Methods: A total of 10 dermatologists/aesthetic physicians served on the advisory board. A modified version of the Delphi method was used to arrive at consensus. Members accessed an online platform to review statements on skin quality criteria from their peers, including treatment and measurement options, and voted to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed. Statements that did not have agreement were modified and the members voted again. Consensus was defined as: strong consensus = greater than 95% agreement; consensus = 75% to 95% agreement; majority consent = 50% to 75% agreement; no consensus = less than 50% agreement.

Results: There was strong consensus that good skin quality is defined as healthy, youthful in appearance (appearing younger than a person's chronological age), undamaged skin and that skin quality can be described across all ethnicities by four emergent perceptual categories (EPCs): skin tone evenness, skin surface evenness, skin firmness, and skin glow. The EPCs can be affected by multiple tissue layers (ie, skin surface quality can stem from and be impacted by deep structures or tissues). This means that topical approaches may not be sufficient. Instead, improving skin quality EPCs can require a multilayer treatment strategy.

Methods: An international panel of experts in the field of aesthetic medicine convened to develop guidelines on effective and safe injection technique when performing treatments with the CPM-HA range of soft-tissue fillers.

Results: Consensus members considered treatment indications in the upper, middle and lower face. Landmark deficiencies and anatomical considerations are described for each indication and consensus recommendations provided on the optimal product, injection depth and treatment technique. This is supplemented by the experts advice on avoidance of complications. Throughout, an evidence-based approach to selection of products and injection techniques is provided. The result is a fully tailored approach to a range of indications covering the full portfolio of CPM-HA products, including the newest addition for skin revitalization.

Materials and Methods: A review of the literature was performed through databases such as PubMed using keywords including HA-fillers and complications, delayed HA filler sequelae and therapy, soft tissue and dermal filler reactions and management. Additionally, a survey comprised of questions regarding the management and treatment of DIRs was sent to 18 physicians highly experienced with soft-tissue filler injections in 10 countries. Their answers and recommendations were analyzed and debated amongst these panelists.

Results: Sixteen panelists favored antibiotic therapy as first-line treatment for DIRs, specifically dual antibiotic therapy consisting of a fluoroquinolone along with a tetracycline or macrolide for a period of 3-6 weeks. The majority refrained from the use of intralesional (IL) or systemic steroids except in the case of disfiguring or recalcitrant reactions. IL hyaluronidase was recommended by 13 panelists; however, some preferred a watchful waiting approach for a period of 48 hours to 2 weeks prior to IL hyaluronidase, and in cases where antibiotics did not lead to improvement.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, active comparator-controlled trial of 51 patients aged 18 years or older with a clinical diagnosis of mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris was conducted at the Hospital Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah, Universiti Putra Malaysia. The efficacy and tolerability of once-daily adapalene 1.0% were assessed during the 2-week run-in period. Subsequently, patients were randomized to receive either an add-on investigational LicA-containing sunscreen or niacinamide-containing comparator sunscreen every 4 hourly during daytime for 4 weeks. Patients were followed up at Weeks 2 and 4 to assess for improvement in acne severity, PAH, calorimetric parameters and cutaneous tolerability.

RESULTS: Two weeks of adapalene usage significantly improved acne severity; however, up to 52% of patients experienced dryness, burning and stinging. Adding LicA-containing or comparator sunscreens was associated with further improvement in acne severity, PAH and calorimetric parameters at the study endpoint. No significant differences in the cutaneous tolerability profiles were observed between treatment groups. Notably, significantly fewer patients receiving LicA-containing sunscreen developed scaliness at Week 4 compared with those in the comparator group. In addition, more patients receiving LicA-containing sunscreen reported less dryness, burning and stinging reactions than the comparator group. Importantly, more patients receiving LicA-containing sunscreen agreed that their treatment led to excellent improvement than the comparator group; of note, one patient reported that their condition worsened with the receipt of the comparator product.

METHODS: Study protocol: three intradermal injections of a PN HPT-based Class III CE-marked medical device at T0 (baseline assessment and first treatment session), T1 (four weeks after baseline), and T2 (eight weeks after baseline), with efficacy and safety evaluations at T1, T2, T3 (four months after baseline) and T4 (six months after baseline). Quantitative and qualitative assessments: 3D skin analysis system QuantifiCare and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS, Investigator and Patient subscales).

RESULTS: PN HPT treatment led to a meaningful and statistically significant improvement of the skin surface, firmness, pigmentation, and radiance, with no early- or late-onset adverse events and benefits persisting up to the sixth-month visit in all subjects. At T4, 33% and 43% of treated subjects felt "Much Improved" and "Very Much Improved" (optimal result); 56% and 44% of treated subjects felt "Satisfied" or "Very Satisfied". At T4, the mean Investigator GAIS scores were 3.33 out of 5.0 for the "Skin Tone Evenness" skin quality perceptual category, 3.46 for the "Skin Surface Evenness" category, 3.61 for "Skin Firmness", and 3.45 per for the radiance determinant of the "Skin Glow" category.