A Prospective, Observational Registry Study to Evaluate Effectiveness and Safety of Hyaluronic Acid-Based Dermal Fillers in Routine Practice: Interim Analysis Results with One Year of Subject Follow-Up

Long-term Performance and Safety of Princess VOLUME PLUS Lidocaine for Midface Augmentation: The PRIMAvera Clinical Study

BACKGROUND

Hyaluronic acid-based dermal fillers are the most applied medical devices for midface augmentation.

OBJECTIVES

This postmarket investigation evaluated the long-term performance and safety of and patient satisfaction with Princess VOLUME PLUS Lidocaine (PVPL; now Saypha VOLUME PLUS Lidocaine) for the correction of midface volume deficit (MVD).

METHODS

This was an open-label, prospective, interventional, multicenter, noncomparative, postapproval study of 91 patients with moderate or severe MVD (grade 2 or 3 on the 5-point Midface Volume Deficit Severity Scale, or MVDSS). At Day 0 (Visit 1), patients were treated with PVPL; they returned for follow-up assessments at weeks 2, 4, 12, 24, 36, and 52 and had long-term follow-up until 36 months. A touch-up treatment could be done at week 2. The performance was assessed with the MVDSS, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), and a subject satisfaction scale. Adverse events were collected to assess safety throughout the study.

RESULTS

Four weeks after treatment, 100% of injected patients improved by ≥1 grade on the MVDSS compared to baseline, with improvements still visible in 77% of patients 52 weeks after treatment. Based on the GAIS and post hoc survival analysis, the treatment effect was maintained for a median of 386 days, and in severe cases the effect lasted longer, which seemed to be independent of the volume injected at baseline. No serious side effects were reported. Results were substantiated by high patient satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Princess VOLUME PLUS Lidocaine was perceived as safe and effective by patients and investigators, with long-term aesthetic improvement in moderate and severe cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3

Comparative Preclinical Study of Lidocaine and Mepivacaine in Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Fillers

Background: Hyaluronic acid-based filler injections are now well-established aesthetic procedures for the correction of skin tissue defects and volume loss. Filler injections are becoming increasingly popular, with a growing number of injections performed each year. Although classified as a minimally invasive procedure, the introduction of a needle or a canula may remain painful for the patient. A major improvement was achieved with the incorporation of local anesthetics into the formulation for pain relief. Methods: In this study, two well-known anesthetics, lidocaine and mepivacaine, were systematically compared to assess their influence on filler mechanical and biological features. The impact of each anesthetic was monitored in terms of gel rheological properties, stability, durability, and degradation. The release profiles of each anesthetic were also recorded. Finally, the pharmacokinetics of each anesthetic in rats were assessed. Results: For all the rheological and biological experiments performed, lidocaine and mepivacaine influences were comparable. The addition of either anesthetic into a soft-tissue filler showed no significant modifications of the stability, durability, and degradability of the gel, with similar release profiles and pharmacokinetics at an equivalent concentration. Conclusions: Substituting lidocaine with mepivacaine does not impact the properties of the gels, and thus both can be equally incorporated as anesthetics in soft-tissue fillers.