q™ appraisal of lines NLF scores were used to assess treatment outcome from the subject’s perspective. The sum of the subject’s FACE-Q™ appraisal of lines NLF scores was converted to a Rasch-transformed total score according to the FACE-Q™ manual; a higher total score indicated greater subject satisfaction.
The mean total score at baseline was 40.3. The higher total score at weeks 72 and 96 indicated subjects were satisfied with how their NLFs looked following treatment. (mean increase from baseline of 29.1 and 29.2, respectively).
Subject satisfaction questionnaire results showed that the majority of subjects would choose to receive the treatment again at all visits in both Study 43USSA1705 and this extension study (Week 24 to Week 96 range: 89.5% to 92.1%).
Drug Interactions for Sculptra
No Information Provided