[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Views 984
Citations 0
Review
July 13, 2017

Device Safety Implications of the Clinical Data Leading to US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Soft-Tissue FillersA Systematic Review

Author Affiliations
  • 1Department of Medicine, McGaw Medical Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
  • 2Department of Radiology, University of Chicago Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois
  • 3Department of Dermatology, McGaw Medical Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois
JAMA Facial Plast Surg. Published online July 13, 2017. doi:10.1001/jamafacial.2017.0082
Key Points

Question  What is the quality of evidence leading to US Food and Drug Administration approval of soft-tissue fillers?

Findings  In a systematic review of soft-tissue filler approvals, 14 approvals were identified, with most pivotal studies being randomized clinical trials and masked. Most trials involved injections solely of the nasolabial folds and cheeks; only 4 trials treated other facial regions.

Meaning  Although soft-tissue fillers remain a safe device approved based on mostly randomized clinical trials, recent US Food and Drug Administration safety warnings about the risk of blindness and facial necrosis relate more to the off-label use of soft-tissue fillers, which has not been sufficiently studied prospectively. This finding underscores the need for robust postmarketing surveillance mechanisms that involve multiple specialties.

Abstract

Importance  The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued a safety warning regarding soft-tissue fillers (STFs) based on the risk of blindness and facial necrosis.

Objective  To examine the quality of evidence leading to FDA approval of STFs.

Evidence Review  All original approvals for STFs were mined using the publicly available FDA database. The Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias assessment tool was applied to all randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

Findings  A total of 14 STF approvals were identified. Of those, 10 pivotal studies (71%) were RCTs and 9 (60%) were masked. The median number of patients per trial was 144 (range, 30-439). Eleven of 12 studies (92%) met their primary end point. Ten of 14 trials (71%) involved injections solely of the nasolabial folds or cheeks; only 4 trials involved treatment of other facial regions. All 10 RCTs had an unclear risk of selection bias. Only 2 RCTs reported exclusions and attrition.

Conclusions and Relevance  Safety warnings relate more to the off-label use of STFs, which has not been sufficiently studied prospectively. Although STFs remain a safe device, with approval based mostly on RCT outcomes, implementation of unique device identifiers and greater use of physician-led registries would ensure physician, consumer, and regulatory confidence in STF safety.

×