Trial Outcomes & Findings for RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic - Nasolabial Folds (NCT NCT04087395)

NCT ID: NCT04087395

Last Updated: 2022-01-24

Results Overview

Injection pain during injection will be based on the 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), as assessed by subjects immediately after injection of each nasolabial fold. VAS is a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale with 0 meaning no pain and 100 meaning intolerable pain.

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

NA

Target enrollment

30 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

Visit 1 - During Injection

Results posted on

2022-01-24

Participant Flow

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure
Split-face Study : Bilateral Treatment RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Vs RHA® 4-Lidocaine
Split-face injection of RHA® 4 with new anesthetic agent in the NLF on one side of the face and RHA® 4- Lidocaine in the NLF on the opposite side of the face. RHA® 4 with new anesthetic agent was administered in a random sequence (first or second injection) on one side and RHA®4-Lidocaine was administered in the side.
Overall Study
STARTED
30
Overall Study
COMPLETED
30
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
0

Reasons for withdrawal

Withdrawal data not reported

Baseline Characteristics

RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic - Nasolabial Folds

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure
Split-face Study : Bilateral Treatment With RHA®4 With New Anesthetic Agent Vs RHA®4-Lidocaine
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial folds on one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the perioral rhytids on the opposite side of the face
Age, Continuous
57.0 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.7 • n=99 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
27 Participants
n=99 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
3 Participants
n=99 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
12 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 (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
3 Participants
n=99 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
27 Participants
n=99 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
n=99 Participants
Fitzpatrick Skin Type
Types I to III (as assessed by TI at screening)
19 Participants
n=99 Participants
Fitzpatrick Skin Type
Types IV to VI (as assessed by TI at screening)
11 Participants
n=99 Participants

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: Visit 1 - During Injection

Injection pain during injection will be based on the 100 mm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), as assessed by subjects immediately after injection of each nasolabial fold. VAS is a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale with 0 meaning no pain and 100 meaning intolerable pain.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
RHA®4 With New Anesthetic Agent
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
RHA®4-Lidocaine
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
Non-inferiority of RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® 4-Lidocaine in Terms of Reducing Pain During Device Injection Into Nasolabial Folds.
17.1 mm
Standard Deviation 18.38
16.3 mm
Standard Deviation 18.89

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 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 nasolabial fold of each side of the face. VAS is a 100 mm Visual Analog Scale with 0 meaning no pain and 100 meaning intolerable pain

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
RHA®4 With New Anesthetic Agent
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
RHA®4-Lidocaine
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
Difference Between RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® 4-Lidocaine in Term of Reducing Pain at 15, 30, 45 and 60 Minutes Post-injection in Nasolabial Folds of Each Side of the Face.
15 Min
4.9 mm
Standard Deviation 12.33
5.1 mm
Standard Deviation 15.94
Difference Between RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® 4-Lidocaine in Term of Reducing Pain at 15, 30, 45 and 60 Minutes Post-injection in Nasolabial Folds of Each Side of the Face.
30 Min
2.0 mm
Standard Deviation 5.66
3.1 mm
Standard Deviation 12.30
Difference Between RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® 4-Lidocaine in Term of Reducing Pain at 15, 30, 45 and 60 Minutes Post-injection in Nasolabial Folds of Each Side of the Face.
45 Min
0.0 mm
Standard Deviation 0.00
2.1 mm
Standard Deviation 11.68
Difference Between RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® 4-Lidocaine in Term of Reducing Pain at 15, 30, 45 and 60 Minutes Post-injection in Nasolabial Folds of Each Side of the Face.
60 Min
0.0 mm
Standard Deviation 0.00
1.9 mm
Standard Deviation 10.22

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Visit 1 - Baseline (pre-injection), Visit 1 (post-injection), Visit 2 (Day 30)

NLF-WSRS (Nasolabial Folds- Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale) is a validated 5-grade scale with 1 being "Absent" and 5 being "Extreme"

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
RHA®4 With New Anesthetic Agent
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
RHA®4-Lidocaine
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
Change in NLF WSRS Score Between Baseline and Day 30 as Assessed by the Treating Investigator
Visit 1 (post-injection)
-1.8 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.57
-1.8 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.57
Change in NLF WSRS Score Between Baseline and Day 30 as Assessed by the Treating Investigator
Visit 2 (Day 30)
-1.9 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.48
-1.8 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.63

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: 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 NLF WSRS compared to Baseline, as assessed by the TI

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
RHA®4 With New Anesthetic Agent
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
RHA®4-Lidocaine
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
Percentage of Responders Based on the Intra-individual Improvement of at Least One Grade on the Nasolabial Folds Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (NLF-WSRS) Compared to Baseline, as Assessed by the TI
Visit 1 (post-injection) · Responder
30 Participants
30 Participants
Percentage of Responders Based on the Intra-individual Improvement of at Least One Grade on the Nasolabial Folds Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (NLF-WSRS) Compared to Baseline, as Assessed by the TI
Visit 1 (post-injection) · Not Responder
0 Participants
0 Participants
Percentage of Responders Based on the Intra-individual Improvement of at Least One Grade on the Nasolabial Folds Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (NLF-WSRS) Compared to Baseline, as Assessed by the TI
Visit 2 (Day 30) · Responder
30 Participants
29 Participants
Percentage of Responders Based on the Intra-individual Improvement of at Least One Grade on the Nasolabial Folds Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (NLF-WSRS) Compared to Baseline, as Assessed by the TI
Visit 2 (Day 30) · Not Responder
0 Participants
1 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Visit 1 (Baseline) and Visit 2 (Day 30)

FACE-Q questionnaire is composed of 5 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 your nasolabial folds in mind (the deep lines that run downward from the sides of your nose), in the past week, how much have you been bothered by:", and will provide response. To calculate the FACE-Q, outcomes from all 5 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).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
RHA®4 With New Anesthetic Agent
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
RHA®4-Lidocaine
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
Subject's Perception of Treatment Effectiveness as Per the FACE-Q (Nasolabial Folds Domain) Questionnaire. The FACE-Q Measures the Experience and Outcomes of Aesthetic Facial Procedures From the Patient's Perspective.
Baseline Face-Q Score
25.2 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 21.12
24.3 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 20.34
Subject's Perception of Treatment Effectiveness as Per the FACE-Q (Nasolabial Folds Domain) Questionnaire. The FACE-Q Measures the Experience and Outcomes of Aesthetic Facial Procedures From the Patient's Perspective.
Day 30 Face-Q Score
89.0 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 15.19
88.5 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.16
Subject's Perception of Treatment Effectiveness as Per the FACE-Q (Nasolabial Folds Domain) Questionnaire. The FACE-Q Measures the Experience and Outcomes of Aesthetic Facial Procedures From the Patient's Perspective.
Face-Q Change from Baseline to Day 30
63.8 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 24.69
64.2 score on a scale
Standard Deviation 25.06

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Visit 1 (just after receiving treatment) 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. Each side of the face will be assessed independently.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
RHA®4 With New Anesthetic Agent
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
RHA®4-Lidocaine
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
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
30 Participants
Number of Subjects Scored Either "Much Improved" or "Improved" on Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI) by the Treating Investigator (TI)
Visit 2 (Day 30)
30 Participants
29 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Visit 1 (just after receiving treatment) 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: "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.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
RHA®4 With New Anesthetic Agent
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
RHA®4-Lidocaine
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
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
30 Participants
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
30 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: Visit 1 (just after receiving treatment) 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)

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
RHA®4 With New Anesthetic Agent
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
RHA®4-Lidocaine
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
Number of Subjects "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" With Study Treatment Using the Subject's Satisfaction Scale
Visit 1 (post-injection) : Satisfied
30 participants
30 participants
Number of Subjects "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" With Study Treatment Using the Subject's Satisfaction Scale
Visit 1 (post-inj): Not Satisfied
0 participants
0 participants
Number of Subjects "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" With Study Treatment Using the Subject's Satisfaction Scale
Visit 2 (Day 30) : Satisfied (i.e., 1-Very Satisfied + 2-Satisfied)
29 participants
29 participants
Number of Subjects "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied" With Study Treatment Using the Subject's Satisfaction Scale
Visit 2 (Day 30) : Not Satisfied
1 participants
1 participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: During 30 days after injection

The subjects received a diary booklet and instructions for recording their observations of the Common Treatment Responses to the study treatments during 30 days following the injection. The diary were 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 rate "other" if the subject experienced a sign/symptom that is not listed.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
RHA®4 With New Anesthetic Agent
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
RHA®4-Lidocaine
n=30 Participants
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® 4-Lidocaine
Bruising
19 Participants
21 Participants
Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® 4-Lidocaine
Discoloration
11 Participants
12 Participants
Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® 4-Lidocaine
Firmness
24 Participants
22 Participants
Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® 4-Lidocaine
Itching
7 Participants
6 Participants
Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® 4-Lidocaine
Lumps/Bumps
22 Participants
21 Participants
Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® 4-Lidocaine
Pain
12 Participants
9 Participants
Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® 4-Lidocaine
Redness
21 Participants
20 Participants
Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® 4-Lidocaine
Swelling
21 Participants
23 Participants
Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® 4-Lidocaine
Tenderness
24 Participants
24 Participants
Number of Subjects With Post Injection Treatment Responses (From Common Treatment Responses (CTR) Diary) for Safety Evaluation of RHA® 4 With New Anesthetic Agent Versus RHA® 4-Lidocaine
Paresthesia
1 Participants
0 Participants

Adverse Events

RHA®4 With New Anesthetic Agent

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 5 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

RHA®4-Lidocaine

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 4 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

Serious adverse events

Adverse event data not reported

Other adverse events

Other adverse events
Measure
RHA®4 With New Anesthetic Agent
n=30 participants at risk
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
RHA®4-Lidocaine
n=30 participants at risk
Split-face injection of RHA®4 with new anesthetic agent in the nasolabial fold of one side of the face and RHA®4-Lidocaine in the nasolabial fold of opposite side of the face.
General disorders
Injection site induration
10.0%
3/30 • Number of events 3 • approximatly 1 month (35 days, overall study duration)
13.3%
4/30 • Number of events 4 • approximatly 1 month (35 days, overall study duration)
General disorders
Injection site mass
3.3%
1/30 • Number of events 1 • approximatly 1 month (35 days, overall study duration)
0.00%
0/30 • approximatly 1 month (35 days, overall study duration)
General disorders
Injection site pruritus
3.3%
1/30 • Number of events 1 • approximatly 1 month (35 days, overall study duration)
3.3%
1/30 • Number of events 1 • approximatly 1 month (35 days, overall study duration)
Nervous system disorders
Paresthesia oral
3.3%
1/30 • Number of events 1 • approximatly 1 month (35 days, overall study duration)
0.00%
0/30 • approximatly 1 month (35 days, overall study duration)

Additional Information

Clinical Project Manager

TEOXANE SA

Phone: +41(0) 22 344 96 36

Results disclosure agreements

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

Restriction type: GT60