Aging, Pain
Conditions
Keywords
Hyaluronic Acid, Perioral rhytids, Anesthetic, Lidocaine
Brief summary
This is a randomized, controlled, double-blinded, within-subject (split-face), multicenter, prospective study to investigate whether RHA® Redensity with new anesthetic agent is non-inferior to RHA® Redensity with lidocaine in terms of injection site pain felt by the subject during injection. At screening, the Treating Investigator (TI) evaluated subjects' perioral rhytid severity (using the Perioral Rhytid Severity Rating Scale; PR-SRS) to confirm eligibility and to establish a pre-treatment score for assessing aesthetic improvement. At Visit 1, RHA® Redensity with new anesthetic agent was administered in a random sequence (first or second injection) and side of the mouth (left or right) and RHA® Redensity with lidocaine was administered to the other side. Study subjects and the TI injecting study devices were blinded. Immediately after injection of an upper perioral quadrant, subjects rated the injection site pain experienced during injection using a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Injection site pain in each side of the mouth was also assessed at 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes after injection of the upper quadrant. Safety evaluation consisted of AE assessments, a 30-day CTR (Common Treatment Response) diary and a follow-up call performed by the study site at 72 hours after injection. Subjects attended Visit 2 (30 days post-injection) where efficacy and safety assessments were conducted. Subjects who presented with an unresolved clinically significant device related AE at Visit 2 received a optional follow-up phone call no later than 30 days after Visit 2. If the clinically significant AE remained unresolved, the Investigator requested that the subject attended the optional in-clinic follow-up visit (i.e., Visit 3) within 5 working days. Follow-up of the clinically significant AE continued until the AE was resolved or the TI determines that additional follow-up was not necessary.
Interventions
A sterile, biodegradable, biocompatible, viscoelastic, clear, colorless, homogenized gel implant. It consists of cross-linked hyaluronic acid produced by fermentation of Streptococcus zooepidemicus, formulated to a concentration of 15 mg/g and 0.3% w/w of new anesthetic agent in a physiologic buffer.
A sterile, biodegradable, biocompatible, viscoelastic, clear, colorless, homogenized gel implant. It consists of cross-linked hyaluronic acid produced by fermentation of Streptococcus zooepidemicus, formulated to a concentration of 15 mg/g and 0.3% w/w lidocaine in a physiologic buffer.
Sponsors
Teoxane SA
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator)
Intervention model description
Split-face design
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
22 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
1. Outpatient, male or female of any race, 22 years of age or older. Female subjects of childbearing potential must have a negative UPT at Visit 1 and practice a reliable method of contraception throughout the study. 2. Moderate to severe bilateral perioral rhytids (grade 2 or 3 on PR-SRS). 3. Perioral rhytids of the same PR-SRS grade on the left and right sides of the mouth. 4. Able to follow study instructions and complete all required visits. 5. Sign the IRB-approved ICF, Photographic Release Form, the Authorization for Use and release of Health and Research Study Information (HIPAA) form, and if applicable the California Experimental Research Subject's Bill of Rights prior to any study-related procedures being performed.
Exclusion criteria
1. Female subjects who are pregnant, breast-feeding, or of childbearing potential and not practicing reliable birth control. 2. Known hypersensitivity or previous allergic reaction to any component of the study devices. 3. Known sensitivity to local anesthetics of the amide type, history of multiple severe allergies, or history of anaphylactic shock. 4. Clinically significant active skin disease or infection in the perioral area within 6 months prior to study entry (TI discretion). 5. History of active chronic debilitating systemic disease that, in the opinion of the investigator, would make the subject a poor candidate in the study. 6. Malignancy (excluding non-melanoma skin cancer) within the past 5 years. 7. History or presence of condition or feature that may confound the interpretation of the results in the perioral region, for example, tattoo, significant facial hair, acne scaring, prior surgery in the area, potential for active disease or infection flare up such as herpes simplex. 8. History of skin cancer in the treatment area. 9. Elective, clinically significant facial procedures that may confound the interpretation of the results in the perioral region (TI discretion), prior to study enrollment. 10. Clinically active disease or infection in the perioral area or mouth (e.g., dental abscess). 12\. Exposure to any other investigational drug/device within 90 days of entering the study. 13\. Clinically significant alcohol or drug abuse, or history of poor cooperation or unreliability.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Non-inferiority of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine in Terms of Reducing Pain During Device Injection Into the Upper Perioral Rhytids. | Visit 1 - During Injection | Injection pain during injection was measured on the 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), as assessed by subjects immediately after injection of each upper perioral quadrant. VAS is a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale with 0 meaning no pain and 100 meaning intolerable pain |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Difference Between RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine in Term of Reducing Pain at 15, 30, 45 and 60 Minutes Post-injection in Each Side of the Mouth. | Visit 1 - 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes post-injection | Injection pain was measured on the 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), as assessed by subjects in each side of the mouth. VAS is a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale with 0 meaning no pain and 100 meaning intolerable pain |
| Change From Baseline of PR-SRS Score for RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Vs RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine for the Correction of Perioral Rhytids as Assessed by the Treating Investigator (TI) | Visit 1 (Baseline, pre-injection) - Visit 1 (post-injection), Visit 2 (Day 30) | PR-SRS (Perioral Rhytids Severity Rating Scale) is a validated 4-grade scale with 0 being Absent and 3 being Severe |
| Percentage of Responders Based on the Intra-individual Improvement of at Least One Grade on the Perioral Rhytids Severity Rating Scale (PR-SRS) Compared to Baseline, as Assessed by the TI | Visit 1 - Baseline (pre-injection), Visit 1 (post-injection), Visit 2 (Day 30) | A responder corresponds to a subject with an intra-individual improvement of at least one grade on the PR-SRS compared to Baseline |
| Subject's Perception of Treatment Effectiveness as Per the FACE-Q (Perioral Rhytids Domain) Questionnaire. | Visit 1 (Baseline) and Visit 2 (Day 30) | The FACE-Q measures the experience and outcomes of aesthetic facial procedures from the patient's perspective. FACE-Q questionnaire is composed of 6 questions with a score linked to answers (1 being 'Not at all' and 4 being 'Extremely'). The subject will be instructed as follows: These questions ask about how you look right now. For each question, circle only one answer. With the area around your lips in mind, in the past week, how much have you been bothered by:, and will provide response. To calculate the FACE-Q, outcomes from all 6 questions were pooled, data were transformed so that higher scores reflected a superior outcome, and adapted to a scale of 100 units (i.e. lowest score = 0, highest score = 100). |
| Number of Subjects Scored Either Much Improved or Improved on Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) by the Treating Investigator (TI) | Visit 1 (post-injection) and Visit 2 (Day 30) | Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) is a subjective 5-grade scale comprised of much improved, improved, no change, worse, and much worse. GAI will bewas assessed using the baseline photograph. Each side of the mouth were assessed independently. |
| Number of Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) Responders (i.e., Scoring Either Much Improved or Improved) on GAI Scale According to Subject's Self-assessment | Visit 1 (post-injection) and Visit 2 (Day 30) | Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) is a subjective 5-grade scale comprised of much improved, improved, no change, worse, and much worse. GAI was assessed using the baseline photograph. Subjects were instructed as follows: Use a mirror to compare your face to the photograph provided to you and rate the degree of aesthetic improvement by using the following scale. Each side of the face was assessed independently. |
| Number of Both Satisfied or Very Satisfied Subjects With Study Treatment Using the Subject's Satisfaction Scale | Visit 1 (post-injection) and Visit 2 (Day 30) | The Subject Satisfaction Scale is a subjective, balanced, 5-point scale assessing subject satisfaction with study treatment. Possible scores range from with 1 (very satisfied) to 5 (very dissatisfied). Proportion of subjects who were Satisfied (i.e., 1-Very Satisfied + 2-Satisfied) was compared to the proportion of subjects who were Not Satisfied (i.e., 3-Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied + 4-Dissatisfied + 5-Very Dissatisfied) |
| Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | During 30 days after injection | The subjects will receive a diary booklet and instructions for recording his/her observations of the Common Treatment Responses to the study treatments within 30 days following the treatment. The diary will be discussed during follow-up phone-call and visit. Subjects were instructed to complete the diary at approximately the same time each day (i.e., am or pm). The subject diary captured the following Common Treatment Responses (CTR) that occur following the injection of a dermal filler; specifically, redness, pain, tenderness, firmness, swelling, lumps/bumps, bruising, itching, discoloration, and other. The 30-day patient CTR diary included a detailed glossary describing all signs/symptoms listed in the diary; an option was provided to report other reactions if the subject experienced a sign/symptom that was not listed. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| Bilateral Treatment With RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Vs RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine Split-face injection of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent in the perioral rhytids on one side of the mouth and RHA® Redensity with lidocaine in the perioral rhytids on the opposite side of the mouth. | 30 |
| Total | 30 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Bilateral Treatment With RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Vs RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine |
|---|---|
| Age, Continuous | 64.3 years STANDARD_DEVIATION 8.2 |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Hispanic or Latino | 11 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Not Hispanic or Latino | 19 Participants |
| Ethnicity (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants |
| Fitzpatrick Skin Type Types I to III as assessed by TI at screening | 23 Participants |
| Fitzpatrick Skin Type Types IV to VI as assessed by TI at screening | 7 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) American Indian or Alaska Native | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Asian | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Black or African American | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) More than one race | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) Unknown or Not Reported | 0 Participants |
| Race (NIH/OMB) White | 30 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 30 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 0 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 30 | 0 / 30 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 6 / 30 | 5 / 30 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 1 / 30 | 1 / 30 |
Outcome results
Primary
Non-inferiority of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine in Terms of Reducing Pain During Device Injection Into the Upper Perioral Rhytids.
Injection pain during injection was measured on the 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), as assessed by subjects immediately after injection of each upper perioral quadrant. VAS is a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale with 0 meaning no pain and 100 meaning intolerable pain
Time frame: Visit 1 - During Injection
Population: There were 30 participants enrolled and treated, the participants received bilateral, split-face treatment into the upper perioral rhytids.
| Arm | Measure | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Non-inferiority of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine in Terms of Reducing Pain During Device Injection Into the Upper Perioral Rhytids. | 22.4 mm | Standard Deviation 23.21 |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Non-inferiority of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine in Terms of Reducing Pain During Device Injection Into the Upper Perioral Rhytids. | 25.0 mm | Standard Deviation 25.63 |
p-value: <0.0002t-test, 1 sided
Secondary
Change From Baseline of PR-SRS Score for RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Vs RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine for the Correction of Perioral Rhytids as Assessed by the Treating Investigator (TI)
PR-SRS (Perioral Rhytids Severity Rating Scale) is a validated 4-grade scale with 0 being Absent and 3 being Severe
Time frame: Visit 1 (Baseline, pre-injection) - Visit 1 (post-injection), Visit 2 (Day 30)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Change From Baseline of PR-SRS Score for RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Vs RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine for the Correction of Perioral Rhytids as Assessed by the Treating Investigator (TI) | Visit 1 (Post-injection) | -1.5 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.57 |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Change From Baseline of PR-SRS Score for RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Vs RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine for the Correction of Perioral Rhytids as Assessed by the Treating Investigator (TI) | Visit 2 (Day 30) | -1.4 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.57 |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Change From Baseline of PR-SRS Score for RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Vs RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine for the Correction of Perioral Rhytids as Assessed by the Treating Investigator (TI) | Visit 1 (Post-injection) | -1.5 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.63 |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Change From Baseline of PR-SRS Score for RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Vs RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine for the Correction of Perioral Rhytids as Assessed by the Treating Investigator (TI) | Visit 2 (Day 30) | -1.4 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.56 |
Secondary
Difference Between RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine in Term of Reducing Pain at 15, 30, 45 and 60 Minutes Post-injection in Each Side of the Mouth.
Injection pain was measured on the 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), as assessed by subjects in each side of the mouth. VAS is a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale with 0 meaning no pain and 100 meaning intolerable pain
Time frame: Visit 1 - 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes post-injection
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Difference Between RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine in Term of Reducing Pain at 15, 30, 45 and 60 Minutes Post-injection in Each Side of the Mouth. | 15 Min | 6.3 mm | Standard Deviation 12.29 |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Difference Between RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine in Term of Reducing Pain at 15, 30, 45 and 60 Minutes Post-injection in Each Side of the Mouth. | 30 Min | 1.0 mm | Standard Deviation 4.03 |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Difference Between RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine in Term of Reducing Pain at 15, 30, 45 and 60 Minutes Post-injection in Each Side of the Mouth. | 45 Min | 0.3 mm | Standard Deviation 1.83 |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Difference Between RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine in Term of Reducing Pain at 15, 30, 45 and 60 Minutes Post-injection in Each Side of the Mouth. | 60 Min | 0.0 mm | Standard Deviation 0 |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Difference Between RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine in Term of Reducing Pain at 15, 30, 45 and 60 Minutes Post-injection in Each Side of the Mouth. | 60 Min | 0.0 mm | Standard Deviation 0 |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Difference Between RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine in Term of Reducing Pain at 15, 30, 45 and 60 Minutes Post-injection in Each Side of the Mouth. | 15 Min | 6.8 mm | Standard Deviation 13.72 |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Difference Between RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine in Term of Reducing Pain at 15, 30, 45 and 60 Minutes Post-injection in Each Side of the Mouth. | 45 Min | 0.4 mm | Standard Deviation 2.37 |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Difference Between RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine in Term of Reducing Pain at 15, 30, 45 and 60 Minutes Post-injection in Each Side of the Mouth. | 30 Min | 1.0 mm | Standard Deviation 4.19 |
Secondary
Number of Both Satisfied or Very Satisfied Subjects With Study Treatment Using the Subject's Satisfaction Scale
The Subject Satisfaction Scale is a subjective, balanced, 5-point scale assessing subject satisfaction with study treatment. Possible scores range from with 1 (very satisfied) to 5 (very dissatisfied). Proportion of subjects who were Satisfied (i.e., 1-Very Satisfied + 2-Satisfied) was compared to the proportion of subjects who were Not Satisfied (i.e., 3-Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied + 4-Dissatisfied + 5-Very Dissatisfied)
Time frame: Visit 1 (post-injection) and Visit 2 (Day 30)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Both Satisfied or Very Satisfied Subjects With Study Treatment Using the Subject's Satisfaction Scale | Visit 1 (post-injection) | Satisfied (i.e., 1-Very Satisfied + 2-Satisfied) | 29 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Both Satisfied or Very Satisfied Subjects With Study Treatment Using the Subject's Satisfaction Scale | Visit 1 (post-injection) | Not Satisfied (i.e., 3-Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied + 4-Dissatisfied + 5-Very Dissatisfied) | 1 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Both Satisfied or Very Satisfied Subjects With Study Treatment Using the Subject's Satisfaction Scale | Visit 2 (Day 30) | Satisfied (i.e., 1-Very Satisfied + 2-Satisfied) | 29 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Both Satisfied or Very Satisfied Subjects With Study Treatment Using the Subject's Satisfaction Scale | Visit 2 (Day 30) | Not Satisfied (i.e., 3-Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied + 4-Dissatisfied + 5-Very Dissatisfied) | 1 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Both Satisfied or Very Satisfied Subjects With Study Treatment Using the Subject's Satisfaction Scale | Visit 2 (Day 30) | Not Satisfied (i.e., 3-Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied + 4-Dissatisfied + 5-Very Dissatisfied) | 1 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Both Satisfied or Very Satisfied Subjects With Study Treatment Using the Subject's Satisfaction Scale | Visit 1 (post-injection) | Satisfied (i.e., 1-Very Satisfied + 2-Satisfied) | 29 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Both Satisfied or Very Satisfied Subjects With Study Treatment Using the Subject's Satisfaction Scale | Visit 2 (Day 30) | Satisfied (i.e., 1-Very Satisfied + 2-Satisfied) | 29 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Both Satisfied or Very Satisfied Subjects With Study Treatment Using the Subject's Satisfaction Scale | Visit 1 (post-injection) | Not Satisfied (i.e., 3-Neither Satisfied nor dissatisfied + 4-Dissatisfied + 5-Very Dissatisfied) | 1 Participants |
Secondary
Number of Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) Responders (i.e., Scoring Either Much Improved or Improved) on GAI Scale According to Subject's Self-assessment
Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) is a subjective 5-grade scale comprised of much improved, improved, no change, worse, and much worse. GAI was assessed using the baseline photograph. Subjects were instructed as follows: Use a mirror to compare your face to the photograph provided to you and rate the degree of aesthetic improvement by using the following scale. Each side of the face was assessed independently.
Time frame: Visit 1 (post-injection) and Visit 2 (Day 30)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) Responders (i.e., Scoring Either Much Improved or Improved) on GAI Scale According to Subject's Self-assessment | Visit 1 (post-injection) | 30 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) Responders (i.e., Scoring Either Much Improved or Improved) on GAI Scale According to Subject's Self-assessment | Visit 2 (Day 30) | 30 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) Responders (i.e., Scoring Either Much Improved or Improved) on GAI Scale According to Subject's Self-assessment | Visit 1 (post-injection) | 30 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) Responders (i.e., Scoring Either Much Improved or Improved) on GAI Scale According to Subject's Self-assessment | Visit 2 (Day 30) | 30 Participants |
Secondary
Number of Subjects Scored Either Much Improved or Improved on Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) by the Treating Investigator (TI)
Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) is a subjective 5-grade scale comprised of much improved, improved, no change, worse, and much worse. GAI will bewas assessed using the baseline photograph. Each side of the mouth were assessed independently.
Time frame: Visit 1 (post-injection) and Visit 2 (Day 30)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Subjects Scored Either Much Improved or Improved on Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) by the Treating Investigator (TI) | Visit 1 (post-injection) | 30 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Subjects Scored Either Much Improved or Improved on Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) by the Treating Investigator (TI) | Visit 2 (Day30) | 30 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Subjects Scored Either Much Improved or Improved on Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) by the Treating Investigator (TI) | Visit 1 (post-injection) | 30 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Subjects Scored Either Much Improved or Improved on Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) by the Treating Investigator (TI) | Visit 2 (Day30) | 30 Participants |
Secondary
Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine
The subjects will receive a diary booklet and instructions for recording his/her observations of the Common Treatment Responses to the study treatments within 30 days following the treatment. The diary will be discussed during follow-up phone-call and visit. Subjects were instructed to complete the diary at approximately the same time each day (i.e., am or pm). The subject diary captured the following Common Treatment Responses (CTR) that occur following the injection of a dermal filler; specifically, redness, pain, tenderness, firmness, swelling, lumps/bumps, bruising, itching, discoloration, and other. The 30-day patient CTR diary included a detailed glossary describing all signs/symptoms listed in the diary; an option was provided to report other reactions if the subject experienced a sign/symptom that was not listed.
Time frame: During 30 days after injection
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Itching | 2 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Redness | 15 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Firmness | 19 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Swelling | 19 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Lumps/Bumps | 17 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Tenderness | 12 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Discoloration | 10 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Needle track marks | 1 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Pain | 4 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Injection Site Soreness | 1 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Bruising | 16 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Injection Site Soreness | 1 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Bruising | 12 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Discoloration | 10 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Firmness | 14 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Itching | 4 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Lumps/Bumps | 15 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Pain | 3 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Redness | 16 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Swelling | 21 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Tenderness | 13 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Needle track marks | 1 Participants |
Secondary
Percentage of Responders Based on the Intra-individual Improvement of at Least One Grade on the Perioral Rhytids Severity Rating Scale (PR-SRS) Compared to Baseline, as Assessed by the TI
A responder corresponds to a subject with an intra-individual improvement of at least one grade on the PR-SRS compared to Baseline
Time frame: Visit 1 - Baseline (pre-injection), Visit 1 (post-injection), Visit 2 (Day 30)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Category | Value (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Percentage of Responders Based on the Intra-individual Improvement of at Least One Grade on the Perioral Rhytids Severity Rating Scale (PR-SRS) Compared to Baseline, as Assessed by the TI | Visit 1 - post-injection | Not responder | 1 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Percentage of Responders Based on the Intra-individual Improvement of at Least One Grade on the Perioral Rhytids Severity Rating Scale (PR-SRS) Compared to Baseline, as Assessed by the TI | Visit 1 - post-injection | Responder | 29 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Percentage of Responders Based on the Intra-individual Improvement of at Least One Grade on the Perioral Rhytids Severity Rating Scale (PR-SRS) Compared to Baseline, as Assessed by the TI | Visit 2 - day 30 | Responder | 29 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Percentage of Responders Based on the Intra-individual Improvement of at Least One Grade on the Perioral Rhytids Severity Rating Scale (PR-SRS) Compared to Baseline, as Assessed by the TI | Visit 2 - day 30 | Not responder | 1 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Percentage of Responders Based on the Intra-individual Improvement of at Least One Grade on the Perioral Rhytids Severity Rating Scale (PR-SRS) Compared to Baseline, as Assessed by the TI | Visit 2 - day 30 | Not responder | 1 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Percentage of Responders Based on the Intra-individual Improvement of at Least One Grade on the Perioral Rhytids Severity Rating Scale (PR-SRS) Compared to Baseline, as Assessed by the TI | Visit 2 - day 30 | Responder | 29 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Percentage of Responders Based on the Intra-individual Improvement of at Least One Grade on the Perioral Rhytids Severity Rating Scale (PR-SRS) Compared to Baseline, as Assessed by the TI | Visit 1 - post-injection | Responder | 28 Participants |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Percentage of Responders Based on the Intra-individual Improvement of at Least One Grade on the Perioral Rhytids Severity Rating Scale (PR-SRS) Compared to Baseline, as Assessed by the TI | Visit 1 - post-injection | Not responder | 2 Participants |
Secondary
Subject's Perception of Treatment Effectiveness as Per the FACE-Q (Perioral Rhytids Domain) Questionnaire.
The FACE-Q measures the experience and outcomes of aesthetic facial procedures from the patient's perspective. FACE-Q questionnaire is composed of 6 questions with a score linked to answers (1 being 'Not at all' and 4 being 'Extremely'). The subject will be instructed as follows: These questions ask about how you look right now. For each question, circle only one answer. With the area around your lips in mind, in the past week, how much have you been bothered by:, and will provide response. To calculate the FACE-Q, outcomes from all 6 questions were pooled, data were transformed so that higher scores reflected a superior outcome, and adapted to a scale of 100 units (i.e. lowest score = 0, highest score = 100).
Time frame: Visit 1 (Baseline) and Visit 2 (Day 30)
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Subject's Perception of Treatment Effectiveness as Per the FACE-Q (Perioral Rhytids Domain) Questionnaire. | Baseline Face-Q Score | 13.0 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 19.07 |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Subject's Perception of Treatment Effectiveness as Per the FACE-Q (Perioral Rhytids Domain) Questionnaire. | Day 30 Face-Q Score | 73.9 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.84 |
| RHA® Redensity With Lidocaine | Subject's Perception of Treatment Effectiveness as Per the FACE-Q (Perioral Rhytids Domain) Questionnaire. | Face-Q Change from Baseline to Day 30 | 60.9 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 36.1 |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Subject's Perception of Treatment Effectiveness as Per the FACE-Q (Perioral Rhytids Domain) Questionnaire. | Baseline Face-Q Score | 12.5 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 18.99 |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Subject's Perception of Treatment Effectiveness as Per the FACE-Q (Perioral Rhytids Domain) Questionnaire. | Day 30 Face-Q Score | 77.2 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 25.78 |
| RHA® Redensity With New Anesthetic Agent | Subject's Perception of Treatment Effectiveness as Per the FACE-Q (Perioral Rhytids Domain) Questionnaire. | Face-Q Change from Baseline to Day 30 | 64.7 score on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.93 |