Dataset Information

Comparison of 2.5% agarose gel vs hyaluronic acid filler, for the correction of moderate to severe nasolabial folds.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Agarose gel filler is a natural hydrocolloid with a three-dimensional structure similar to the extracellular matrix, with gel formed by hydrogen bonds and electrostatic interactions rather than through chemical cross-linking or polymerization.

Objective

To determine efficacy and safety of 2.5% agarose gel filler for the correction of nasolabial folds.

Methods

In this split-face study, efficacy, safety, and usability of 2.5% agarose gel were compared to those of NASHA-L. Assessments included the nasolabial fold (NLF) Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS), Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS [blinded investigator]), subject satisfaction, safety (adverse events), and usability.

Results

Sixty-six subjects were treated, and 46/66 (66.7%) were available for evaluation at 3 months, when mean change in WSRS was identical for both products (-1.1 ± 0.4 for 2.5% agarose; -1.1 ± 0.4 for NASHA-L). Scores for each product remained similar across all time points and began to return to baseline between 7 and 8 months. GAIS score followed a similar pattern, rising between months 7 and 8 (2.7 ± 0.6 for 2.5% agarose at month 7-3.3 ± 0.5 at month 8 and 2.7 ± 0.6 for NASHA-L at month 7-3.3 ± 0.5 at month 8). Ultrasound confirmed the longevity of both fillers between 7 and 8 months. All adverse events were transient in nature and resolved within 15 days. Most events were mild in nature, and the number of events was similar between the two fillers.

Conclusion

Treatment with 2.5% agarose gel resulted in improvement that persisted for between 7 and 8 months. The treatment effect was equivalent to NASHA-L.

SUBMITTER: Scuderi N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8248355 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are an established intervention for correcting facial volume deficiency. Few studies have evaluated treatment outcomes for longer than 6 months. The purpose of this study was to determine the durability of an HA filler in the correction of midface volume deficiency over 24 months, as independently evaluated by physician investigators and subjects.MethodsSubjects received treatment with Juvéderm(™) Voluma(™) to the malar area, based on the investigators' determination of baseline severity and aesthetic goals. The treatment was administered in one or two sessions over an initial 4-week period. Supplementary treatment was permissible at week 78, based on protocol-defined criteria. A clinically meaningful response was predefined as at least a one-point improvement on the MidFace Volume Deficit Scale (MFVDS) and on the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS).ResultsOf the 103 subjects enrolled, 84% had moderate or significant volume deficiency at baseline. At the first post-treatment evaluation (week 8), 96% were documented to be MFVDS responders, with 98% and 100% graded as GAIS responders when assessed by the subjects and investigators, respectively. At week 78, 81.7% of subjects were still MFVDS responders, with 73.2% and 78.1% being GAIS responders, respectively. Seventy-two subjects completed the 24-month study, of whom 45 did not receive supplementary Voluma(™) at week 78. Forty-three of the 45 (95.6%) subjects were MFVDS responders, with 82.2% and 91.1% being GAIS responders, respectively. At end of the study, 66/72 subjects were either satisfied or very satisfied with Voluma(™), with 70/72 indicating that they would recommend the product to others. Adverse events were transient and infrequent, with injection site bruising and swelling being the most commonly reported.ConclusionVoluma(™) is safe and effective in the correction of mild to severe facial volume deficiency, achieving long-term clinically meaningful results. There was a high degree of satisfaction with the treatment outcome over the 24 months of the study.