dr. patrick treacy lecture on radiesse to imcas 2008
DESCRIPTION
Lecture about the benefits of the dermal implant Radiesse given at IMCAS Paris 2008 by Dr. Patrick Treacy. Learm more at http://www.ailesburyclinic.ie/TRANSCRIPT
Clinical Research Data
vs. vs.
Medical Disclosure
• Dr. Patrick J. Treacy is a Cosmetic Dermatologist presently on the Specialist Register in Ireland
• I have purchased my own Radiesse product in Ailesbury Clinic.• I have no financial interest or stock in BioForm nor do I receive
any additional remuneration or other compensation for product bought by you as a result of your attendance at this IMAS lecture.
Multi-Centre Research Data
vs. vs.
•Multi Centre •Randomised•Blinded •Comparative Study
Results published in the Dec 2007 Journal of Dermatological Surgery
Comparative StudyRadiesse vs Perlane vs Juvederm 24/24HV
(N=205)
• Comparison of efficacy, durability, and patient satisfaction variables
• Treatment of Nasolabial Folds– Month 0 and 4.
• Results at 4, 8, and 12 month post 2nd injection
Head to Head Studies
1. Radiesse vs. Restylane Trial Design (2 sites)– Split face study, n=60– GAIS, WSRS, and Injection Volume– Live Blinded Evaluator and patient satisfaction questionnaires
2. Radiesse vs. Juvederm & Perlane Trial Design (5 sites)– Patients randomized to one of three treatments (both NL-folds), n=205– GAIS, WSRS, and Injection Volume– Live Blinded Evaluator and patient satisfaction questionnaires
6 Months 9 Months3 Months0 Months
12 Months8 Months4 Months0 Months
Results after 1st treatment
Less volume
vsRestylane
vs Restylane
% of Patients Improved or better (n=60 Split Face)% of Patients Improved or better (n=60 Split Face)% of Patients Improved or better (n=60 Split Face)% of Patients Improved or better (n=60 Split Face)
3 Months 6 Months 9 Months0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
RadiesseRestylane
79%
44%
More Patients improved with Radiesse than with Restylane
Time post 2nd Injection
Comparative Study: Radiesse vs RestylaneGAIS
WSRS = Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale
5 Extreme Extremely deep and long folds, detrimental to facial appearance.
2-4mm Visible V-shaped fold when stretched
Unlikely to have satisfactory correction with injectable implant alone.
4 Severe Very long and deep folds; prominent facial feature.
Less than 2mm visible fold when stretched.
Significant improvement is expected from injectable implant.
3 Moderate Moderately deep folds.
Clear facial feature visible at normal appearance but not when stretched.
Excellent correction is expected from injectable implant.
2 Mild Shallow but visible fold with a slight indentation; minor facial feature.
Implant is expected to produce a slight improvement in appearance.
1 Absent No visible fold, continuous skin line.
1 5
4
3
2
GAIS = Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale
Very Much Improved Optimal cosmetic result for the implant in this patient.
Much Improved Marked improvement in appearance but not completely optimal for this patient. A touch-up would slightly improve the result.
Improved Obvious improvement in appearance from the initial condition, but a touch-up or re-treatment is indicated.
No Change The appearance is essentially the same as the original condition.
Worse The appearance is worse than the original condition.
Comparative StudyRadiesse vs Perlane vs Juvederm 24/24HV
(N=205)
• Comparison of efficacy, durability, and patient satisfaction variables
• Treatment of Nasolabial Folds– Month 0 and 4.
• Results at 4, 8, and 12 month post 2nd injection
% of Patients Improved or better (n=205)% of Patients Improved or better (n=205)% of Patients Improved or better (n=205)% of Patients Improved or better (n=205)
4 Months 8 Months 12 Months
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%RadiessePerlaneJuvederm HV
More Patients improved with Radiesse than with Perlane & Juvederm
Time post 2nd Injection
62%
50%48%
88%
53%
64%
Comparative StudyRadiesse vs Perlane vs Juvederm 24/24HV
GAIS
One fold (split face)(touch up at 3 Months)
Both folds(touch up at 4 Months)
Radiesse 0.89
Restylane 1.26
Radiesse 2.21
Perlane
2.89
Juvederm HV
2.940 1 2 3Volume Required to Achieve Optimal Correction (cc)
cc - including touch up
Syringes needed for 2 Folds
Full Correction
1.4
2.5
1.7
2.9
3.7
% of OptimalCorrection w/One Syringe
70%
40%
60%
34%
27%
Volume Comparison
% of Patients That are Satisfied & Extremely Satisfied*% of Patients That are Satisfied & Extremely Satisfied*% of Patients That are Satisfied & Extremely Satisfied*% of Patients That are Satisfied & Extremely Satisfied*
89%
61% 58%
96%
6 Months 9 Months
More patients were Satisfied with Radiesse than with Restylane, even at 6 Months
Time post 2nd Injection
Radiesse
Restylane
Comparative Study: Radiesse vs RestylanePatient Satisfaction
% of Patients That are Satisfied & Extremely Satisfied% of Patients That are Satisfied & Extremely Satisfied% of Patients That are Satisfied & Extremely Satisfied% of Patients That are Satisfied & Extremely Satisfied
97%90%
95%
48%
58%
73%
4 Months 8 Months 12 Months
RadiessePerlaneJuvederm Juvederm HV
More patients were Satisfied with Radiesse than with Perlane or Juvederm
Time post 2nd Injection
Comparative StudyRadiesse vs Perlane vs Juvederm 24/24HV
Patient Satisfaction
% of Patients who say that they are Likely or % of Patients who say that they are Likely or Extremely Likely to return for future treatments Extremely Likely to return for future treatments
% of Patients who say that they are Likely or % of Patients who say that they are Likely or Extremely Likely to return for future treatments Extremely Likely to return for future treatments
Patients are 3 times more likely to return for re-treatments with Radiesse
24% 25%
75% 75%
6 Months 9 MonthsTime post 2nd Injection
RadiesseRestylane
Comparative Study: Radiesse vs RestylanePatients likely to return
98%
35%
43%38%
93%92%
4 Months 8 Months 12 Months
RadiessePerlaneJuvederm Juvederm HV
Patients are much more likely to come in for re-treatments with Radiesse
Time post 2nd Injection
% of Patients who say that they are Likely or % of Patients who say that they are Likely or Extremely Likely to return for future treatments Extremely Likely to return for future treatments
% of Patients who say that they are Likely or % of Patients who say that they are Likely or Extremely Likely to return for future treatments Extremely Likely to return for future treatments
Comparative StudyRadiesse vs Perlane vs Juvederm 24/24HV
Patients likely to return
• Radiesse treated patients are more satisfied compared to hyaluronic acid treated patients
• Radiesse delivers better correction at 3 months & beyond
• Radiesse delivers longer-lasting correction
• Radiesse requires less volume to achieve the same immediate correction
• Radiesse patients are more likely to return for future treatments
Comparative Studies with RadiesseSUMMAY FINDINGS
Acknowledgements and Participating Centers
Marion Moers-Carpi, Munich, Germany
Stephan Vogt, Hanover, Germany
Jaime Opi Tufet, Barcelona, Spain
Begonia Martinez Santos, Barcelona, Spain
Jorge Planas, Barcelona, Spain
Sonia Rovira Vallve, Barcelona, Spain
Calcium Hydroxylapatite
Gel carrier (~70%)
Sodium-CarboxyMethylCelluloseGlycerineH2O
Structural component (~30%)Ca2+ PO4
3- ions (Ca10(PO4)6(OH)2)
Natural mineral (identical to teeth & bone)
Calcium Hydroxylapatite
Macrophages dissolve gel carrier & fibroblasts form new collagen.
Natural mineral non-antigenic, non-irritant, non-toxic metabolizes via homeostatic mechanisms
Facial Augmentation
Nasolabial Fold
Mental creaseJaw Line
Chin
Post-rhinoplasty
Marionette Line
Cheek
Malar
Radial Lip Lines