{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: A 52-week follow-up, multi-center, randomized, double-blinded comparison of efficacy and safety of two hyaluronic acid fillers for the treatment of moderate-to-severe nasolabial folds in Chinese population.
{Author}: Shao H;Wang L;Tang J;Chen L;Zhang S;Chen Q;Wang C;Yang J;Li W;Zhao H;
{Journal}: J Dermatolog Treat
{Volume}: 35
{Issue}: 1
{Year}: 2024 Dec
{Factor}: 3.23
{DOI}: 10.1080/09546634.2024.2378165
{Abstract}: <B>UNASSIGNED: </B>To investigate the efficacy and safety of Cutegel® MAX (Cutegel) in the correction of moderate-to-severe nasolabial folds (NLFS) compared to Restylane® (Restylane, control).<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>This study was a 52-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, active-controlled clinical trial. Qualified participants with moderate-to-severe NLFs were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive Cutegel or Restylane. For the primary efficacy endpoint, the response rate was defined as the percentage of subjects exhibiting an improvement of at least one-point based on blinded evaluation of Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) at 24 weeks after injection. Other secondary efficacy endpoints and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Of 340 subjects randomized, 317 completed the week 52 visit. In the per protocol set (PPS), the blinded evaluator-assessed response rates at week 24 were 81.17% for Cutegel versus 77.56% for Restylane (p =  0.327). The between-group treatment differences in response rates were 3.60% [95% confidence interval (CI) = (-5.39%, 12.60%)], which demonstrated the noninferiority of Cutegel. Other secondary efficacy endpoints supported this. No significant differences were observed in the occurrence of adverse events between the two groups.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Similar to Restylane, Cutegel was effective and well tolerated in correcting moderate-to-severe NLFs among the Chinese population.<BR>Nasolabial folds (NLFs) are among the early indicators of facial aging process. In the past, rhytidectomy has been considered a safe procedure, yet it continues to carry risks such as hematoma, skin necrosis, nerve injury, and infection. With the ongoing development of biomaterials including hyaluronic acid (HA), minimally invasive injection procedures for the aesthetic correction of NLFs have become the preferred choice in recent years. The widespread use of HA has resulted in the development of various types of commercial HA fillers, such as Cutegel and Restylane. It is well known that HA filler products produce varying effects, attributable to differences in their components and physical properties. Previous studies have established that Restylane is a safe and effective HA dermal filler for the correction of NLFs. However, there is a lack of studies on both the cosmetic results and safety data for Cutegel in the published literature. Therefore, a randomized, double-blinded, active-controlled clinical trial was conducted at seven Chinese hospitals to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Cutegel for the correction of moderate-to-severe NLFs, compared to the approved Restylane in China. Among the 340 randomized subjects, 170 subjects received Cutegel, and 169 subjects received Restylane. Both groups reported similar improvements in WSRS (the between-group treatment differences in response rates exceeded the prespecified noninferiority margins), and also in other efficacy evaluations. Additionally, the two treatment groups showed similar safety profiles. In summary, Cutegel proved to be well tolerated and effective in this randomized, active-controlled clinical study, demonstrating its noninferiority to Restylane and validating its use as an alternative treatment for Chinese subjects with moderate-to-severe NLFs.