Effectiveness and Safety of Calcium Hydroxylapatite With Lidocaine for Improving Jawline Contour

November 2021 | Volume 20 | Issue 11 | 1231 | Copyright © November 2021


Amir Moradi MDa, Jeremy B. Green MDb, Joel L. Cohen MDc, John H. Joseph MDd, Rada Dakovic PhDe, Gemma Odena PhDf, Amit Verma PhDf, Richard Scher MDf

aMoradi MD, Vista, CA
bSkin Research Institute and Skin Associates of South Florida, Coral Gables, FL
cAboutSkin Dermatology and AboutSkin Research Greenwood Village and Lone Tree, CO; Department of Dermatology, University of California, Irvine, CA
dClinical Testing Center of Beverly Hills, Encino, CA
eMerz Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany
fMerz North America, Inc., Raleigh, NC




majority of patients (94.0%) in the treatment group self-reported some level of improvement on the GAIS (Figure 5). Six (5.2%) patients reported seeing no change, and 1 (0.9%) patient reported looking worse when compared to baseline photographs. At least two blinded IPRs assessed that 53 (47.7%) of 111 patients in the treatment group and 4 (8.2%) of 49 patients in the control group showed a treatment response of 1-point or greater change on both jawlines, showing a difference of 39.6% [25.3%, 50.0%] between groups.

Furthermore, according to FACE-Q VAS, patients in the treatment group self-reported on average looking younger by approximately 3 years at week 12 when compared to baseline.

Safety
CaHA (+) was found to be tolerable and safe at up to three treatment sessions, and during the study's long-term follow-up period. Investigators reported at least one treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE) in 74/175 (42.3%) patients exposed to treatment. Three (3/175, 1.7%) patients had serious TEAEs that were unrelated to the treatment device. No TEAEs leading to study discontinuation were reported.

Overall, 46/175 (26.3%) patients had at least one TEAE that was deemed to be related to treatment by the investigator (Table 2). The most frequently reported treatment-related TEAEs were administration site conditions that were mild, lasted less than 15 days, and resolved without sequelae. Importantly, only one patient injected with needle had treatment-related TEAEs that were severe: injection site bruising (1 event, lasting 16 days) and injection site edema (1 event, lasting 16 days), and both events resolved. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs). Only one patient (0.8%) had one mild treatment-related TEAE with unknown outcome due to being lost to follow-up.

Rates of treatment-related TEAEs were comparable between female (37/144, 25.7%) and male (9/31, 29.0%) subgroups. Rates of patients with treatment-related TEAEs were equally similar and favorable for Fitzpatrick skin type category I to III when compared to skin type category IV to VI (I-III = 30/109, 27.5% and IV-VI = 16/66, 24.2%).

Common treatment responses (CTRs) were self-reported by patients in electronic diaries for 28 days post-treatment. After initial treatment, the majority of patients reported CTRs (eg, swelling, firmness, lumps/bumps, bruising, and discomfort/pain) that were mild (81/175, 46.3%) to moderate (81/175, 46.3%) in nature and had a duration of 14 days or less (1-3 days: 22/175, 12.6%; 4-7 days: 68/175, 38.9%; and 8-14 days: 46/175, 26.3%). CTRs reported in the study were similar for all three diary cycles (initial treatment, touch-up, and retreatment), although incidences of subjects reporting at least 1 CTR tended to be lower after touch-up (77.8%) and re-treatment when compared to initial treatment.