Goldman, Mitchel P.

Importance Currently, there are no standardized outcome domains or measures in clinical trials for facial aging. Heterogeneity in outcome domains and measurement instruments across clinical trials creates difficulty in directly comparing interventions, determining superior therapies, and developing high-quality meta-analyses. Objective To develop a core outcome set (COS) of essential domains to be reported in clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of interventions for facial aging. Evidence Review PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL were searched from September 2005 to September 2015. An updated search of the same databases was performed from September 2015 to February 2026. Studies were included if (1) they were randomized clinical trial or controlled clinical trial in design, (2) they assessed the efficacy or safety of an intervention for facial aging, (3) they were published in English, and (4) they involved human participants. Complementary sources, including patient interviews, were used to capture further relevant outcomes. Two rounds of Delphi surveys, followed by consensus meetings, were used to identify outcome domains considered most important by both patient and physician stakeholders. Findings The final COS consists of 6 outcome domains: (1) overall convenience of treatment; (2) time to return to normal work and social activity; (3) overall assessment of focused area of treatment (at the point in time when treatment is expected to provide peak benefit); (4) duration of treatment effect; (5) severity of persistent local or systemic adverse events, including pigmentary change, skin texture change, delayed healing, scarring, and serious adverse events; and (6) patient satisfaction with treatment. Conclusions and Relevance The 6 outcome domains identified through a Delphi consensus are recommended for reporting in future facial aging trials to ensure that outcomes that matter most to patients and clinicians are measured and that results are comparable across interventions.

BACKGROUND RelabotulinumtoxinA (RelaBoNT-A) is a complex-free, ready-to-use, liquid botulinum toxin A. OBJECTIVE Efficacy/safety of RelaBoNT-A treatment for lateral canthal lines (LCL). METHODS Randomized adults received RelaBoNT-A (30 U/side; n = 230) or placebo (n = 73) during a 6-month, double-blind, Ph3 study (Relabotulinumtoxin Aesthetic Development Study-2 [READY-2]). Primary end points (Month 1, maximum smile) comprised: composite ≥2-grade responder rate using concurrent LCL severity investigator live assessment (LCL-ILA) and subject live assessment (LCL-SLA); LCL-ILA 0 (none)/1 (mild) responder rate. Subject satisfaction and adverse events were also reported. RESULTS Month 1 composite ≥2-grade responder rates were 51.8% (RelaBoNT-A) and 1.4% (placebo; (p < .001). Month 1 none/mild LCL-ILA responder rates were 87.2% (RelaBoNT-A) and 11.9% (placebo; p < .001). Onset was reported Day 1 by 34%. At Month 6, LCL-ILA responder rates for RelaBoNT-A remained at 23.3% (none/mild) and 35.9% (≥1-grade improvement). Median return to baseline severity was 24.7 weeks; 64% (RelaBoNT-A group) had not returned to baseline at Month 6. RelaBoNT-A satisfaction was high through Month 6 (71%). Mild/moderate treatment-related adverse events occurred in 6.1% (RelaBoNT-A) and 5.5% (placebo). CONCLUSION RelaBoNT-A (60 U) treatment provided statistically significant improvement of moderate-to-severe LCL. One-third of subjects reported onset within 1 day and improvements were maintained through Month 6. Treatment satisfaction was high. RelaBoNT-A was well tolerated.

Importance Laser-assisted drug delivery (LADD) is used for various medical and cosmetic applications. However, there is insufficient evidence-based guidance to assist clinicians performing LADD. Objective To develop recommendations for the safe and effective use of LADD. Evidence Review A systematic literature review of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and MEDLINE was conducted in December 2019 to identify publications reporting research on LADD. A multidisciplinary panel was convened to draft recommendations informed by the systematic review; they were refined through 2 rounds of Delphi survey, 2 consensus meetings, and iterative review by all panelists until unanimous consensus was achieved. Findings Of the 48 published studies of ablative fractional LADD that met inclusion criteria, 4 were cosmetic studies; 21, oncologic; and 23, medical (not cosmetic/oncologic), and 6 publications of nonablative fractional LADD were included at the request of the expert panel, producing a total of 54 studies. Thirty-four studies (63.0%) were deemed to have low risk of bias, 17 studies (31.5%) had moderate risk, and 3 (5.5%) had serious risk. The key findings that informed the guidelines developed by the expert panel were as follows: LADD is safe in adults and adolescents (≥12 years) with all Fitzpatrick skin types and in patients with immunosuppression; it is an effective treatment for actinic keratosis, cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in situ, actinic cheilitis, hypertrophic scars, and keloids; it is useful for epidermal and dermal analgesia; drug delivery may be increased through the application of heat, pressure, or occlusion, or by using an aqueous drug solution; laser settings should be selected to ensure that channel diameter is greater than the delivered molecule; antibiotic prophylaxis is not recommended, except with impaired wound healing; antiviral prophylaxis is recommended when treating the face and genitalia; and antifungal prophylaxis is not recommended. The guideline’s 15 recommendations address 5 areas of LADD use: (I) indications and contraindications; (II) parameters to report; (III) optimization of drug delivery; (IV) safety considerations; and (V) prophylaxis for bacterial, viral, and fungal infections. Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review and Delphi consensus approach culminated in an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for safe and effective use of LADD in a variety of applications. Future research will further improve our understanding of this novel treatment technique.

BACKGROUND Aging of the face and upper neck is a complex process characterized by loss of collagen and elastic fibers, resulting in clinical skin laxity. Noninvasive interventions such as monopolar capacitively coupled radiofrequency (MRF) have gained popularity, offering a safer and more convenient alternative to traditional surgical face lift. The latest MRF device features larger tips, vibration, cooling, and impedance matching. OBJECTIVE We performed the first open-label clinical trial, measuring the efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction of this device for noninvasive lifting and tightening of the face and upper neck. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty subjects 30 to 60 years of age with mild/moderate skin laxity of the face and upper neck were enrolled. After pretreatment with ketorolac 60 mg intramuscular injection, subjects underwent treatment with MRF. Follow-up evaluations were performed on Days 30, 60, and 180. RESULTS Our study demonstrated that the newest generation MRF produced statistically significant improvement in skin laxity 6 months post-treatment, especially in the jowls and melolabial folds. According to the Investigator Global Aesthetic Improvement Score, 73% of subjects had improvement at 6 months post-treatment. Subject satisfaction and improvement questionnaires supported these findings. CONCLUSION Our data coupled with the excellent adverse effect profile validates MRF as an attractive treatment modality for facial and upper neck skin laxity.

BACKGROUND Foam sclerotherapy is a common treatment of lower extremity reticular veins. The effect of different liquid–gas ratios on foam stability and efficacy has been controversial. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the use of 2 different polidocanol (POL) to air ratios for the treatment of reticular veins of the lower extremities. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with lower extremity reticular veins were randomized to foam sclerotherapy with POL mixed with 4 mL of room air for one lower extremity or 2 mL for the other lower extremity. All telangiectasias were treated with glycerin immediately after treatment of the reticular veins. Adverse events (AEs) and efficacy were evaluated by both subject and blinded investigator. RESULTS Thirty subjects completed the study. No statistically significant difference was seen in AEs between the 2 different POL to air ratios by subject questionnaire and blinded investigator scores at all time points. Subjects and blinded investigator reported a mean improvement between 0% and 50% at Day 21 and 26% to 75% at Day 90, which was not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSION Two different POL to air ratios, 1:2 versus 1:4, were similarly safe and efficacious for the treatment reticular veins of the lower extremities.