Scholarlink

Background <p>Prominent nasolabial folds (NLFs) are a typical manifestation of aging. Hyaluronic acid (HA)-based injectable fillers are commonly used for correction. The NICE Study primarily evaluated non-inferiority of STYLAGE<sup>®</sup> L Lidocaine (STYL-L), a cross-linked HA filler with lidocaine, versus the similar product Juvéderm<sup>®</sup> ULTRA 3 (JUV-3) in correcting moderate to severe NLFs.</p> Methods <p>This was a double-blind, randomized, controlled, within-subject (split-face) study with 12 months follow-up. The primary endpoint was mean change in Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) score from baseline to 6 months after treatment initiation. Secondary endpoints included differences in NLF depth using interference fringe projection profilometry, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), subject satisfaction, pain during injection, and tolerance.</p> Results <p>Of the 50 subjects randomized, 47 were analyzed. In the primary endpoint analysis, non-inferiority of STYL-L to JUV-3 was demonstrated as the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was inferior to 0.5 (difference [95% CI] in WSRS change from baseline at 6 months was 0.11 [−0.07; 0.28]). NLF average depth was similarly reduced with STYL-L and JUV-3 at 1 month (adjusted mean [standard error] decrease of 0.049 [0.003] mm and 0.049 [0.004] mm, respectively), and generally maintained. Both evaluators and subjects considered NLFs improved, with all or almost all subjects classed as GAIS responders with both devices throughout the study. Overall subject satisfaction was high. Pain ratings were low. Both devices were well tolerated.</p> Conclusions <p>Non-inferiority of STYL-L versus JUV-3 in improving NLFs was demonstrated. Results up to 12 months suggest comparable effectiveness and safety profiles.</p> Level of Evidence I <p>This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors <a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Effectiveness and Safety of STYLAGE® L Lidocaine in the Treatment of Nasolabial Folds (NICE Study): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Split-Face Controlled Study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月19日

查看全文
  • Sophie Converset-Viethel,
  • Magdalena Dobosz,
  • Martine Baspeyras,
  • Kamila Skretkowicz-Szarmach,
  • Kai-Uwe Schlaudraff

摘要

Background

Prominent nasolabial folds (NLFs) are a typical manifestation of aging. Hyaluronic acid (HA)-based injectable fillers are commonly used for correction. The NICE Study primarily evaluated non-inferiority of STYLAGE® L Lidocaine (STYL-L), a cross-linked HA filler with lidocaine, versus the similar product Juvéderm® ULTRA 3 (JUV-3) in correcting moderate to severe NLFs.

Methods

This was a double-blind, randomized, controlled, within-subject (split-face) study with 12 months follow-up. The primary endpoint was mean change in Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) score from baseline to 6 months after treatment initiation. Secondary endpoints included differences in NLF depth using interference fringe projection profilometry, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), subject satisfaction, pain during injection, and tolerance.

Results

Of the 50 subjects randomized, 47 were analyzed. In the primary endpoint analysis, non-inferiority of STYL-L to JUV-3 was demonstrated as the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) was inferior to 0.5 (difference [95% CI] in WSRS change from baseline at 6 months was 0.11 [−0.07; 0.28]). NLF average depth was similarly reduced with STYL-L and JUV-3 at 1 month (adjusted mean [standard error] decrease of 0.049 [0.003] mm and 0.049 [0.004] mm, respectively), and generally maintained. Both evaluators and subjects considered NLFs improved, with all or almost all subjects classed as GAIS responders with both devices throughout the study. Overall subject satisfaction was high. Pain ratings were low. Both devices were well tolerated.

Conclusions

Non-inferiority of STYL-L versus JUV-3 in improving NLFs was demonstrated. Results up to 12 months suggest comparable effectiveness and safety profiles.

Level of Evidence I

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.