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 of Variable‐Particle Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Fillers in Patients with Skin of Color: A Randomized, Evaluator‐Blinded Comparative Trial

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 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 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.

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

Six-month safety results of calcium hydroxylapatite for treatment of nasolabial folds in Fitzpatrick skin types IV to VI

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

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

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

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

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

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 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 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

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

Evaluation of the Filling Effects and Safety of an Injectable Gel Based on A Multi-Crosslinked Hyaluronan (Mu.C.H) Technology for the Correction of Facial Ageing Defects

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

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

Comparison of 2 Fillers for Lip Injection-A Randomized-Controlled Clinical Trial Assessed by 3D Imaging

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