Trial reportJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Noninferiority Study Comparing the Efficacy and Safety of a New Hyaluronic Acid (HA) Filler Containing Lidocaine With an Existing HA Filler for the Treatment of Nasolabial Fold Wrinkles: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Split-Face Trial.
Trial report in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06310863 (Pivotal Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Injection With LASBEAU Strong as Compared to Restylane® Lyft Lidocaine in Temporary Correction of Nasolabial Folds), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Pivotal Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Injection With LASBEAU Strong as Compared to Restylane® Lyft Lidocaine in Temporary Correction of Nasolabial Folds
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aesthetic use of hyaluronic acid (HA) has led to the development of various commercial HA fillers. Crosslinked HA dermal fillers are commonly used to treat facial wrinkles. This study demonstrated the non-inferiority of the newly developed hyaluronic acid filler by comparing its efficacy and safety to that of the existing hyaluronic acid filler.
methodsThis 48-week study was designed as a randomized, double-blind, split-face trial. Subjects who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria had a total of four follow-up visits after receiving a dermal filler in the nasolabial folds. Efficacy was assessed using the Wrinkle Severity Rating Score (WSRS) and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). Safety was determined through the evaluation of laboratory tests, monitoring adverse events, and verifying vital signs.
resultsWSRS measured at week 24 of the follow-up visit showed no statistically significant difference, with scores of 2.02 ± 0.71 in the new filler group and 2.27 ± 0.68 in the existing filler group. Even at the 48-week follow-up visit, the improvement rate in the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) of more than 1 point did not show a statistically significant difference between the new filler group and the existing filler group. The GAIS scores at each follow-up visit showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups. The most frequently reported symptoms related to the test device during the 48-week trial were pain and swelling. However, these symptoms were not statistically significant when compared to the control group from a treatment perspective.
conclusionsIn a 48-week clinical trial aimed at treating nasolabial fold (NLF) wrinkles, the new hyaluronic acid (HA) filler demonstrated efficacy and safety comparable to that of existing control filler. As a result, the new HA filler is both an effective and safe option for improving NLF wrinkles.
trial registrationThis study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under the registration number NCT06310863.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.