Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Patient Satisfaction and Efficacy of Full-Facial Rejuvenation Using a Combination of Botulinum Toxin Type A and Hyaluronic Acid Filler

Molina, Beatriz MD*; David, Michel MD; Jain, Ravi MD; Amselem, Moisés MD§; Ruiz-Rodriguez, Ricardo MD; Ma, May Y. PhD; Kerrouche, Nabil MSc; Georgantopoulos, Sotirios P. PhD; Radeau, Thierry PhD#; Boineau, Dominique MD**

doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000000548
Original Article
Free

BACKGROUND Combination treatments using hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers and botulinum toxin Type A (BoNT-A) are common in aesthetic medicine; however, this has been evaluated in only a few clinical studies.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate subject satisfaction, efficacy, and safety of BoNT-A (Speywood Unit; s.U) and a range of HA fillers for full-facial aesthetic rejuvenation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS A 6-month, multicenter, open-label clinical study, using BoNT-A (s.U) and 5 HA fillers to treat up to 13 facial zones. Subject satisfaction questionnaires were administered 3 weeks and 6 months after the last injection. Global aesthetic improvement and improvement on each treated zone as well as safety were evaluated.

RESULTS A high level of satisfaction was achieved throughout the study, with 96.5% of subjects at least satisfied with the full-facial aesthetic outcome at 3 weeks, and 92.9% at 6 months. More than 91% considered the treatment outcome to meet or surpass their expectations, and more than 94% would recommend the treatment to others. At Week 3, subject and investigator assessment showed aesthetic improvement for all subjects. The treatment was well tolerated.

CONCLUSION The combination of BoNT-A (s.U) and HA fillers results in high patient satisfaction and in an overall improvement of aesthetic outcomes and quality of life.

*Medikas, Somerset, United Kingdom;

Private Practice, Metz, France;

Riverbanks Clinic, Bedfordshire, United Kingdom;

§Clínica Moisés Amselem, Madrid, Spain;

Clínica Dermatológica Internacional Skinlogic, Madrid, Spain;

Galderma R&D, Sophia Antipolis, France;

#Freelance office, Epinay-Sous-Sénart, France;

**AESTHETICS, Bordeaux, France

Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Beatriz Molina, MD, Medikas, 5 Vestry Road Street, Somerset BA16 0HY, United Kingdom, or e-mail: beatriz@medikas.wanadoo.co.uk

B. Molina, M. David, R. Jain, M. Amselem, R. Ruiz-Rodriguez, and D. Boineau received investigator fees for conducting the study. M. Y. Ma, N. Kerrouche, and S. P. Georgantopoulos are employees of Galderma R&D. T. Radeau is a freelance medical writer and received payment for the production of this manuscript. Supported by Galderma R&D.

In aesthetic medicine, patient satisfaction is a strong motivating factor for patient retention1 and benefits of treatments go well beyond aesthetic improvements.2 To provide harmonious results, a full-facial approach should be adopted, taking the 3-dimensional aspects of aging into account.3 Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) and soft-tissue hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers can be used in combination for injection at multiple tissue levels and in different facial areas to correct static wrinkles, volume loss, and structural failure.3–53–53–5

BoNT-A (Speywood Unit; s.U) (Abobotulinum toxin A) (Azzalure; Ipsen Pharma, Boulogne-Billancourt, France) is an efficacious and safe option for the treatment of facial wrinkles indicated for moderate to severe glabellar lines.6–116–116–116–116–116–11

In addition, a range of nonanimal stabilized HA dermal fillers Restylane (RES) have been developed and studied for facial soft-tissue augmentation.12–1512–1512–1512–15

Although full-facial treatments are currently adopted in real practice, they have been investigated only in a few studies. There is still a lack of information on combination treatments with BoNT-A and fillers, and how the results of full-facial treatments are appreciated by the patients.16,1716,17 This study evaluated the subject satisfaction, efficacy, and safety of BoNT-A (s.U) and the RES filler range in combination for full-facial aesthetic rejuvenation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Methods and Subjects

This was a 6-month multicenter, open-label clinical study performed in 6 clinical centers in France, Spain, and the United Kingdom. The study included male and female subjects, aged 18 to 64 years, seeking treatment for correction of dynamic wrinkles on the upper third of the face, and correction of facial volume loss in the mid and lower face. Subjects who had previously undergone a surgical facelift or had permanent dermal fillers in the face were excluded from the study. Subjects with previous, nonpermanent soft-tissue augmentation or BoNT-A treatment could be included following a washout period of at least 6 months. The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee and Health Authorities and was conducted according to Good Clinical Practice and the ethical guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. All subjects gave their informed written consent before participation.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Treatments Administered

At baseline, investigators administered BoNT-A (s.U) as follows: for glabellar lines, 5 injection points with 10 s.U/point; for the horizontal forehead lines, 4 to 6 injections with 5 to 10 s.U/point; for lateral canthal lines, 3 injections per side with 10 s.U/point. The HA gel filler range (Restylane range; Q-Med AB, Uppsala, Sweden) comprised Restylane Lidocaine (HA-R), Restylane Perlane Lidocaine (HA-P), Restylane Sub-Q Lidocaine (HA-Q), Restylane Lip Volume (HA-LV) and Restylane Lip Refresh (HA-LR). The area to be treated was chosen by the investigator based on the protocol and subject expectations. Touch-up injection(s) could be performed 3 weeks after the first injections.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Study Evaluation and Clinical Outcomes

Subjects completed a satisfaction questionnaire 3 weeks and 6 months after the last injection, as well as the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index (WHO-5) (1998 version) and the Heatherton & Polivy State Self-Esteem Scale (HPSS)18 questionnaires at each evaluation time.

Clinical evaluations were performed at baseline (before first injection), 3 weeks, 4 months, and 6 months post-injection. Global aesthetic improvement from baseline was rated by the investigator and by the subjects at each postbaseline study visit using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS), a 5-point scale from −1 (worse) to 3 (very much improved).19 Lateral canthal lines and glabellar lines were scored at rest and at maximum contraction by the investigators at each evaluation time using a 4-point severity scale from 0 (none) to 3 (severe).20,2120,21 Forehead wrinkle severity was scored on a 4-point scale from 0 (none) to 3 (severe).22 Nasolabial folds, marionette lines, and upper lines were scored using the Lemperle Rating Scale, a 5-point scale from 0 (no wrinkles) to 5 (very deep wrinkle, redundant fold).23 Lip enhancement was assessed based on the Lip Fullness Grading Scale, a 5-point scale from 0 (very thin lip) to 4 (full lip).24 The tear trough depth was scored on a 5-point scale from 0 (0 mm) to 4 (4 mm).25 For cheeks, cheekbones, chin and jawlines, the investigator aesthetic improvement from baseline was rated using a 5-point GAIS scale. In addition, the lifting effect was assessed by the investigator compared with baseline photographs, using a 5-point scale from 0 (worsening) to 4 (extremely effective). Adverse events (AEs) reported by the subject or observed by the investigator were recorded at each study visit.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Data Handling and Statistical Methods

Statistical analyses were carried out on the intent-to-treat population, including all enrolled subjects. All variables and/or changes from baseline (before first injection) were described using usual statistics for quantitative or qualitative data accordingly. When the right/left areas were injected and evaluated, the worst scores across both sides were used for qualitative variables and the mean between sides for continuous variables. No inferential analysis was performed except for the quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires, where the differences from baseline were tested using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Results

Participants and Injection Information

Sixty subjects were enrolled with a mean age of 47.6 years. Of those, 57 subjects completed the 6-month follow-up, whereas 3 subjects (5%) discontinued (1 due to unrelated serious AE, and 2 lost to follow-up). Most of them had moderate to severe wrinkles or folds in the upper, mid, and lower face (Table 1).

TABLE 1

TABLE 1

The 3 upper face indications were the most frequently treated sites: lateral canthal lines in 96.7% of subjects, glabellar lines in 95.0%, and forehead wrinkles in 73.3%. Nasolabial folds and marionette lines were the most frequently treated sites in the mid and lower face (73.3% and 68.3% of subjects, respectively), followed by cheekbone (63.3%) and cheek (56.7%) augmentation (Figure 1). Overall, most subjects (63.3%) were treated for 6 to 9 indications with a median of 8.

Figure 1

Figure 1

The HA products used for each zone are summarized in Figure 2. HA-P was the most frequently used filler followed by HA-R. When treated, nasolabial folds, marionette lines, jawline, tear trough, the chin and temples were most frequently treated with HA-P. The 2 volumizing indications (cheekbones and cheeks) were mostly treated with HA-Q, and upper lip lines were exclusively treated with HA-R. HA-LV and HA-LR were used in 25.0% and 30.0% of subjects, respectively.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Back to Top | Article Outline

Subject Satisfaction

Three weeks after the last injection, 96.5% of subjects were satisfied/very satisfied with the overall full-facial aesthetic outcome, and the treatment met/surpassed the expectations of 96.5% of subjects (Figure 3A,B); 80.7% had received positive/very positive feedback about their looks. In addition, 96.5% agreed/strongly agreed that the overall treatment result looked natural, 91.4% that they looked more the way they felt, and 86.0% that they felt more attractive.

Figure 3

Figure 3

Six months after the last injection, subjects were still satisfied/very satisfied (92.9%) with the overall full-facial aesthetic outcome and the treatment expectation was met/surpassed (91.2%) (Figure 3A,B). Overall, 92.8% of subjects were satisfied/very satisfied regarding the durability of the results (Figure 3C), and 91.2% of subjects felt better since the injections were performed (Figure 3D). Regarding future treatment, 94.5% of subjects would recommend such treatment, and 96.4% would like to receive the same treatment again.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Efficacy

Three weeks after the last injection, a global aesthetic improvement was obtained in 100% of subjects according to investigators and subjects (Figure 4). The improvement was sustained up to 6 months for 96.6% and 94.8% according to investigators and subjects, respectively (Figures 5–7Figures 5–7Figures 5–7).

Figure 4

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 5

Figure 6

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 7

A decrease in mean severity scores and an increase in Lip Fullness Grading Scale scores showed improvement of all treatment areas at 3 weeks after the last injection and this improvement was in the mid and lower face (Table 2). In addition, the investigator rated the lifting effect as at least effective in 96.7% and 79.0% of subjects 3 weeks and 6 months after last injection, respectively.

TABLE 2

TABLE 2

Back to Top | Article Outline

Quality of Life

According to the WHO-5 QoL questionnaire total score, there was a statistically significant increase at 3 weeks (p = .008) and 4 months (p = .037) compared with baseline, indicating an improvement in QoL. At 6 months, a trend of improvement was still observed (not statistically significant) (data not shown). The self-esteem questionnaire, indicated a higher self-esteem with a statistically significant increase from baseline in HPSS total score at 3 weeks (p < .001), 4 months (p = .002), and 6 months (p = .006).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Safety

The total mean injected dose per subject for BoNT-A (s.U) was 136 ± 48.0 s.U (range, 40–292 s.U), whereas for RES products it was 7.9 ± 5.0 mL (range, 2.3–19.4 mL).

Overall, 14 subjects (23%) reported a total of 29 treatment-related AEs. These AEs were mild in intensity (except 1 moderate bruising and 1 moderate skin swelling), and resolved spontaneously. One AE (eyelid ptosis) was related to BoNT-A (s.U) and 28 AEs were related to RES fillers (skin swelling in 9 subjects, and bruising in 4 subjects). Two subjects experienced serious AEs (1 cerebral infarction and 1 colon cancer) not related to treatment.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Discussion

This study assessed the satisfaction of subjects treated with BoNT-A (s.U) and HA fillers for full-facial rejuvenation. Most previous clinical studies in facial treatment generally showed a high subject satisfaction.2,26–282,26–282,26–282,26–28 However, these studies are restricted to a limited number of treatment areas using one or a few HA fillers. In the present study, a complete facial treatment (up to 13 treatment areas) combining BoNT-A (s.U) and HA fillers produced an overall aesthetic improvement, with high subject satisfaction sustained up to 6 months after the last injection. Moreover, there is a lack of data that assess parameters including youthful appearance, natural look, harmony, or psychosocial parameters. In this study, most subjects reported that the combined full-facial treatment produced a natural look at 3 weeks and that the durability of results up to 6 months was satisfactory/very satisfactory. Consequently, approximately 95% of subjects reported that they would recommend injections to family or friends and that they would like to receive the same treatment again. These results are consistent with the idea that the primary expectation in patients seeking minimally invasive facial procedures is to look as natural as possible to reflect the personality and expression, and to protect inner contentment or self-esteem.29

The current literature suggests that a number of psychosocial domains may be improved following facial cosmetic procedures30 and a high satisfaction probably mediates more well-being and self-esteem. Full-facial treatment may reduce negative mood and affect QoL.31 Dayan and colleagues32 reported that treatment of facial wrinkles with BoNT-A significantly improved QoL parameters related to enjoyment, satisfaction with life, and self-esteem 2 weeks and 3 months after treatment. In our study using 2 validated QoL questionnaires (WHO-5 and HPSS), the subjects' well-being and self-esteem were still significantly improved up to 4 and 6 months, respectively, after full-facial treatment.

More than 96% of subjects were satisfied with the full-facial aesthetic outcome at 3 weeks and approximately 93% at 6 months. This high level of satisfaction was consistent with the GAIS assessed by the investigators or subjects. Injections at individual zones were effective and efficacy/durability results were consistent with previous reports on glabellar lines, crow's feet, nasolabial folds, and other periorbital zones.8,128,12 The lifting effect remained enhanced in 79.0% of subjects 6 months after the injection.

This study provides information on the sites of injection and doses of BoNT-A (s.U) and RES filler range, which could be used in combination in different zones for full-facial rejuvenation. The high volume of HA used is consistent with that of similar studies of HA fillers.27,2827,28 Combination of HA fillers in the full face with BoNT-A (s.U) in the upper face was well tolerated with no particular safety concern.

In this study, large quantities of products were used, which would be associated with a high cost for this treatment. Therefore, the high patient satisfaction observed might not simulate precisely patient expectations in a clinical setting. Although this study is limited by the noncomparative, open-label design, it included a relatively high number of subjects compared with similar studies of facial rejuvenation. The high level of safety and efficacy obtained for full-facial rejuvenation using a combination of treatments is consistent with a previous study,33,3433,34 suggesting that full-facial treatment with various products leads to a better outcome or longer duration than treatment with each product alone.

In conclusion, full-facial treatment combining BoNT-A (s.U) and RES fillers led to a holistic improvement of global aesthetic outcomes and a sustained effect observed up to 6 months after injection. Treatment of a single facial area may often be suboptimal and therefore, the face should be evaluated and treated as a whole. In combination treatment, muscle inactivation by BoNT-A (s.U) may ultimately improve durability of HA fillers, thus prolonging aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction. The treatment fulfilled subject expectations, particularly in terms of natural look, durability of treatment, inner contentment, self-esteem, QoL and was safe and well tolerated.

Back to Top | Article Outline

References

1. Prakash B. Patient satisfaction. J Cutan Aesthet Surg 2010;3:151–5.
2. Finn J, Cox SE, Earl ML. Social implications of hyperfunctional facial lines. Dermatol Surg 2003;29:450–5.
3. Carruthers JD, Glogau RG, Blitzer A; For Facial Aesthetics Consensus Group Faculty. Advances in facial rejuvenation: botulinum toxin type a, hyaluronic acid dermal fillers, and combination therapies-consensus recommendations. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008;121(Suppl 5):5S–30S.
4. Carruthers J, Carruthers A. Botulinum toxin type A treatment of multiple upper facial sites: patient-reported outcomes. Dermatol Surg 2007;33:S10–7.
5. Ascher B, Talarico S, Cassuto D, Escobar S, et al.. International consensus recommendations on the aesthetic usage of botulinum toxin type A (Speywood Unit)—Part I: upper facial wrinkles. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2010;24:1278–84.
6. Cavallini M, Cirillo P, Fundarò SP, Quartucci S, et al.. Safety of botulinum toxin A in aesthetic treatments: a systematic review of clinical studies. Dermatol Surg 2014;40:525–36.
7. Rzany B, Ascher B, Monheit G. Treatment of glabellar lines with botulinum toxin type A (Speywood Unit): a clinical overview. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2010;24(Suppl 1):1–14.
8. Kane M, Donofrio L, Ascher B, Hexsel D, et al.. Expanding the use of neurotoxins in facial aesthetics: a consensus panel's assessment and recommendations. J Drugs Dermatol 2010;9:s7–22.
9. Nestor MS, Ablon GR. The frontalis activity measurement Standard: a novel contralateral method for assessing botulinum neurotoxin type-A activity. J Drugs Dermatol 2011;10:968–72.
10. Nettar KD, Yu KC, Bapna S, Boscardin J, et al.. An internally controlled, double-blind comparison of the efficacy of onabotulinumtoxinA and abobotulinumtoxinA. Arch Facial Plast Surg 2011;13:380–6.
11. Ascher B, Rzany BJ, Grover R. Efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of lateral crow's feet: double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study. Dermatol Surg 2009;35:1478–86.
12. Cohen JL, Dayan SH, Brandt FS, Nelson DB, et al.. Systematic review of clinical trials of small- and large-gel-particle hyaluronic acid injectable fillers for aesthetic soft tissue augmentation. Dermatol Surg 2013;39:205–31.
13. DeLorenzi C, Weinberg M, Solish N, Swift A. The long-term efficacy and safety of a subcutaneously injected large-particle stabilized hyaluronic acid-based gel of nonanimal origin in esthetic facial contouring. Dermatol Surg 2009;35(Suppl 1):313–21.
14. Glogau RG, Bank D, Brandt F, Cox SE, et al.. A randomized, evaluator-blinded, controlled study of the effectiveness and safety of small-gel-particle hyaluronic acid for lip augmentation. Dermatol Surg 2012;38(7 Pt 2):1180–92.
15. Bertucci V, Lin X, Axford-Gatley RA, Theisen MJ, et al.. Safety and effectiveness of large gel particle hyaluronic acid with lidocaine for correction of midface volume loss. Dermatol Surg 2013;39:1621–9.
16. Dubina M, Tung R, Bolotin D, Mahoney AM, et al.. Treatment of forehead/glabellar rhytide complex with combination botulinum toxin a and hyaluronic acid versus botulinum toxin A injection alone: a split-face, rater-blinded, randomized control trial. J Cosmet Dermatol 2013;12:261–6.
17. Beer KR, Julius H, Dunn M, Wilson F. Remodeling of periorbital, temporal, glabellar, and crow's feet areas with hyaluronic acid and botulinum toxin. J Cosmet Dermatol 2014;13:143–50.
18. Heatherton TF, Polivy J. Development and validation of a scale for measuring state self-esteem. J Pers Soc Psychol 1991;60:895–910.
19. Narins RS, Dayan SH, Brandt FS, Baldwin EK. Persistence and improvement of nasolabial fold correction with nonanimal-stabilized hyaluronic acid 100,000 gel particles/mL filler on two retreatment schedules: results up to 18 months on two retreatment schedules. Dermatol Surg 2008;34(Suppl 1):S2–8.
20. Honeck P, Weiss C, Sterry W, Rzany B. Reproducibility of a four-point clinical severity score for Glabellar frown lines. Br J Dermatol 2003;149:306–10.
21. Hund T, Ascher B, Rzany B. Reproducibility of two four-point clinical severity scores for Lateral Canthal Lines (crow's feet). Dermatol Surg 2006;32:1256–60.
22. Rzany B, Ascher B, Fratila A, Monheit GD, et al.. Efficacy and safety of 3- and 5-injection patterns (30 and 50 U) of botulinum toxin A (Dysport) for the treatment of wrinkles in the glabella and the central forehead region. Arch Dermatol 2006;142:320–6.
23. Lemperle G, Holmes RE, Cohen SR, Lemperle SM. A classification of facial wrinkles. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001;108:1735–50.
24. Carruthers A, Carruthers J, Hardas B, Kaur M, et al.. A validated lip fullness grading scale. Dermatol Surg 2008;34(Suppl 2):S161–6.
25. Sadick NS, Bosniak SL, Cantisano-Zilkha M, Glavas IP, et al.. Definition of the tear trough and the tear trough rating scale. J Cosmet Dermatol 2007;6:218–22.
26. Ascher B, Zakine B, Kestemont P, Baspeyras M, et al.. A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of efficacy and safety of 3 doses of botulinum toxin A in the treatment of glabellar lines. J Am Acad Dermatol 2004;51:223–33.
27. Taub AF, Sarnoff D, Gold M, Jacob C. Effect of multisyringe hyaluronic acid facial rejuvenation on perceived age. Dermatol Surg 2010;36:322–8.
28. Rzany B, Cartier H, Kestemont P, Trevidic P, et al.. Full-face rejuvenation using a range of hyaluronic acid fillers: efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction over 6 months. Dermatol Surg 2012;38(7 Pt 2):1153–61.
29. Wollina U, Goldman A. Hyaluronic acid Dermal Fillers: safety and efficacy for the treatment of wrinkles, aging skin, body sculpturing and medical conditions. Clin Med Rev Ther 2011;3:107–21.
30. Imadojemu S, Sarwer DB, Percec I, Sonnad SS, et al.. Influence of surgical and minimally invasive facial cosmetic procedures on psychosocial outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA Dermatol 2013;149:1325–33.
31. Lewis MB, Bowler PJ. Botulinum toxin cosmetic therapy correlates with a more positive mood. J Cosmet Dermatol 2009;8:24–6.
32. Dayan SH, Arkins JP, Patel AB, Gal TJ. A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled health-outcomes survey of the effect of botulinum toxin type a injections on quality of life and self-esteem. Dermatol Surg 2010;36(Suppl 4):2088–97.
33. Carruthers J, Carruthers A, Monheit GD, Davis PG. Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study of onabotulinumtoxinA and hyaluronic acid dermal fillers (24-mg/ml smooth, cohesive gel) alone and in combination for lower facial rejuvenation: satisfaction and patient-reported outcomes. Dermatol Surg 2010;36(Suppl 4):2135–45.
34. Carruthers A, Carruthers J, Monheit GD, Davis PG, Tardie G. Multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study of the safety and effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA and hyaluronic acid dermal fillers (24-mg/ml smooth, cohesive gel) alone and in combination for lower facial rejuvenation. Dermatol Surg 2010;36(Suppl 4):2121–34.
© 2015 by the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, Inc. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.