Cheek Volume Augmentation
Conditions
Brief summary
The primary objective of the study is to demonstrate non-inferiority of VP1 Lido US versus an approved hyaluronic acid dermal filler following deep (subdermal and/or supraperiosteal) injection of the cheek for volume augmentation.
Interventions
DEVICEVP1 Lido US
Hyaluronic acid dermal filler containing lidocaine
DEVICERestylane Lyft Lidocaine
Hyaluronic acid dermal filler containing lidocaine
Sponsors
Merz North America, Inc.
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 70 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Has a symmetrical rating of 2 (moderate) or 3 (severe) for right and left cheek on the Merz Cheeks Fullness Assessment Scale (MCFAS) * Desires cheek augmentation to correct volume deficit in the midface and is willing to receive sufficient volume to achieve at least a 1-point improvement on the MCFAS
Exclusion criteria
* Skin or fat atrophy in the midfacial region other than that related to age. * Subjects with body mass index of \<18.5 or ≥30 * Acute inflammatory process or active infection at the injection site (e.g., acne, eczema, streptococcus infections), or history of chronic or recurrent infection or inflammation with the potential to interfere with the study results or increase the risk of AEs. * Prior surgery, including midfacial plastic surgery, or has a permanent implant or graft in the midfacial region that could interfere with effectiveness assessments. * Received midfacial region treatments with porcine-based collagen fillers or with RADIESSE® or with volumizing hyaluronic acid fillers such as but not limited to Juvéderm® Voluma, Restylane® Lyft within the past 24 months and/or with other HA fillers or mesotherapy within the past 12 months or plans to receive such treatments during participation in the study. * Received facial dermal therapies (i.e., facial ablative or fractional laser, dermabrasion, chemical peels, non-invasive skin-tightening \[e.g., Ultherapy®, Thermage®\] and surgical procedures) in the midfacial region within the past 12 months or plans to receive them in the facial region during participation in the study.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change from baseline to Week 12 on the Merz Cheeks Fullness Assessment Scale (MCFAS) | Baseline to week 12 | The MCFAS is a 5-point ordinal rating |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Treatment response rate where response is defined as a ≥ 1-point improvement on both cheeks when comparing the change from baseline to Week 12 | Baseline to week 12 |
| FACE-Q satisfaction with cheeks for treated subjects at baseline and Week 12 | Week 12 |
| Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) scores for treated subjects at Week 12, as completed by the treating investigator | Week 12 |
| Change from baseline to Week 12 on the MCFAS by injection type (cannula, needle) | Baseline to week 12 |
| Responder rates at Week 12, according to the MCFAS, as assessed by three blinded board-certified Independent Panel Reviewers (IPRs) using subject photographs | Week 12 |
| Incidence of related serious or delayed onset adverse events (>21 days after treatment) following the first treatment including touch-up until Week 48 | Baseline to week 48 |
| GAIS scores for treated subjects at Week 12, as completed by the subject | Week 12 |
Countries
Germany
Outcome results
None listed