Sculptra Aesthetic Post-Approval Study

July 5, 2023 updated by: Galderma R&D

A Prospective, Open-Label, Multicenter Study to Evaluate the Long-Term Safety of Sculptra®Aesthetic in Immuno-Competent Subjects Stratified by Fitzpatrick Skin Type I-VI)

Study is designed to assess the long-term safety of Sculptra Aesthetic in immune-competent subjects as a single regimen for correction of nasolabial fold (NLF) contour deficiencies and other facial wrinkles.

Study Overview

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

867

Phase

  • Phase 4

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

    • Alabama
      • Birmingham, Alabama, United States, 32405
        • Galderma Study Site
    • California
      • Encino, California, United States, 91436
        • Galderma Study Site
      • Hermosa Beach, California, United States, 90254
        • Galderma Study Site
      • San Diego, California, United States, 92121
        • Galderma Study Site
      • Solana Beach, California, United States, 92075
        • Galderma Study Site
    • Florida
      • Aventura, Florida, United States, 33180
        • Galderma Study Site
      • Boca Raton, Florida, United States, 33486
        • Galderma Study Site
      • Coral Gables, Florida, United States, 33146
        • Galderma Study Site
      • Miami, Florida, United States, 33137
        • Galderma Study Site
    • Illinois
      • Buffalo Grove, Illinois, United States, 60089
        • Galderma Study Site
    • New Jersey
      • Hackensack, New Jersey, United States, 07601
        • Galderma Study Site
    • New York
      • New York, New York, United States, 10016
        • Galderma Study Site
      • White Plains, New York, United States, 10604
        • Galderma Study Site
    • Tennessee
      • Nashville, Tennessee, United States, 37215
        • Galderma Study Site
    • Texas
      • Austin, Texas, United States, 78746
        • Galderma Study Site
      • Houston, Texas, United States, 77056
        • Galderma Study Site
      • Plano, Texas, United States, 75093
        • Galderma Study Site
    • Washington
      • Spokane, Washington, United States, 99202
        • Galderma Study Site

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

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years to 75 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

1. Subjects seeking correction of shallow to deep NLF contour deficiencies.

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Subjects seeking, at entry into the study, correction of other facial wrinkles with Sculptra Aesthetic in the following anatomical sites/lines: horizontal forehead lines, glabellar frown lines, periorbital lines, periauricular lines, upper lip lines, lower lip lines, corner of the mouth lines and/or horizontal neck folds.
  2. Subjects that are less than 18 or greater than 75 years of age.

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: N/A
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Sculptra Aesthetic
Other Names:
  • Sculptra Aesthetic

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Percentage of Participants With Any Injection Site Nodule and/or Papule
Time Frame: Up to 5 years
Nodules and/or papules are a subset of AEIs that does not include hypertrophic scarring, keloid formation, changes in skin pigmentation at the site of injection compared to adjacent skin, granuloma (confirmed by a biopsy), skin necrosis, hypersensitivity reactions, and unexpected changes in wrinkle contour. Reporting of a nodule or papule was based on size (nodule greater than or equal to [>=] 0.5 (cm); papule less than [<] 0.5 cm). Percentage of participants with any injection site nodule and/or papule were reported.
Up to 5 years
Percentage of Participants With Any Adverse Events of Interest (AEIs)
Time Frame: Up to 5 years
AEIs means: "serious or non-serious adverse event that is one of scientific and medical concern specific to the sponsor's product for which ongoing monitoring and rapid communication by the investigator to the sponsor can be appropriate. Examples of AEIs were hypertrophic scarring, keloid formation, hypersensitivity reactions, skin necrosis, unexpected change in wrinkle contour, granuloma, changes in the skin pigmentation at the site of injection compared to adjacent. Percentage of participants with any AEIs (other than injection site nodule and/or papule) were reported.
Up to 5 years

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Change From Baseline in Nasolabial Folds (NLF) Wrinkle Assessment Score (WAS) at Months 6, 13, and Years 2, 3, 4, and 5
Time Frame: Baseline, Months 6,13 and Years 2,3 4,5
NLF severity was assessed by the evaluating investigator from WAS. WAS was based on a 6-point assessment grade where 0=no wrinkles; 1=just perceptible wrinkle; 2=shallow wrinkle; 3=moderately deep wrinkle; 4=deep wrinkle, well-defined edges; 5=very deep wrinkle, redundant fold. The calculations for average WAS was based on data corresponding to only the nasolabial folds (NLFs) treated at the initial visit, that is., only WAS scores for treated sides was considered. The average WAS was calculated from the individual left and right NLFs scores. If the WAS was only available for one side, then the average WAS was the score for the one side.
Baseline, Months 6,13 and Years 2,3 4,5
Change From Baseline in Cheek Folds Wrinkle Assessment Score (WAS) at Months 6, 13, and Years 2, 3, 4, and 5
Time Frame: Baseline, Months 6,13 and Years 2,3 4,5
The WAS is a validated photograph-based outcome instrument that is designed specifically for quantifying facial folds. The physician assessed the left side and the right side of the participant's face using the 5-point scale where scoring of wrinkle severity (grades 0-5, with 0 representing no wrinkles and 5 representing very deep wrinkles, redundant fold) was based on visual live assessment by the investigator at defined timepoints. Higher scores mean a worse outcome.
Baseline, Months 6,13 and Years 2,3 4,5
Change From Baseline in Marionette Lines Wrinkle Assessment Score (WAS) at Months 6, 13, and Years 2, 3, 4, and 5
Time Frame: Baseline, Months 6,13 and Years 2,3 4,5
Marionette Lines severity was assessed by the evaluating investigator from WAS. WAS was based on a 6-point assessment grade where 0=no wrinkles; 1=just perceptible wrinkle; 2=shallow wrinkle; 3=moderately deep wrinkle; 4=deep wrinkle, well-defined edges; 5=very deep wrinkle, redundant fold. The calculations for average WAS was based on data corresponding to only the nasolabial folds (NLFs) treated at the initial visit, that is., only WAS scores for treated sides was considered. The average WAS was calculated from the individual left and right NLFs scores. If the WAS was only available for one side, then the average WAS was the score for the one side.
Baseline, Months 6,13 and Years 2,3 4,5
Change From Baseline in Chin Crease Wrinkle Assessment Score (WAS) at Months 6, 13, and Years 2, 3, 4, and 5
Time Frame: Baseline, Months 6,13 and Years 2,3 4,5
Chin Crease severity was assessed by the evaluating investigator from WAS. WAS was based on a 6-point assessment grade where 0=no wrinkles; 1=just perceptible wrinkle; 2=shallow wrinkle; 3=moderately deep wrinkle; 4=deep wrinkle, well-defined edges; 5=very deep wrinkle, redundant fold. The calculations for average WAS was based on data corresponding to only the nasolabial folds (NLFs) treated at the initial visit, that is., only WAS scores for treated sides was considered. The average WAS was calculated from the individual left and right NLFs scores. If the WAS was only available for one side, then the average WAS was the score for the one side.
Baseline, Months 6,13 and Years 2,3 4,5
Percentage of Participants Improved Versus Not Improved on Investigator Assessment of Facial Appearance Using Global Assessment Scale
Time Frame: At 6,13 months, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years
Efficacy was assessed by overall facial improvement assessed live by the Investigator assessment of facial appearance including the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). The Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale is a subjective test. The investigator independently describes the degree of improvement in facial appearance. Possible scores were + 3: Much improved, +2: Moderately improved, +1: Slightly improved, 0: No change, -1: Slightly worse, -2: Moderately worse, -3: Much worse. 'Not Improved' included participants with scores of 0, -1, -2, and -3 and 'Improved' included participants with scores of 3, 2, and 1. Higher the GAIS value, the greater the improvement.
At 6,13 months, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years
Percentage of Participants Improved Versus Not Improved on Participant Assessment of Facial Appearance Using Global Assessment Scale
Time Frame: At 6,13 months, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years
Efficacy was assessed by overall facial improvement assessed live by the participants assessment of facial appearance including the GAIS. The GAIS is a subjective test. The participant independently describes the degree of improvement in facial appearance. Possible scores were + 3: Much improved, +2: Moderately improved, +1: Slightly improved, 0: No change, -1: Slightly worse, -2: Moderately worse, -3: Much worse. 'Not Improved' included participants with scores of 0, -1, -2, and -3 and 'Improved' included participants with scores of 3, 2, and 1. Higher the GAIS value, the greater the improvement (Range 0 to 3).
At 6,13 months, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Sponsor

Investigators

  • Study Chair: Clinical Operations, Galderma R&D

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 (Actual)

May 21, 2015

Primary Completion (Actual)

May 28, 2021

Study Completion (Actual)

May 28, 2021

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

April 10, 2015

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

April 23, 2015

First Posted (Estimated)

April 24, 2015

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

July 27, 2023

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

July 5, 2023

Last Verified

July 1, 2023

More Information

Terms related to this study

Other Study ID Numbers

  • GLI.04.SPR.US10321

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.

Clinical Trials on Wrinkles

Clinical Trials on injectable poly-L-lactic acid Sculptra Aesthetic

3
Subscribe