Safety and Efficacy of Poly-L-Lactic Acid Filler (Gana V vs. Sculptra) Injection for Correction of the Nasolabial Fold: A Double-Blind, Non-Inferiority, Randomized, Split-Face Controlled Trial.

Background: Poly-L-lactic acid (PLLA) fillers have shown excellent results as soft tissue fillers for progressive midface volume enhancement, with long-lasting results and high patient satisfaction.

Objective: Herein, we investigated the safety and effectiveness of a new PLLA filler (Gana V) in comparison with those of the widely used Sculptra.

Methods: This double-blind, non-inferiority, randomized, split-face controlled trial was performed in France to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of injectable Gana V compared with those of Sculptra for correction of nasolabial fold (NLF) depression. The primary outcome was improvement in NLFs, as determined using the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS). This trial is an interim report of the results at 6 months. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials. gov, number NCT05215054.

Results: Fifty-five participants with moderate-to-severe NLFs (mean age 53.8 [standard deviation 8.7] years; 48 [87.3%]) female) were enrolled. After 6 months, Gana V showed improved WSRS score (mean difference - 0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.49 to - 0.01) in intention-to-treat analysis, while Sculptra did not (mean difference - 0.20; 95% CI - 0.42 to 0.03). Furthermore, Gana V showed an acceptable 6-month effectiveness compared with Sculptra, within our defined non-inferiority margin (p = 0.1787). The immediate results by the investigator after the initial injection showed higher satisfaction in the Gana V than in the Sculptra group. Gana V and Sculptra showed no difference in adverse reactions. Similar patterns were observed in per-protocol analyses.

Conclusions: Gana V is non-inferior to Sculptra with respect to the correction of NLFs and has higher investigator satisfaction. Further research is required to ensure long-term safety.

Level Of Evidence I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .