Goodman, Greg

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.

AbstractBackgroundThe growing popularity of aesthetic procedures involving fillers, biostimulators, and neurotoxins has prompted concerns about patient safety. To address these concerns, a global Safety Task Force (STF) was formed.AimsThe inaugural STF meeting prioritized vascular compromise prevention and management, guiding clinical trial design and materials for future meetings, and collecting data from experts on current safety methods.MethodsThe STF was formed and consisted of 16 experts from nine different countries, with each possessing distinct expertise in various fields related to aesthetic injectables. Current safety data, protocols, knowledge gaps and future research priorities were discussed and voted upon.ResultsThe establishment of a global database for tracking filler‐related AEs was favored by 93% of participants. Discussions revolved around the database's scope, data standardization, and whether non‐medical contributors should be included. Aspiration as a safety technique garnered support from 73% of participants. Approximately 43% of participants incorporate ultrasound in their injections, with divergent opinions on its impact and potential when used as a standard of practice versus in AE management. Most physicians on the task force incorporated cannula use for some of their injections (93%). There were varying perspectives on treatments for vascular adverse events (VAE), the primary causes, and the adoption of new protocols in the field.ConclusionsThe STF meeting underscored the need for a coordinated effort to address complications related to HA fillers, including VAE management and hyaluronidase protocols. Reliable treatment endpoints were evaluated, but improved measurement methods are needed. Future meetings will focus on addressing delayed complications, furthering safety in this field.