Safety and Efficacy of Juvederm® VOLUMA™ for Correction of Mid-face Volume Deficiency

February 8, 2016 updated by: Allergan
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.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
103

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

30 years to 60 years (ADULT)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

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

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

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: TREATMENT
  • Allocation: NA
  • Interventional Model: SINGLE_GROUP
  • Masking: NONE

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
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.
Device: Cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel
Cross-linked hyaluronic acid gel (Juvederm® VOLUMA™) up to 4 mLs injected in each side of the face.
Other Names:
  • Juvederm® VOLUMA™

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Percentage of Participants With a ≥ 1 Point Improvement From Baseline in the Subject's Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) at Week 4
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 4
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.
Baseline, Week 4
Percentage of Participants With a ≥ 1 Point Improvement From Baseline in the Subject's Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) at Week 8
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 8
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.
Baseline, Week 8
Percentage of Participants With a ≥ 1 Point Improvement From Baseline in the Physician's Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) at Week 4
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 4
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.
Baseline, Week 4
Percentage of Participants With a ≥ 1 Point Improvement From Baseline in the Physician's Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) at Week 8
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 8
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.
Baseline, Week 8
Percentage of Participants a ≥1 Point Improvement From Baseline in the Physician's Mid-face Volume Deficit Scale (MFVDS) at Week 4
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 4
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.
Baseline, Week 4
Percentage of Participants a ≥ 1 Point Improvement From Baseline in the Physician's Mid-face Volume Deficit Scale (MFVDS) at Week 8
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 8
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.
Baseline, Week 8
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 MFVDS Scores at Week 52
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 8, Week 52
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.
Baseline, Week 8, Week 52
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 MFVDS Scores at Week 78
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 8, Week 78
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.
Baseline, Week 8, Week 78
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 MFVDS Scores at Week 104
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 8, Week 104
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.
Baseline, Week 8, Week 104
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 Subject's GAIS Scores at Week 52
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 8, Week 52
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.
Baseline, Week 8, Week 52
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 Subject's GAIS Scores at Week 78
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 8, Week 78
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.
Baseline, Week 8, Week 78
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 Subject's GAIS Scores at Week 104
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 8, Week 104
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.
Baseline, Week 8, Week 104
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 Physician's GAIS Scores at Week 52
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 8, Week 52
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.
Baseline, Week 8, Week 52
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 Physician's GAIS Scores at Week 78
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 8, Week 78
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.
Baseline, Week 8, Week 78
Percentage of Participants Who Maintained Their Week 8 Physician's GAIS Scores at Week 104
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 8, Week 104
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.
Baseline, Week 8, Week 104

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Percentage of Participants With a ≥ 1 Point Improvement From Baseline in the Investigator's Wrinkle Assessment Scale (WAS)
Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 52, 78 and 104
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.
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 52, 78 and 104
Change From Baseline in the MFVDS Score
Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 52, 78 and 104
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.
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 52, 78 and 104
Physician Assessment of Global Aesthetic Improvement Score (GAIS)
Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 52, 78 and 104
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.
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 52, 78 and 104
Subject's Assessment of Global Aesthetic Improvement Score (GAIS)
Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 52, 78 and 104
The participant rated their midface appearance compared to Baseline (before treatment) using the 5-point GAIS scale:-2=much worse to +2=much improved.
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 52, 78 and 104
Change From Baseline in the Subject's Self-Perception of Age (SPA)
Time Frame: Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 52, 78 and 104
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.
Baseline, Weeks 4, 8, 52, 78 and 104
Percentage of Participants Satisfied or Very Satisfied With the Treatment
Time Frame: Week 8
Participants rated their satisfaction with treatment using a 5-Point Scale where: 1=very unsatisfied to 5=very satisfied.
Week 8

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Allergan

Publications and helpful links

The person responsible for entering information about the study voluntarily provides these publications. These may be about anything related to the study.

General Publications

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
January 1, 2009

Primary Completion (ACTUAL)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
April 1, 2011

Study Completion (ACTUAL)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
October 1, 2011

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
December 8, 2009

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
December 9, 2009

First Posted (ESTIMATE)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
December 10, 2009

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (ESTIMATE)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
March 9, 2016

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
February 8, 2016

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
February 1, 2016

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • VOL-AP01

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings