Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial details imported from ClinicalTrials.gov
For full trial details, please see the original record at
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01029535
Registration number
NCT01029535
Ethics application status
Date submitted
8/12/2009
Date registered
10/12/2009
Date last updated
9/03/2016
Titles & IDs
Public title
Safety and Efficacy of Juvederm® VOLUMA™ for Correction of Mid-face Volume Deficiency
Query!
Scientific title
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
0
0
VOL-AP01
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Mid-face Volume Deficiency
0
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Treatment: Devices - Cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel
Experimental: Juvederm® VOLUMA™ - Juvederm® VOLUMA™ injected in both sides of face (up to 4 mL per side) at Investigator's discretion to achieve at least a 2-point improvement in the Mid-face Volume Deficit Scale. Participants who completed Week 8 of Phase 1 were eligible to participate in Phase 2 and could receive an additional optional treatment if applicable.
Treatment: Devices: Cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel
Cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel (Juvederm® VOLUMA™) up to 4 mLs injected in each side of the face.
Query!
Intervention code [1]
0
0
Treatment: Devices
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Query!
Control group
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With a = 1 Point Improvement From Baseline in the Subject's Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) at Week 4
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
The participant rated their midface appearance compared to Baseline (before treatment) using the 5-point GAIS scale where:-2=much worse to +2=much improved. The percentage of participants +1=improved and +2=much improved is reported.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
Baseline, Week 4
Query!
Primary outcome [2]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With a = 1 Point Improvement From Baseline in the Subject's Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) at Week 8
Query!
Assessment method [2]
0
0
The participant rated their midface appearance compared to Baseline (before treatment) using the 5-point GAIS scale:-2=much worse to +2=much improved. The percentage of participants +1=improved and +2=much improved is reported.
Query!
Timepoint [2]
0
0
Baseline, Week 8
Query!
Primary outcome [3]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With a = 1 Point Improvement From Baseline in the Physician's Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) at Week 4
Query!
Assessment method [3]
0
0
The physician rated the participant's midface appearance compared to Baseline (before treatment) using the 5-point GAIS scale:-2=much worse to +2=much improved. The percentage of participants +1=improved and +2=much improved is reported.
Query!
Timepoint [3]
0
0
Baseline, Week 4
Query!
Primary outcome [4]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With a = 1 Point Improvement From Baseline in the Physician's Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) at Week 8
Query!
Assessment method [4]
0
0
The physician rated the participant's midface appearance compared to Baseline (before treatment) using the 5-point GAIS scale:-2=much worse to +2=much improved. The percentage of participants +1=improved and +2=much improved is reported.
Query!
Timepoint [4]
0
0
Baseline, Week 8
Query!
Primary outcome [5]
0
0
Percentage of Participants a =1 Point Improvement From Baseline in the Physician's Mid-face Volume Deficit Scale (MFVDS) at Week 4
Query!
Assessment method [5]
0
0
The physician determined the degree of midface volume deficiency in each participant, relative to Baseline (before treatment) using the 6-point MFVDS: 0=no facial volume loss to 5=severe volume loss.
Query!
Timepoint [5]
0
0
Baseline, Week 4
Query!
Primary outcome [6]
0
0
Percentage of Participants a = 1 Point Improvement From Baseline in the Physician's Mid-face Volume Deficit Scale (MFVDS) at Week 8
Query!
Assessment method [6]
0
0
The physician determined the degree of midface volume deficiency in each participant, relative to Baseline (before treatment) using the 6-point MFVDS: 0=no facial volume loss to 5=severe volume loss.
Query!
Timepoint [6]
0
0
Baseline, Week 8
Query!
Primary outcome [7]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 MFVDS Scores at Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [7]
0
0
The physician determined the degree of midface volume deficiency in each participant at week 8 and Week 52, relative to before treatment using the 6-point MFVDS: 0-no facial volume loss to 5=severe volume loss. The percentage of participants who are able to maintain their Week 8 score is reported.
Query!
Timepoint [7]
0
0
Baseline, Week 8, Week 52
Query!
Primary outcome [8]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 MFVDS Scores at Week 78
Query!
Assessment method [8]
0
0
The physician determined the degree of midface volume deficiency in each participant at week 8 and Week 78, relative to before treatment using the 6-point MFVDS: 0-no facial volume loss to 5=severe volume loss. The percentage of participants who are able to maintain their Week 8 score is reported.
Query!
Timepoint [8]
0
0
Baseline, Week 8, Week 78
Query!
Primary outcome [9]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 MFVDS Scores at Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [9]
0
0
The physician determined the degree of midface volume deficiency in each participant at week 8 and Week 104, relative to before treatment using the 6-point MFVDS: 0-no facial volume loss to 5=severe volume loss. The percentage of participants who are able to maintain their Week 8 score is reported.
Query!
Timepoint [9]
0
0
Baseline, Week 8, Week 104
Query!
Primary outcome [10]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 Subject's GAIS Scores at Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [10]
0
0
The participant rated their midface appearance compared to before treatment at Week 8 and Week 52 using the 5-point GAIS scale:-2=much worse to +2=much improved. The percentage of participants who are able to maintain their Week 8 score is reported.
Query!
Timepoint [10]
0
0
Baseline, Week 8, Week 52
Query!
Primary outcome [11]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 Subject's GAIS Scores at Week 78
Query!
Assessment method [11]
0
0
The participant rated their midface appearance compared to before treatment at Week 8 and Week 78 using the 5-point GAIS scale:-2=much worse to +2=much improved. The percentage of participants who are able to maintain their Week 8 score is reported.
Query!
Timepoint [11]
0
0
Baseline, Week 8, Week 78
Query!
Primary outcome [12]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 Subject's GAIS Scores at Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [12]
0
0
The participant rated their midface appearance compared to before treatment at Week 8 and Week 104 using the 5-point GAIS scale:-2=much worse to +2=much improved. The percentage of participants who are able to maintain their Week 8 score is reported.
Query!
Timepoint [12]
0
0
Baseline, Week 8, Week 104
Query!
Primary outcome [13]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 Physician's GAIS Scores at Week 52
Query!
Assessment method [13]
0
0
The physician rated the participant's midface appearance compared to before treatment at Week 8 and Week 52 using the 5-point GAIS scale:-2=much worse to +2=much improved. The percentage of participants who are able to maintain their Week 8 score is reported.
Query!
Timepoint [13]
0
0
Baseline, Week 8, Week 52
Query!
Primary outcome [14]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 Physician's GAIS Scores at Week 78
Query!
Assessment method [14]
0
0
The physician rated the participant's midface appearance compared to before treatment at Week 8 and Week 78 using the 5-point GAIS scale:-2=much worse to +2=much improved. The percentage of participants who are able to maintain their Week 8 score is reported.
Query!
Timepoint [14]
0
0
Baseline, Week 8, Week 78
Query!
Primary outcome [15]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 Physician's GAIS Scores at Week 104
Query!
Assessment method [15]
0
0
The physician rated the participant's midface appearance compared to before treatment at Week 8 and Week 104 using the 5-point GAIS scale:-2=much worse to +2=much improved. The percentage of participants who are able to maintain their Week 8 score is reported.
Query!
Timepoint [15]
0
0
Baseline, Week 8, Week 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
0
0
Percentage of Participants With a = 1 Point Improvement From Baseline in the Investigator's Wrinkle Assessment Scale (WAS)
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
The physician assessed the left side and the right side of the participant's face for severity of nasolabial folds using the 5-point WAS where: 0=no wrinkle to 4=very deep wrinkle.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 52, 78 and 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
0
0
Change From Baseline in the MFVDS Score
Query!
Assessment method [2]
0
0
The physician determined the degree of midface volume deficiency in each participant, relative to Baseline (before treatment) using the 6-point MFVDS where: 0=no facial volume loss to 5=severe volume loss. A negative change from Baseline indicates improvement.
Query!
Timepoint [2]
0
0
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 52, 78 and 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
0
0
Physician Assessment of Global Aesthetic Improvement Score (GAIS)
Query!
Assessment method [3]
0
0
The physician rated the participant's midface appearance compared to Baseline (before treatment) using the 5-point GAIS scale:-2=much worse to +2=much improved.
Query!
Timepoint [3]
0
0
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 52, 78 and 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
0
0
Subject's Assessment of Global Aesthetic Improvement Score (GAIS)
Query!
Assessment method [4]
0
0
The participant rated their midface appearance compared to Baseline (before treatment) using the 5-point GAIS scale:-2=much worse to +2=much improved.
Query!
Timepoint [4]
0
0
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 52, 78 and 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [5]
0
0
Change From Baseline in the Subject's Self-Perception of Age (SPA)
Query!
Assessment method [5]
0
0
The participant rated their facial age in years at Baseline and Weeks 4, 8, 52, 78 and 104. A negative change from Baseline indicates an improvement.
Query!
Timepoint [5]
0
0
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 52, 78 and 104
Query!
Secondary outcome [6]
0
0
Percentage of Participants Satisfied or Very Satisfied With the Treatment
Query!
Assessment method [6]
0
0
Participants rated their satisfaction with treatment using a 5-Point Scale where: 1=very unsatisfied to 5=very satisfied.
Query!
Timepoint [6]
0
0
Week 8
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
* Subjects with mild to severe mid-face and cheek volume deficit due to age-related changes, who are likely to improve by at least 2 grades following treatment with the study compound, based on a study-specific scale, as assessed by the study physician
Query!
Minimum age
30
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
60
Years
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
* Subjects who have a pre-existing medical condition or who have received any treatments or procedures which may impact on the assessment of the effects of the study compound.
* Subjects with a history of allergies or other side effects to dermal fillers, lidocaine, hyaluronic acid or other component of the study compound.
* Subjects were are pregnant or breast-feeding or who are of child-bearing potential and who are not prepared to practice an adequate form of contraception during the course of the study
* Subjects with a history of alcoholism or drug abuse or dependence
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Treatment
Query!
Allocation to intervention
NA
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Query!
Masking / blinding
Open (masking not used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Single group
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
NA
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Query!
Data analysis
Query!
Reason for early stopping/withdrawal
Query!
Other reasons
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
1/01/2009
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
1/10/2011
Query!
Sample size
Target
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
103
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
Query!
Recruitment hospital [1]
0
0
- Sydney
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [1]
0
0
- Sydney
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Primary sponsor type
Commercial sector/industry
Query!
Name
Allergan
Query!
Address
Query!
Country
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
This is a prospective, open-label experience study to be conducted at 6 clinical sites in Australia, with the objective to collect efficacy and safety information for Juvederm® VOLUMA™ when used for volumising the mid-face and cheek area.
Query!
Trial website
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01029535
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Callan P, Goodman GJ, Carlisle I, Liew S, Muzikants P, Scamp T, Halstead MB, Rogers JD. Efficacy and safety of a hyaluronic acid filler in subjects treated for correction of midface volume deficiency: a 24 month study. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2013 Mar 20;6:81-9. doi: 10.2147/CCID.S40581. Print 2013.
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
0
0
Medical Director
Query!
Address
0
0
Allergan
Query!
Country
0
0
Query!
Phone
0
0
Query!
Fax
0
0
Query!
Email
0
0
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
0
0
Query!
Address
0
0
Query!
Country
0
0
Query!
Phone
0
0
Query!
Fax
0
0
Query!
Email
0
0
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
No information has been provided regarding IPD availability
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Results publications and other study-related documents
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Results are available at
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01029535
Download to PDF