Comparison of 2.5% agarose gel vs hyaluronic acid filler, for the correction of moderate to severe nasolabial folds.

Abstract

BackgroundAgarose gel filler is a natural hydrocolloid with a three‐dimensional structure similar to the extracellular matrix, with gel formed by hydrogen bonds and electrostatic interactions rather than through chemical cross‐linking or polymerization.ObjectiveTo determine efficacy and safety of 2.5% agarose gel filler for the correction of nasolabial folds.MethodsIn this split‐face study, efficacy, safety, and usability of 2.5% agarose gel were compared to those of NASHA‐L. Assessments included the nasolabial fold (NLF) Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS), Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS [blinded investigator]), subject satisfaction, safety (adverse events), and usability.ResultsSixty‐six subjects were treated, and 46/66 (66.7%) were available for evaluation at 3 months, when mean change in WSRS was identical for both products (−1.1 ± 0.4 for 2.5% agarose; −1.1 ± 0.4 for NASHA‐L). Scores for each product remained similar across all time points and began to return to baseline between 7 and 8 months. GAIS score followed a similar pattern, rising between months 7 and 8 (2.7 ± 0.6 for 2.5% agarose at month 7‐3.3 ± 0.5 at month 8 and 2.7 ± 0.6 for NASHA‐L at month 7‐3.3 ± 0.5 at month 8). Ultrasound confirmed the longevity of both fillers between 7 and 8 months. All adverse events were transient in nature and resolved within 15 days. Most events were mild in nature, and the number of events was similar between the two fillers.ConclusionTreatment with 2.5% agarose gel resulted in improvement that persisted for between 7 and 8 months. The treatment effect was equivalent to NASHA‐L.