Efficacy and Safety of Fillers for the Treatment of Nasolabial Folds: A Network meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Nasolabial fold formation is increasingly becoming a cause of concern for many people. However, no network meta-analysis has compared the efficacy of different fillers in treating nasolabial folds. This network meta-analysis simultaneously compared the efficacy and safety of various fillers.

METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used fillers to treat nasolabial folds. We extracted data of Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS), Global Esthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS, investigator) scores, GAIS scores (self-reported) and adverse events.

RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs. WSRS scores at 6 months were higher in patients receiving HA than those receiving poly (L-lactic acid) (mean difference [MD] 0.630, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.275, 0.985) but significantly lower in patients receiving HA than in those receiving bovine collagen (MD - 0.580, 95% CI - 0.777, - 0.383) and porcine collagen (MD - 0.525, 95% CI - 0.790, - 0.260). Regarding adverse events, HA was significantly less likely to cause nodule formation compared with bovine collagen (RR 0.593, 95% CI 0.438, 0.803).

CONCLUSION: HA is a safe filler for correcting nasolabial folds, and poly (L-lactic acid) showed potential in treating nasolabial folds.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .