Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
To compare the safety and efficacy profiles of Revanesse Shape + with Lidocaine versus Juvederm Voluma with Lidocaine for subcutaneous and/or supraperiosteal injection to improve appearance through the correction of age-related mid-face volume deficit in patients 22 years of age through 65 years of age.
Midface volume deficit / lipoatrophy (loss of subcutaneous adipose tissue that is most apparent in the face) may be associated with acquired conditions, the aging process, or based on genetic causes.
This is a randomized, multicenter, double blind, split-face study in subjects seeking to correct mid-face volume deficit. Subjects will be treated with Revanesse Shape + with Lidocaine on one side of the face and Juvederm Voluma with Lidocaine on the other side of the face. The side of the face for each device will be randomly assigned. The Evaluating Investigator performing the evaluations and the subject will be blinded to the treatment; injections of the study device will be performed by an unblinded Treating Investigator.
At each visit, the blinded Evaluating Investigator evaluations and subject evaluations of the treated areas will be performed and recorded.
The initial treatment will be done at Visit 1 and a touch-up if necessary at Visit 3/Month 1. One optimal correction touch-up can be administered for subjects who experience asymmetrical cheeks after Visit 5/Month 3 and before Visit 7/Month 12 . The Blinded Evaluating Investigator will confirm the asymmetry with at least a 1-grade difference between cheeks. The touch up will be offered on the under-corrected side with the same product that was initially implanted. In addition, subjects will have a safety follow-up telephone call 3 days (± 2 days) after any optimal correction touch-up to correct asymmetry administered between Visit 5/Month 3 and Visit 7/Month 12.
Subjects will be retreated at the Month 12 Visit if a ≥ 1 grade change or return to baseline of the MMVS scores on one or both sides of the face.
Treatment Phase
Evaluations include:
Medicis Mid-face Volume Scale (MMVS) score Global Aesthetic Improvement Score (GAIS) by subject and Evaluating Investigator Nasolabial Folds Wrinkle Severity Rating Score (WSRS) Safety will be assessed by monitoring adverse events (AEs) at all study visits. In addition, other mid-face safety evaluations including firmness, function (movement), mass formation and sensation will be performed at baseline and follow up visits.
Other evaluations include subject overall satisfaction of facial appearance, subject satisfaction with mid-facial region, subject look of mid-face, subject feel of mid-face, subject self-perception of age, subject happiness with contour/shape of mid-face, subject self confidence, subject recommendation to a friend, and subject self perception of age since baseline.
Other analysis includes subject comfort and Unblinded Treating Investigator Ease of Use assessment.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revanesse Shape + with Lidocaine | Active Comparator | Revanesse Shape + with Lidocaine is a clear, colorless gel in 1.2 mL pre-filled syringes with 25 mg/mL of stabilized hyaluronic acid and lidocaine 0.3% w/w. Participants had 1 cheek treated with Revanesse Shape + with Lidocaine |
|
| Juvederm Voluma with Lidocaine | Active Comparator | Juvederm Voluma with Lidocaine is a clear, colorless gel in 1.0 mL pre-filled syringes formulated to a concentration of 20 mg/mL of stabilized hyaluronic acid and lidocaine 0.3% w/w. Participants had 1 cheek treated with Juvederm Voluma with Lidocaine. |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revanesse Shape + with Lidocaine | Device | Revanesse Shape + with Lidocaine. Participants had 1 cheek treated with Revanesse Shape + with Lidocaine |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change from baseline to Visit 6/Month 6 in the Medicis Mid-face Volume Scale (MMVS) score | The blinded evaluating investigator assessed the participant's overall mid-face volume deficit for each cheek using a 4-point photonumeric scale, where: 1=None (fairly full midface) [best] to 4=Substantial (substantial loss of fullness in the mid-face area) [worst]. A negative change from Baseline indicates improvement | Baseline visit to Visit 6/Month 6. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change from baseline to Visit 7/Month 12 in the Medicis Mid-face Volume Scale (MMVS) score | The blinded evaluating investigator assessed the participant's overall mid-face volume deficit for each cheek using a 4-point photonumeric scale, where: 1=None (fairly full midface) [best] to 4=Substantial (substantial loss of fullness in the mid-face area) [worst]. A negative change from Baseline indicates improvement |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Subject overall satisfaction of facial appearance for each side of the face | Overall Satisfaction with Facial Appearance will be assessed at all visits and prior to any treatment by the subject using a 100 mm VAS scale from 0 = very unsatisfied (worst) to 100 = very satisfied (best) | Baseline to Visit 2/Week 2, Visit 3/Month 1, Visit 4/Month 2, Visit 5/Month 3, Visit 6/Month 6, Visit 7/Month 12 and Visit 8/Month 15and every study visit |
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laser Rejuvenation | Calgary | Alberta | T2W 4X9 | Canada | ||
| Alpha Research/Lucere Dermatology |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
A split-face study in subjects seeking to correct mid-face volume deficit. Subjects will be treated with Revanesse Shape + with Lidocaine on one side of the face and Juvederm Voluma with Lidocaine on the other side of the face. The side of the face for each device will be randomly assigned.
Not provided
Not provided
Additionally, the Sponsor's staff conducting the study, and members of the administrative team will not have access to individual subjects' treatment assignments.
| Juvederm Voluma with Lidocaine. | Device | Juvederm Voluma with Lidocaine. Participants had 1 cheek treated with Juvederm Voluma with Lidocaine |
|
| Baseline visit to Visit 7/Month 12 |
| Change in the Nasolabial Folds Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale score at Visit 2/Week 2, Visit 3/Month 1, Visit 4/Month 2, Visit 5/Month 3, Visit 6/Month 6, Visit 7/Month 12 and Visit 8/Month 15 | The blinded evaluating investigator assessed the participant's nasolabial folds for each cheek using a 5-point scale, where: 1=Absent (No visible folds) [best] to 5=Extreme (Extremely deep and long folds) [worst]. A negative change from Baseline indicates improvement | Visit 2/Week 2, Visit 3/Month 1, Visit 4/Month 2, Visit 5/Month 3, Visit 6/Month 6, Visit 7/Month 12 and Visit 8/Month 15 |
| Percent of subjects with clinical success at Visit 6/Month 6 where success is defined as a subject with at least a 1-grade improvement from baseline on the Investigator Global Aesthetic Improvement Score (iGAIS). | Clinical success at Visit 6/Month 6 where success is defined as a subject with at least a 1-grade improvement from baseline on the Investigator Global Aesthetic Improvement Score (iGAIS) a 5-point scale where 1=Worse (the appearance is worse than the original condition) [worst] to 5=Very much improved (optimal cosmetic results) [best]. | Baseline visit to Visit 6/Month 6 |
| Percent of subjects with treatment success at Visit 6/Month 6 where success is defined as a subject with at least a 1-grade improvement from baseline on the Patient Global Aesthetic Improvement Score (pGAIS) | Clinical success at Visit 6/Month 6 where success is defined as a subject with at least a 1-grade improvement from baseline on the Patient Global Aesthetic Improvement Score (pGAIS) a 5-point scale where 1=Worse (the appearance is worse than the original condition) [worst] to 5=Very much improved (optimal cosmetic results) [best]. | Baseline to Visit 6/Month 6 |
| Percent of subjects with treatment success at Visit 7/Month 12 where success is defined as a subject with at least a 1-grade improvement from baseline on the Patient Global Aesthetic Improvement Score (pGAIS) | Clinical success at Visit 7/Month 12 where success is defined as a subject with at least a 1-grade improvement from baseline on the Patient Global Aesthetic Improvement Score (pGAIS) a 5-point scale where 1=Worse (the appearance is worse than the original condition) [worst] to 5=Very much improved (optimal cosmetic results) [best]. | Baseline to Visit 7/Month 12 |
| Subject satisfaction with mid-facial region for each side of the face | Subject satisfaction with mid-facial region will be assessed at all visits and prior to any treatment by the subject using a 100 mm VAS scale from 0 = very unsatisfied (worst) to 100 = very satisfied (best) | Baseline to Visit 2/Week 2, Visit 3/Month 1, Visit 4/Month 2, Visit 5/Month 3, Visit 6/Month 6, Visit 7/Month 12 and Visit 8/Month 15 |
| Subject look of mid-face for each side of the face | Subject look of mid-face will be assessed at all visits and prior to any treatment by the subject using a 100 mm VAS scale from 0 = very unsatisfied (worst) to 100 = very satisfied (best) | Baseline to Visit 2/Week 2, Visit 3/Month 1, Visit 4/Month 2, Visit 5/Month 3, Visit 6/Month 6, Visit 7/Month 12 and Visit 8/Month 15 |
| Subject feel of mid-face for each side of the face | Subject feel of mid-face will be assessed at all visits and prior to any treatment by the subject using a 100 mm VAS scale from 0 = very unsatisfied (worst) to 100 = very satisfied (best) | Baseline to Visit 2/Week 2, Visit 3/Month 1, Visit 4/Month 2, Visit 5/Month 3, Visit 6/Month 6, Visit 7/Month 12 and Visit 8/Month 15 |
| Self-perception of age for each side of the face | Self-perception of age will be assessed at all visits and prior to any treatment by the subject using a 100 mm VAS scale from 0 = very unsatisfied (worst) to 100 = very satisfied (best) | Baseline to Visit 2/Week 2, Visit 3/Month 1, Visit 4/Month 2, Visit 5/Month 3, Visit 6/Month 6, Visit 7/Month 12 and Visit 8/Month 15 |
| Subject happiness with contour/shape of mid-face for each side of the face | Subject happiness with contour/shape of mid-face will be assessed at all visits and prior to any treatment by the subject using a 100 mm VAS scale from 0 = very unsatisfied (worst) to 100 = very satisfied (best) | Baseline to Visit 2/Week 2, Visit 3/Month 1, Visit 4/Month 2, Visit 5/Month 3, Visit 6/Month 6, Visit 7/Month 12 and Visit 8/Month 15 |
| Subject self confidence for each side of the face | Subject's self confidence will be assessed at all visits and prior to any treatment by the subject using a 100 mm VAS scale from 0 = very unsatisfied (worst) to 100 = very satisfied (best) | Baseline to Visit 2/Week 2, Visit 3/Month 1, Visit 4/Month 2, Visit 5/Month 3, Visit 6/Month 6, Visit 7/Month 12 and Visit 8/Month 15 |
| Subject recommendation to a friend for each side of the face | Subjects will be asked if they would recommend the treatment to a friend | Visit 8/Month 15 or study completion if earlier than Month 15 |
| Subject self perception of age since baseline for each side of the face | Subjects will be asked their self perception of age since baseline on a 4 point scale with 1 = Not younger than my actual age (worst) to 4=More than 10 years younger than my actual age (best) | Visit 8/Month 15 or study completion if earlier than Month 15 |
| Edmonton |
| Alberta |
| T6X 0N9 |
| Canada |
| Dermetics | Burlington | Ontario | L7N 3N2 | Canada |
| The Centre for Clinical Trials | Oakville | Ontario | L6J 7W5 | Canada |
| Bertucci MedSpa | Woodbridge | Ontario | L4L 8E2 | Canada |
| Victoria Park Medispa Laval | Laval | Quebec | H7S 1M9 | Canada |
| Erevna Innovations | Westmount | Quebec | H3Z 1C3 | Canada |