Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2021 May;20(5):1467-1473.
doi: 10.1111/jocd.13773. Epub 2020 Oct 21.

Efficacy and safety of a new hyaluronic acid filler for nasolabial folds: A 52-week, multicenter, randomized, evaluator/subject-blind, split-face study

Hye In Cheon  1 , Jin Hee Kim  1 , Beom Joon Kim  2 , Yang Won Lee  1   3
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Efficacy and safety of a new hyaluronic acid filler for nasolabial folds: A 52-week, multicenter, randomized, evaluator/subject-blind, split-face study

Hye In Cheon et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021 May.

Abstract

Background: Hyaluronic acid fillers are known to be effective for correction of nasolabial folds. Recently, a novel biphasic hyaluronic acid filler incorporating lidocaine, DIVAVIVA medium has been introduced.

Objectives: We compared the efficacy and safety between DIVAVIVA medium and Restylane Perlane Lidocaine for moderate to severe nasolabial folds.

Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, evaluator/subject-blind, active-controlled, split-face study. A study 1 evaluated the efficacy and safety until 24 weeks. Extension study, study 2, included subjects who wanted to enroll and evaluated the efficacy and safety until 52 weeks. The Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) score, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, and Visual Analogue Scale measuring pain were evaluated. All adverse events were monitored.

Results: The mean change of WSRS at week 24 was -0.61 ± 0.54 in DIVAVIVA medium group and -0.59 ± 0.49 in Restylane Perlane Lidocaine group. The difference between two groups was 0.08, which was lower than noninferior limit. In study 2, the mean change of WSRS score at week 52 from baseline was -0.01 ± 0.62 in DIVAVIVA group, 0.06 ± 0.57 in Restylane Perlane Lidocaine group. The primary and secondary efficacy outcomes were also achieved in study 1 and 2. There was no significant difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups.

Conclusion: DIVAVIVA medium has comparable efficacy and safety with Restylane Perlane Lidocaine for correction of moderate to severe nasolabial folds.

Keywords: filler; hyaluronic acid; nasolabial folds.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES

    1. Cameli N, Mariano M, Serio M, Berardesca E. Clinical and instrumental evaluation of a cross-linked hyaluronic acid filler dermal injection: effects on nasolabial folds skin biophysical parameters and augmentation from a single-dose, monocentric, open-label trial. G Ital Dermatol Venereol. 2016;151(5):507-514.
    1. Gilchrest BA. Skin aging and photoaging: an overview. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1989;21(3):610-613.
    1. Narins RS, Coleman WP 3rd, Donofrio LM, et al. Improvement in nasolabial folds with a hyaluronic acid filler using a cohesive polydensified matrix technology: results from an 18-month open-label extension trial. Dermatol Surg. 2010;36(Suppl 3):1800-1808.
    1. Prager W, Wissmueller E, Havermann I, et al. A prospective, split-face, randomized, comparative study of safety and 12-month longevity of three formulations of hyaluronic acid dermal filler for treatment of nasolabial folds. Dermatol Surg. 2012;38(7 Pt 2):1143-1150.
    1. Jin SP, Han SB, Kim YK, et al. Changes in tight junction protein expression in intrinsic aging and photoaging in human skin in vivo. J Dermatol Sci. 2016;84(1):99-101.

Publication types

Substances

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources