Abstract:Background: The hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal filler, Juvederm (R) Ultra, which employs Hylacross (R) technology, produces a gel with a smooth consistency and has demonstrated effectiveness in correcting nasolabial folds (NLFs) in Caucasian populations.Objective:To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Juvederm Ultra vs Restylane (R) for the correction of moderate NLFs in Chinese subjects.Methods: In this double-blind randomized study, adult Chinese subjects with moderate NLFs received Juvederm Ultra (24 mg/mL) in 1 NLF and Restylane injectable gel (20 mg/mL) in the other NLF. NLFs were evaluated using the validated 5-point photonumeric Allergan NLF Severity Scale (NLFSS); scores ranged from 0 ("no wrinkle") to 4 ("very deep wrinkle"). Response was defined as >= 1-point improvement at 6 months. Investigator-assessed responder rate (primary outcome), NLF mean improvement, and subject-assessed responder rate and preference were assessed.Results: Among the 104 subjects who completed the study, median initial volumes (mL) were 0.8 (range, 0.2-1.4) for Juvederm Ultra and 0.8 (0.3-1.5) for Restylane; median touch-up volumes were 0.3 (0.1-0.5) and 0.3 (0.1-0.5), respectively. At 6 months, investigator assessed responder rates were 873% for both products, indicating that Juvederm Ultra was noninferior to Restylane; mean improvement in NLFSS scores from baseline was 1.0 for both products. At 6 months, Juvederm Ultra and Restylane subject-assessed responder rates were 86.3% and 79.4%, respectively, and mean improvement in NLFSS scores from baseline was 1.2 and 1.0, respectively. Among subjects who expressed a preference, 57.9% preferred Juvederm Ultra. For both products, the most commonly reported treatment site responses were swelling, firmness, and tenderness; treatment site responses were generally mild or moderate in severity. Juvederm Ultra had fewer severe responses than Restylane.Conclusions: Juvederm Ultra is noninferior to Restylane and is a safe and effective treatment for correcting moderate NLFs in Chinese subjects.

Efficacy and Safety of Two Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Fillers in the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Nasolabial Folds: A 64-Week, Prospective, Multicenter, Controlled, Randomized, Double-Blinded, and Within-Subject Study.

Efficacy and durability of two hyaluronic acid-based fillers in the correction of nasolabial folds: results of a prospective, randomized, double-blind, actively controlled clinical pilot study

Efficacy and Safety of 3 New Resilient Hyaluronic Acid Fillers, Crosslinked With Decreased BDDE, for the Treatment of Dynamic Wrinkles: Results of an 18-Month, Randomized Controlled Trial Versus Already Available Comparators.

A randomized, split-face, double-blind, comparative study of the safety and efficacy of small- and large-particle hyaluronic acid fillers for the treatment of nasolabial folds

Efficacy and safety of a new monophasic hyaluronic acid filler in the correction of nasolabial folds: a randomized, evaluator-blinded, split-face study

A Randomized, Multicenter Study on a Flexible Hyaluronic Acid Filler in Treatment of Moderate-to-severe Nasolabial Folds in a Chinese Population

A Multi-Center Comparative Efficacy and Safety Study of Two Different Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Treatment of Nasolabial Folds in a Chinese Population.

Safety and efficacy of hyaluronic acid for the correction of nasolabial folds: a meta-analysis.

A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Split-Face, Comparative Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of DKL23 and Juvéderm Volift for Correcting Moderate-to-Severe Nasolabial Folds

Clinical Comparison Between Two Hyaluronic Acid-Derived Fillers in the Treatment of Nasolabial Folds in Chinese Subjects: BioHyalux Versus Restylane.

The Efficacy and Safety of DermalaxTM DEEP in the Correction of Moderate to Severe Nasolabial Folds: a Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Study.

Effectiveness and Safety of Resilient Hyaluronic Acid (RHA) Dermal Fillers for the Correction of Moderate-to-Severe Nasolabial Folds in People of Color: Post Hoc Subgroup Analyses of US Pivotal Clinical Data

A multicenter, randomized, double-blind clinical study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new monophasic hyaluronic acid filler with lidocaine 0.3% in the correction of nasolabial fold

A Randomized Clinical Trial of Comparing Monophasic Monodensified and Biphasic Nonanimal Stabilized Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Fillers in Treatment of Asian Nasolabial Folds

A Single-Center, Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Safety of a New Monophasic Hyaluronic Acid Filler and Biphasic Filler in Correcting Nasolabial Fold

A Multicenter Noninferiority Study Comparing Safety and Effectiveness of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Correction of Nasolabial Folds in Chinese Subjects

Long-term Safety and Effectiveness of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers Correcting Nasolabial Folds in Chinese Patients

Safety and Effectiveness of Hyaluronic Acid Injectable Gel in Correcting Moderate Nasolabial Folds in Chinese Subjects.

Evaluation of the Long‐term Safety and Biodegradability of Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Fillers (YVOIRE®) for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds: Two Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Cohort Studies

A Randomized, Evaluator-Blinded, Multi-Centered Study to Compare Injectable Poly-D, L-Lactic Acid Versus Hyaluronic Acid for Nasolabial Fold Augmentation

Efficacy and Safety of Fillers for the Treatment of Nasolabial Folds: A Network meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials