AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to evaluate a new hyaluronic acid gel with lidocaine for lip augmentation, comparing its safety and effectiveness against an existing product.
  • A total of 158 eligible participants underwent a double-blind, randomized trial, with efficacy measured over 6 months using various assessment methods.
  • Results showed that both products had similar effectiveness in improving lip fullness, and the new product received higher satisfaction rates among patients and investigators, indicating it is as safe and effective as the comparator.

Article Abstract

Objective: To compare the safety and efficacy of a novel hyaluronic acid injectable gel with 0.3% lidocaine (test device) with that of a commercially available injectable hyaluronic acid gel with 0.3% lidocaine (comparator) for lip augmentation.

Methods: Eligible patients (n = 158) with an overall score of very thin (n = 0) or thin (n = 1) on a 5-point Lip Fullness Grading Scale (LFGS) participated in the double-blind, randomized, multicenter study. Efficacy was assessed periodically over 6 months on a per protocol (PP) population (definitive) and a modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population (supportive).

Results: In the PP population, the mean change from baseline (day 56) in LFGS score was 1.52 for the test device and 1.53 for the comparator. This 56-day change was the primary efficacy endpoint. The 95% confidence interval (CI) limits for the mean difference in scores (test device minus comparator) were -0.33 and 0.31. In the mITT population, the corresponding 95% CI limits were -0.26 and 0.31. In both populations, the lower limits, -0.33 and -0.26, were higher than the prespecified -0.50, indicating that the test device was non-inferior to comparator. The adverse event profile was similar between the treatment groups. Ninety-three percent of patients treated with test device considered themselves improved, much improved, or very much improved at day 168 compared to 82% of those treated with comparator. The corresponding investigator improvement ratings were 100% and 76%, respectively.

Conclusion: For lip augmentation, the efficacy and safety of the test device is non-inferior to comparator. J Drugs Dermatol. 2022;21(1):13-20 doi:10.36849/JDD.6548.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.36849/JDD.2022.6548DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

test device
24
hyaluronic acid
12
novel hyaluronic
8
acid gel
8
lip augmentation
8
gel 03%
8
03% lidocaine
8
mitt population
8
device non-inferior
8
non-inferior comparator
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!