Dover, Jeffrey S.

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.

ABSTRACTObjectivesTo achieve consensus among expert laser surgeons on standards for the prevention and management of adverse events from fully ablative laser resurfacing of the face.Materials and MethodsDelphi study with two rounds of ratings and revisions until consensus was achieved. The draft set of statements was developed by a steering committee based on expert clinical experience. This was followed by two rounds of rating and revisions completed by an expert panel, then a virtual consensus meeting. In both rounds, respondents rated the draft statements on a 9‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 9 = strongly agree) and optionally provided comments. The consensus meeting was supplemented by the results of a systematic review of the literature (from 2000 to 2023).ResultsTwo rounds of Delphi survey were completed by 34 participants across four countries. Represented specialties were dermatology, facial plastic surgery, plastic surgery, and oculoplastic surgery. The initial 105 statements from round 1 expanded to 112 in round 2, with 96 statements achieving consensus. These included possible adverse events (11 statements); absolute and relative contraindications to treatment (5 statements); preoperative care and antimicrobial prophylaxis precautions (16 statements); intraoperative precautions (17 statements); postoperative care (21 statements); monitoring for and management of infection (16 statements); management of pigmentation changes (6 statements); and management of scarring and incipient scarring (4 statements).ConclusionAn international consensus statement was developed for the prevention and management of complications associated with fully ablative laser resurfacing of the face. While expert practices vary, key factors for optimizing outcomes include careful patient selection, counseling, and meticulous pre‐ and postoperative care. Further research will improve our understanding of this treatment technique.

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.