PMID- 31074161
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20191213
LR  - 20191217
IS  - 1473-2165 (Electronic)
IS  - 1473-2130 (Linking)
VI  - 18
IP  - 3
DP  - 2019 Jun
TI  - A multi-center comparative efficacy and safety study of two different hyaluronic 
      acid fillers for treatment of nasolabial folds in a Chinese population.
PG  - 755-761
LID - 10.1111/jocd.12916 [doi]
AB  - BACKGROUND: Nonsurgical injectable treatments, including hyaluronic acid (HA) 
      fillers, are increasingly used in Asian patients. AIMS: To demonstrate the 
      efficacy and safety of Restylane Lyft compared to Restylane for the correction of 
      nasolabial folds (NLFs). PATIENTS/METHODS: This was a randomized, 
      evaluator-blinded, split-face, 12-month study conducted in China using Restylane 
      Lyft in the aesthetic correction of moderate to severe NLFs among adult subjects. 
      One NLF was treated with Restylane Lyft, and the opposite NLF with the comparator 
      Restylane. Efficacy outcomes included improvement in the Wrinkle Severity Rating 
      Scale (WSRS) and aesthetic improvement (using the Global Aesthetic Improvement 
      Scale [GAIS] assessed by the subject and blinded evaluator) for each treatment at 
      Months 3, 6 (primary objective based on WSRS), 9, and 12. Safety was evaluated by 
      the incidence of injection site reactions and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A 
      total of 100 subjects were randomized to the treatments. Noninferiority for 
      Restylane Lyft was established according to blinded evaluation of WSRS at 
      6 months after last treatment. Similarly, the WSRS improved throughout the study, 
      and the responder rate (improvement in WSRS of >/=1 grade from Baseline) was 
      sustained after 6 months (64% and 65% for NLFs treated with Restylane and 
      Restylane Lyft, respectively). For GAIS after 6 months, improvement was 
      approximately 80% in both groups. No treatment-related serious AEs were reported. 
      The safety profiles were similar between the two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Similar 
      to Restylane, Restylane Lyft was effective and well tolerated for treatment of 
      moderate to severe NLFs in this Chinese population.
CI  - (c) 2019 The Authors. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology Published by Wiley 
      Periodicals, Inc.
FAU - Li, Dong
AU  - Li D
AUID- ORCID: 0000-0003-4955-8008
AD  - Peking University Third Hospital, Beijing, China.
FAU - Sun, Jiaming
AU  - Sun J
AD  - Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College Huazhong University of Science and 
      Technology, Wuhan, China.
FAU - Wu, Sufan
AU  - Wu S
AD  - Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Hangzhou, China.
LA  - eng
GR  - Galderma/
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Equivalence Trial
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Multicenter Study
PT  - Randomized Controlled Trial
DEP - 20190510
PL  - England
TA  - J Cosmet Dermatol
JT  - Journal of cosmetic dermatology
JID - 101130964
RN  - 0 (Dermal Fillers)
RN  - 9004-61-9 (Hyaluronic Acid)
RN  - S270N0TRQY (Restylane)
SB  - IM
MH  - Adult
MH  - China
MH  - Cosmetic Techniques/*adverse effects
MH  - Dermal Fillers/*administration & dosage/adverse effects
MH  - Double-Blind Method
MH  - Esthetics
MH  - Female
MH  - Humans
MH  - Hyaluronic Acid/administration & dosage/adverse effects/*analogs & derivatives
MH  - Incidence
MH  - Injection Site Reaction/*epidemiology/etiology
MH  - Male
MH  - Middle Aged
MH  - Nasolabial Fold
MH  - *Skin Aging
MH  - Treatment Outcome
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS)
OT  - chinese
OT  - hyaluronic acid
OT  - nasolabial folds
OT  - restylane
OT  - restylane Lyft
EDAT- 2019/05/11 06:00
MHDA- 2019/12/18 06:00
CRDT- 2019/05/11 06:00
PHST- 2018/11/16 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2019/02/10 00:00 [revised]
PHST- 2019/02/12 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2019/05/11 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2019/12/18 06:00 [medline]
PHST- 2019/05/11 06:00 [entrez]
AID - 10.1111/jocd.12916 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - J Cosmet Dermatol. 2019 Jun;18(3):755-761. doi: 10.1111/jocd.12916. Epub 2019 May 
      10.