Trial Outcomes & Findings for Evaluation of the Ulthera® System and Efficacy Correlation to Morphological Differences (NCT NCT03599349)

NCT ID: NCT03599349

Last Updated: 2019-06-11

Results Overview

TCP = Thermal Coagulation Points. The average Superficial Musculo-Aponeurotic System (SMAS) depth in the eyebrow and lower face regions (cheeks, submental and submandibular) will be compared to quantitative measurement of lift in the eyebrow and submental/neck lift at day 90 post-treatment

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

NA

Target enrollment

20 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

Day 90 post treatment

Results posted on

2019-06-11

Participant Flow

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure
Microfocused Ultrasound w/ Visualization
Subject were treated on the full-face and neck area treatment using a standard 800 line treatment with set energy levels (0.90 joules for the 4-4.5mm transducer, 0.30 joules for the 7-3.0mm/7-3.0N transducers and 0.75 joules for the 7-4.5mm transducer). Ultrasound images were captured at the beginning, middle, and end of each treatment section during treatment.
Overall Study
STARTED
20
Overall Study
Treated
20
Overall Study
COMPLETED
19
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
1

Reasons for withdrawal

Reasons for withdrawal
Measure
Microfocused Ultrasound w/ Visualization
Subject were treated on the full-face and neck area treatment using a standard 800 line treatment with set energy levels (0.90 joules for the 4-4.5mm transducer, 0.30 joules for the 7-3.0mm/7-3.0N transducers and 0.75 joules for the 7-4.5mm transducer). Ultrasound images were captured at the beginning, middle, and end of each treatment section during treatment.
Overall Study
Lost to Follow-up
1

Baseline Characteristics

Evaluation of the Ulthera® System and Efficacy Correlation to Morphological Differences

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure
Microfocused Ultrasound w/ Visualization
n=20 Participants
Subject were treated on the full-face and neck area treatment using a standard 800 line treatment with set energy levels (0.90 joules for the 4-4.5mm transducer, 0.30 joules for the 7-3.0mm/7-3.0N transducers and 0.75 joules for the 7-4.5mm transducer). Ultrasound images were captured at the beginning, middle, and end of each treatment section during treatment.
Age, Continuous
50.7 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 3.7 • n=99 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
17 Participants
n=99 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
3 Participants
n=99 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
2 Participants
n=99 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
18 Participants
n=99 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race · Asian
1 Participants
n=99 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race · Black/African Amercican
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race · White
19 Participants
n=99 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
20 Participants
n=99 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Day 90 post treatment

Population: Quantitative assessment of lift was not performed due to lack of quality of pre- and post-treatment images and inconsistencies in head positioning of the subjects. A correlation analysis could therefore not be performed.

TCP = Thermal Coagulation Points. The average Superficial Musculo-Aponeurotic System (SMAS) depth in the eyebrow and lower face regions (cheeks, submental and submandibular) will be compared to quantitative measurement of lift in the eyebrow and submental/neck lift at day 90 post-treatment

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Day 90 and 180 post-treatment

Population: CGAIS data was not collected. A correlation analysis could therefore not be performed.

The Principal Investigator, sub-investigator or qualified clinician delegated by the principal investigator, will complete a CGAIS assessing overall aesthetic improvement at day 90 and 180 post-treatment. The CGAIS will be compared to average SMAS and average dermal thickness of the treated areas to determine if there is or is not a correlation.

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Day 90 and 180 post-treatment

Population: SGAIS data was not collected. A correlation analysis could therefore not be performed.

The subject will complete a SGAIS assessing overall aesthetic improvement at day 90 and 180 post-treatment which will be compared to average SMAS and average dermal thickness of the treated areas to determine if there is or is not a correlation.

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Day 90 and 180 post-treatment

Population: A total of 20 subjects were enrolled and treated. Of these, data on this secondary outcome was available for 20 subjects at day 90 and for 19 subjects at day 180. Correlation was analyzed for the overall duration of the study (including both D90 and D180 data).

Degree of overall aesthetic improvement determined by a masked, qualitative assessment of photographs at 90 and 180 days post-treatment compared to baseline, based on level of clearance/improvement. The percent improvement will be compared to the average SMAS and average dermal thickness of the treated areas to determine if there is or is not a correlation. Level of improvement scale: 1. 0 = 0% Improvement (None) 2. 1 = \< 25% Improvement (Mild) 3. 2 = 26 to 50% Improvement (Moderate) 4. 3 = 51 to 75% Improvement (Significant) 5. 4 = 76 to 100% Improvement (Very Significant)

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Microfocused Ultrasound w/ Visualization
n=20 Participants
Subject were treated on the full-face and neck area treatment using a standard 800 line treatment with set energy levels (0.90 joules for the 4-4.5mm transducer, 0.30 joules for the 7-3.0mm/7-3.0N transducers and 0.75 joules for the 7-4.5mm transducer). Ultrasound images were captured at the beginning, middle, and end of each treatment section during treatment.
Qualitative Assessment of Overall Aesthetic Improvement Will be Compared to the Average SMAS and Average Dermal Thickness of the Treated Areas to Determine if There is or is Not a Correlation
Dermal thickness to overall aesthetic improvement
0.2791 Correlation coefficient
Qualitative Assessment of Overall Aesthetic Improvement Will be Compared to the Average SMAS and Average Dermal Thickness of the Treated Areas to Determine if There is or is Not a Correlation
SMAS thickness to overall aesthetic improvement
-1.0156 Correlation coefficient

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Day 90 and 180 post-treatment

Population: A total of 20 subjects were enrolled and treated. Of these, data on this secondary outcome was available for 20 subjects at day 90 and for 19 subjects at day 180. Correlation was analyzed for the overall duration of the study (including both D90 and D180 data).

The subject will complete a patient satisfaction questionnaire at the 90 and 180 day follow-up visits which will be compared to average SMAS and average dermal thickness of the treated areas to determine if there is or is not a correlation.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Microfocused Ultrasound w/ Visualization
n=20 Participants
Subject were treated on the full-face and neck area treatment using a standard 800 line treatment with set energy levels (0.90 joules for the 4-4.5mm transducer, 0.30 joules for the 7-3.0mm/7-3.0N transducers and 0.75 joules for the 7-4.5mm transducer). Ultrasound images were captured at the beginning, middle, and end of each treatment section during treatment.
The Subject Will Complete a Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire at the 90 and 180 Day Follow-up Visits Which Will be Compared to Average SMAS and Average Dermal Thickness of the Treated Areas to Determine if There is or is Not a Correlation
Dermis Depth to patient satisfaction
-2.1597 Correlation coefficient
The Subject Will Complete a Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire at the 90 and 180 Day Follow-up Visits Which Will be Compared to Average SMAS and Average Dermal Thickness of the Treated Areas to Determine if There is or is Not a Correlation
SMAS thickness to patient satisfaction
0.0216 Correlation coefficient

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Day 90 and 180 post-treatment

Population: Quantitative assessment of lift was not performed due to lack of consistency and usability of pre- and post-treatment images and inconsistencies in head positioning of the subjects. A correlation analysis could therefore not be performed.

The depth of the following frontal region tissue layers; dermis, subq adipose/fibrous septae, suprafrontalis fascia, frontalis muscle and subfrontalis fascia will be compared to the quantitative measurement of lift in the eyebrow region to determine if there is or is not a correlation

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Day 90 and 180 post-treatment

Population: Quantitative assessment of lift was not performed due to lack of consistency and usability of pre- and post-treatment images and inconsistencies in head positioning of the subjects. A correlation analysis could therefore not be performed.

The depth of the following temple region tissue layers; dermis, subq adipose/fibrous septae, SMAS and temporalis muscle will be compared to the quantitative measurements of lift in the eyebrow region to determine if there is or is not a correlation.

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Day 90 and 180 post-treatment

Population: Quantitative assessment of lift was not performed due to lack of consistency and usability of pre- and post-treatment images and inconsistencies in head positioning of the subjects. A correlation analysis could therefore not be performed.

The depth of the following cheek tissue layers; dermis, subq adipose/fibrous septae, and SMAS will be compared to the quantitative measurement of lift in the lower face regions to determine if there is or is not a correlation.

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Day 90 and 180 post-treatment

Population: Quantitative assessment of lift was not performed. Lack of consistency and usability of pre- and post-treatment images and inconsistencies in head positioning of the subjects. A correlation analysis could therefore not be performed.

The depth of the following submental tissue layers; dermis, subq adipose/fibrous septae, supraplatysmal fascia, platysma and subplatysmal fascia will be compared to the quantitative measurement of lift in the lower face regions to determine if there is or is not a correlation.

Outcome measures

Outcome data not reported

Adverse Events

Microfocused Ultrasound w/ Visualization

Serious events: 1 serious events
Other events: 3 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Serious adverse events

Serious adverse events
Measure
Microfocused Ultrasound w/ Visualization
n=20 participants at risk
Subject were treated on the full-face and neck area treatment using a standard 800 line treatment with set energy levels (0.90 joules for the 4-4.5mm transducer, 0.30 joules for the 7-3.0mm/7-3.0N transducers and 0.75 joules for the 7-4.5mm transducer). Ultrasound images were captured at the beginning, middle, and end of each treatment section during treatment.
Gastrointestinal disorders
Pancreatitis Acute
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • Baseline up to 180 days

Other adverse events

Other adverse events
Measure
Microfocused Ultrasound w/ Visualization
n=20 participants at risk
Subject were treated on the full-face and neck area treatment using a standard 800 line treatment with set energy levels (0.90 joules for the 4-4.5mm transducer, 0.30 joules for the 7-3.0mm/7-3.0N transducers and 0.75 joules for the 7-4.5mm transducer). Ultrasound images were captured at the beginning, middle, and end of each treatment section during treatment.
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Tibia fracture
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • Baseline up to 180 days
Injury, poisoning and procedural complications
Ligament rupture
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • Baseline up to 180 days
Surgical and medical procedures
Bunion operation
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • Baseline up to 180 days

Additional Information

Public Disclosure Manager

Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH

Phone: +49 69 1503 865

Results disclosure agreements

  • Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
  • Publication restrictions are in place