Prescription Drugs

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY Clinical Trials The safety and effectiveness of Restylane in the treatment of facial folds and wrinkles (nasolabial folds and oral commissures) were evaluated in three prospective randomized controlled clinical studies involving 430 Restylane-treated patients. Restylane was shown to be effective when compared to crosslinked collagen and crosslinked hyaluronic acid dermal fillers with respect to the correction of moderate to severe facial folds and wrinkles, such as nasolabial folds. The safety and pain reduction effect of Restylane-L in the treatment of facial folds and wrinkles (nasolabial folds) was evaluated in a prospective randomized controlled clinical study involving 60 patients. The addition of lidocaine to Restylane resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the pain experienced by the patients. The study also showed that the safety profile of Restylane-L was consistent with Restylane. Table 1: Maximum Intensity of Symptoms after Initial Treatment for the Nasolabial Fold Indication Patient Diary (Study 31GE0003)1 Restylane side Zyplast side Restylane side Zyplast side Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) None n (%) Mild n (%) Moderate n (%) Severe n (%) None n (%) Mild n (%) Moderate n (%) Severe n (%) Bruising 72 (52.2%) 67 (48.6%) 63 (45.6%) 32 (23.2%) 35 (25.4%) 5 (3.6%) 68 (49.3%) 43 (31.2%) 23 (16.7%) 1 (0.7%) Redness 117 (84.8%) 117 (84.8%) 17 (12.3%) 56 (40.6%) 54 (39.1%) 7 (5.1%) 17 (12.3%) 72 (52.2%) 37 (26.8%) 8 (5.8%) Swelling 120 (87.0%) 102 (73.9%) 14 (10.1%) 54 (39.1%) 61 (44.2%) 5 (3.6%) 32 (23.2%) 65 (47.1%) 35 (25.4%) 2 (1.4%) Pain 79 (57.2%) 58 (42.0%) 55 (39.9%) 40 (29.0%) 34 (24.6%) 5 (3.6%) 76 (55.1%) 46 (33.3%) 10 (7.2%) 2 (1.4%) Tenderness 107 (77.5%) 89 (64.5%) 27 (19.6%) 60 (43.5%) 43 (31.2%) 4 (2.9%) 45 (32.6%) 70 (50.7%) 17 (12.3%) 2 (1.4%) Itching 42 (30.4%) 33 (23.9%) 91 (65.9%) 31 (22.5%) 11 (8.0%) 0 (0.0%) 101 (73.2%) 27 (19.6%) 6 (4.4%) 0 (0.0%) Other 34 (24.6%) 33 (23.9%) 93 (67.4%) 14 (10.1%) 15 (10.9%) 5 (3.6%) 94 (68.1%) 20 (14.5%) 10 (7.2%) 3 (2.2%) 1 Events are reported as local events; because of the design (split-face) of the study, causality of the systemic adverse events cannot be assigned. Table 2: Duration of Adverse Events after Initial Treatment for the Nasolabial Fold Indication Patient Diary (Study 31GE0003) Restylane side Zyplast side Restylane side Zyplast side Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) Number of days Number of days 1 n (%) 2-7 n (%) 8-13 n (%) 14 n (%) 1 n (%) 2-7 n (%) 8-13 n (%) 14 n (%) Bruising 72 (52.2%) 67 (48.6%) 7 (5.1%) 56 (40.6%) 6 (4.4%) 3 (2.2%) 7 (5.1%) 53 (38.4%) 5 (3.6%) 2 (1.4%) Redness 117 (84.8%) 117 (84.8%) 19 (13.8%) 68 (49.3%) 18 (13.0%) 12 (8.7%) 19 (13.8%) 71 (51.4%) 15 (10.9%) 12 (8.7%) Swelling 120 (87.0%) 102 (73.9%) 16 (11.6%) 84 (60.9%) 16 (11.6%) 4 (2.9%) 14 (10.1%) 70 (50.7%) 16 (11.6%) 2 (1.4%) Pain 79 (57.2%) 58 (42.0%) 29 (21.0%) 48 (34.8%) 2 (1.4%) 0 (0.0%) 31 (22.5%) 25 (18.1%) 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.7%) Tenderness 107 (77.5%) 89 (64.5%) 21 (15.2%) 78 (56.5%) 6 (4.4%) 2 (1.4%) 27 (19.6%) 54 (39.1%) 6 (4.4%) 2 (1.4%) Itching 42 (30.4%) 33 (23.9%) 11 (8.0%) 25 (18.1%) 6 (4.4%) 0 (0.0%) 8 (5.8%) 22 (15.9%) 3 (2.2%) 0 (0.0%) Other 34 (24.6%) 33 (23.9%) 7 (5.1%) 23 (16.7%) 3 (2.2%) 1 (0.7%) 10 (7.2%) 15 (10.9%) 6 (4.4%) 2 (1.4%) Table 3: Maximum Intensity of Symptoms after Initial Treatment for the Nasolabial Fold Indication Patient Diary (Study MA-1400-02)1 Restylane Perlane Restylane Patients Perlane Patients Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) None Tolerable2 Affected Daily Activity2 Disabling2 None Tolerable2 Affected Daily Activity2 Disabling2 n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Bruising 111 (78.2%) 122 (86.5%) 28 (20.1%) 82 (59%) 28 (20.1%) 1 (0.7%) 17 (12.2%) 97 (69.8%) 24 (17.3%) 1 (0.7%) Redness 114 (80.3%) 118 (83.7%) 25 (18%) 96 (69.1%) 17 (12.2%) 1 (0.7%) 21 (15.1%) 105 (75.5%) 12 (8.6%) 1 (0.7%) Swelling 127 (89.4%) 128 (90.8%) 12 (8.6%) 102 (73.4%) 23 (16.5%) 2 (1.4%) 11 (7.9%) 107 (77%) 19 (13.7%) 2 (1.4%) Pain 108 (76.1%) 114 (80.9%) 31 (22.3%) 93 (66.9%) 14 (10.1%) 1 (0.7%) 25 (18%) 96 (69.1%) 18 (12.9%) 0 (0%) Tenderness 123 (86.6%) 130 (92.2%) 16 (11.5%) 109 (78.4%) 12 (8.6%) 2 (1.4%) 9 (6.5%) 112 (80.6%) 18 (12.9%) 0 (0%) Itching 67 (47.2%) 45 (31.9%) 72 (51.8%) 66 (47.5%) 1 (0.7%) 0 (0%) 94 (67.6%) 40 (28.8%) 3 (2.2%) 2 (1.4%) Other3 3 (2.1%) 1 (0.7%) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 Missing values are not reported. 2 Prospective definitions for: tolerable, affected daily activity and disabling were not provided in the diary or protocol. 3 Two patients reported pimples (one Perlane/one Restylane); one Restylane patient reported a sore throat; one Restylane patient reported a runny nose; degree of disability was not reported for any of the four events. Table 4:Duration of Adverse Events after Initial Treatment for the Nasolabial Fold Indication Patient Diary (Study MA-1400-02)1 Restylane Perlane Restylane Patients Perlane Patients Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) Number of days2 Number of days2 1 n (%) 2-7 n (%) 8-13 n (%) 14 n (%) 1 n (%) 2-7 n (%) 8-13 n (%) 14 n (%) Bruising 111 (78.2%) 122 (86.5%) 9 (8.1%) 69 (62.2%) 30 (27%) 3 (2.7%) 6 (4.9%) 81 (66.4%) 28 (23%) 7 (5.7%) Redness 114 (80.3%) 118 (83.7%) 31 (27.2%) 71 (62.3%) 9 (7.9%) 3 (2.6%) 19 (16.1%) 87 (73.7%) 8 (6.8%) 4 (3.4%) Swelling 127 (89.4%) 128 (90.8%) 12 (9.4%) 93 (73.2%) 19 (15.0%) 3 (2.4%) 6 (4.7%) 100 (78.1%) 17 (13.3%) 5 (3.9%) Pain 108 (76.1%) 114 (80.9%) 37 (34.3%) 69 (63.9%) 2 (1.9%) 0 (0%) 46 (40.4%) 66 (57.9%) 2 (1.8%) 0 (0%) Tenderness 123 (86.6%) 130 (92.2%) 21 (17.1%) 92 (74.8%) 9 (7.3%) 1 (0.8%) 24 (18.5%) 89 (68.5%) 16 (12.3%) 1 (0.8%) Itching 67 (47.2%) 45 (31.9%) 22 (32.8%) 38 (56.7%) 6 (9.0%) 1 (1.5%) 19 (42.2%) 23 (51.1%) 3 (6.7%) 0 (0%) Other3 3 (2.1%) 1 (0.7%) 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 Missing values are not reported. 2 Data are cumulated from up to four injection sites per patient with earliest and latest time point for any reaction provided. 3 Two patients reported pimples (one Perlane/one Restylane); one Restylane patient reported a sore throat; one Restylane patient reported a runny nose; degree of disability was not reported for any of the four events. Table 5: Maximum Intensity of Symptoms after Initial Treatment for the Nasolabial Fold Indication Patient Diary (Study MA-1400-01)1,2 Restylane Perlane Restylane Patients Perlane Patients Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) None Tolerable3 Affected Daily Activity3 Disabling3 None Tolerable3 Affected Daily Activity3 Disabling3 n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) Bruising 70 (46.7%) 74 (49.3%) 79 (53%) 66 (44.3%) 4 (2.7%) 0 (0%) 75 (50.3%) 67 (45%) 7 (4.7%) 0 (0%) Redness 87 (58%) 92 (61.3%) 62 (41.6%) 81 (54.4%) 6 (4%) 0 (0%) 57 (38.3%) 85 (57%) 7 (4.7%) 0 (0%) Swelling 125 (83.3%) 121 (80.7%) 24 (16.1%) 109 (73.2%) 14 (9.4%) 2 (1.3%) 28 (18.8%) 108 (72.5%) 11 (7.4%) 2 (1.3%) Pain 96 (64%) 103 (68.7%) 53 (35.6%) 84 (56.4%) 11 (7.4%) 1 (0.7%) 46 (30.9%) 90 (60.4%) 12 (8.1%) 1 (0.7%) Tenderness 122 (81.3%) 130 (86.7%) 27 (18.1%) 110 (73.8%) 11 (7.4%) 1 (0.7%) 19 (12.8%) 116 (77.9%) 13 (8.7%) 1 (0.7%) Itching 53 (35.3%) 58 (38.7%) 96 (64.4%) 49 (32.9%) 4 (2.7%) 0 (0%) 91 (61.1%) 54 (36.2%) 4 (2.7%) 0 (0%) Other4 3 (2%) 3 (2%) NA 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) NA 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 Missing values are not reported. 2 Events are reported as local events; because of the design (split-face) of the study, causality of the systemic adverse events cannot be assigned. 3 Prospective definitions for: tolerable, affected daily activity and disabling were not provided in the diary or protocol. 4 Two patients reported mild transient headache and one patient reported mild “twitching”; neither could be associated with a particular product. Table 6: Duration of Adverse Events after Initial Treatment for the Nasolabial Fold Indication Patient Diary (Study MA-1400-01)1,2 Restylane Perlane Restylane Patients Perlane Patients Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) Number of days3 Number of days3 1 n (%) 2-7 n (%) 8-13 n (%) 14 n (%) 1 n (%) 2-7 n (%) 8-13 n (%) 14 n (%) Bruising 70 (46.7%) 74 (49.3%) 13 (18.6%) 51 (72.9%) 6 (8.6%) 0 (0%) 23 (31.1%) 44 (59.5%) 6 (8.1%) 1 (1.4%) Redness 87 (58%) 92 (61.3%) 33 (37.9%) 52 (59.8%) 2 (2.3%) 0 (0%) 38 (41.3%) 52 (56.5%) 2 (2.2%) 0 (0%) Swelling 125 (83.3%) 121 (80.7%) 23 (18.4%) 89 (71.2%) 12 (9.6%) 1 (0.8%) 22 (18.2%) 85 (70.2%) 11 (9.1%) 3 (2.5%) Pain 96 (64%) 103 (68.7%) 27 (28.1%) 67 (69.8%) 2 (2.1%) 0 (0%) 32 (31.1%) 67 (65%) 2 (1.9%) 2 (1.9%) Tenderness 122 (81.3%) 130 (86.7%) 28 (23%) 87 (71.3%) 7 (5.7%) 0 (0%) 26 (20%) 94 (72.3%) 6 (4.6%) 4 (3.1%) Itching 53 (35.3%) 58 (38.7%) 22 (41.5%) 27 (50.9%) 4 (7.5%) 0 (0%) 29 (50%) 26 (44.8%) 2 (3.4%) 1 (1.7%) Other4 3 (2%) 3 (2%) 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 Missing values are not reported. 2 Events are reported as local events; because of the design (split-face) of the study, causality of the systemic adverse events cannot be assigned. 3 Data are cumulated from up to two injection sites per patient with earliest and latest time point for any reaction provided. 4 Two patients reported mild transient headache and one patient reported mild “twitching”; neither could be associated with a particular product. Table 7: Maximum Intensity of Symptoms after Initial Treatment for the Nasolabial Fold Indication Patient Diary (Study MA-1100-001)1 Restylane-L Restylane Restylane-L Patients Restylane Patients Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) None n (%) Tolerable2 n (%) Affected Daily Activity2 n (%) Disabling2 n (%) None n (%) Tolerable2 n (%) Affected Daily Activity2 n (%) Disabling2 n (%) Bruising 35 (58.3%) 31 (51.7%) 25 (41.7%) 30 (50.0%) 4 (6.7%) 1 (1.7%) 29 (48.3%) 27 (45.0%) 3 (5.0%) 1 (1.7%) Redness 30 (50.0%) 28 (46.7%) 30 (50.0%) 27 (45.0%) 2 (3.3%) 1 (1.7%) 32 (53.3%) 28 (46.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Swelling 40 (66.7%) 36 (60.0%) 20 (33.3%) 29 (48.3%) 10 (16.7%) 1 (1.7%) 24 (40.0%) 29 (48.3%) 7 (11.7%) 0 (0.0%) Pain 27 (45.0%) 27 (45.0%) 33 (55.0%) 24 (40.0%) 2 (3.3%) 1 (1.7%) 33 (55.0%) 26 (43.3%) 1 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%) Tenderness 41 (68.3%) 39 (65.0%) 19 (31.7%) 38 (63.3%) 2 (3.3%) 1 (1.7%) 21 (35.0%) 38 (63.3%) 1 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%) Itching 8 (13.3%) 7 (11.7%) 52 (86.7%) 7 (11.7%) 1 (1.7%) 0 (0.0%) 53 (88.3%) 7 (11.7%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Other3,4 4 (6.7%) 7 (11.7%) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 1 Missing values are not reported. 2 Prospective definitions for: tolerable, affected daily activity and disabling were not provided in the diary or protocol. 3 Events are reported as local events; because of the design (split-face) of the study, causality of the systemic adverse events cannot be assigned. 4 Other included lump/bump, sinus drip, small blue mark, and symptoms of vasospasm. Diary entries of bad back, chafing, cold, dryness, headache, neck pain, shadow, and throbbing/flushing could not be associated with a particular product. Table 8: Duration of Adverse Events after Initial Treatment for the Nasolabial Fold Indication Patient Diary (Study MA-1100-001)1 Restylane-L Restylane Restylane-L Patients Restylane Patients Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) Total patients reporting symptoms n (%) Number of days3 Number of days3 1 n (%) 2-7 n (%) 8-13 n (%) 14 n (%) 1 n (%) 2-7 n (%) 8-13 n (%) 14 n (%) Bruising 35 (58.3%) 31 (51.7%) 3 (8.6%) 28 (80.0%) 4 (11.4%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 25 (80.6%) 6 (19.4%) 0 (0.0%) Redness 30 (50.0%) 28 (46.7%) 10 (33.3%) 17 (56.7%) 2 (6.7%) 1 (3.3%) 9 (32.1%) 18 (64.3%) 1 (3.6%) 0 (0.0%) Swelling 40 (66.7%) 36 (60.0%) 4 (10.0%) 29 (72.5%) 7 (17.5%) 0 (0.0%) 8 (22.2%) 21 (58.3%) 5 (13.9%) 2 (5.6%) Pain 27 (45.0%) 27 (45.0%) 13 (48.1%) 11 (40.7%) 1 (3.7%) 2 (7.4%) 15 (55.6%) 11 (40.7%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (3.7%) Tenderness 41 (68.3%) 39 (65.0%) 13 (31.7%) 20 (48.8%) 5 (12.2%) 3 (7.3%) 9 (23.1%) 25 (64.1%) 3 (7.7%) 2 (5.1%) Itching 8 (13.3%) 7 (11.7%) 7 (87.5%) 1 (12.5%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 6 (85.7%) 1 (14.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) Other2,4 4 (6.7%) 7 (11.7%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (50.0%) 0 (0.0%) 2 (50.0%) 1 (14.3%) 5 (71.4%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (14.3%) 1 Missing values are not reported. 2 Events are reported as local events; because of the design (split-face) of the study, causality of the systemic adverse events cannot be assigned. 3 Data are cumulated from up to two injection sites per patient with earliest and latest time point for any reaction provided. 4 Other included lump/bump, sinus drip, small blue mark, and symptoms of vasospasm. Diary entries of bad back, chafing, cold, dryness, headache, neck pain, shadow, and throbbing/flushing could not be associated with a particular product. Table 9: All Investigator-Identified Adverse Events (72 Hours) Number of Events per Patient per Study for the Nasolabial Fold Indication Study Term MA-1400-01 MA-1400-02 Number of Events Restylane (n=150) Number of Events Perlane (n=150) Number of Events Restylane (n=142) Number of Events Perlane (n=141) Ecchymosis 9 10 48 44 Edema 4 4 6 10 Erythema 13 13 3 5 Tenderness 4 4 7 5 Pain 2 2 2 2 Hyperpigmentation 2 3 0 1 Pruritus 2 1 1 0 Papule 1 0 2 2 Burning 1 0 0 0 Hypopigmentation 1 0 0 0 Injection site scab 3 0 0 0 Table 10: Investigator-Identified Adverse Events (2 Weeks or More After Implantation) (Number of Patients) (Restylane v. Specified Active Controls—All Studies for the Nasolabial Fold Indication) Study Term MA-1400-01 Restylane (n=150) (%) MA-1400-01 Perlane (n=150) (%) MA-1400-02 Restylane (n=142) (%) MA-1400-02 Perlane (n=141) (%) 31GE0003 Restylane (n=138) (%) 31GE0003 Zyplast (n=138) (%) Ecchymosis 4 (2.7%) 7 (4.6%) 14 (9.9%) 15 (10.6%) 8 (5.8%) 6 (4.3%) Edema 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 2 (1.4%) 3 (2.1%) 11 (8.0%) 14 (10.1%) Erythema 2 (1.3%) 2 (1.3%) 1 (0.7%) 2 (1.4%) 30 (21.7%) 37 (26.8 %) Tenderness 0 (0%) 1 (0.7%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.7%) 8 (5.8%) 10 (7.2%) Pain 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.7%) 0 (0%) 4 (2.9%) 3 (2.2%) Papule 1 (0.7%) 0 (0%) 2 (1.4%) 1 (0.7%) 5 (3.6%) 13 (9.4%) Pruritus 1 (0.7%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.7%) 0 (0%) 4 (2.9%) 8 (5.8%) Rash 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.7%) 1 (0.7%) Hyperpigmentation 8 (5.3%) 7 (4.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Injection site scab 1 (0.7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Skin exfoliation 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Table 11: MA-004-03 Adverse Events Reported by Restylane Patients Treated in the Nasolabial Folds Adverse Event Number of Patients with Events (%) n=75 Total Number of Events† Mild Severity Moderate Severe Swelling 18 (24%) 46 37 9 0 Bruising 14 (19%) 33 19 12 2 Pain/soreness 4 (5%) 14 12 2 0 Discoloration 3 (4%) 5 5 0 0 Infection 1 (1%) 1 0 0 1 Hardness/Nodule 2 (3%) 3 2 1 0 † Most patients had bilateral events at either the initial injection or touch-up. Bilateral events are counted as two events. Table 12:All Investigator-Identified Adverse Events (14 days) for the Nasolabial Fold Indication Number of Events Study Term MA-1100-001 Number of Events Restylane-L (n=60) Number of Events Restylane (n=60) Ecchymosis 23 19 Edema 24 22 Erythema 28 27 Tenderness 23 26 Pain 17 18 Pruritus 6 4 Papule 1 2 Vasospasm 1 0 Table 13:MA-1100-001—Related AE by prior procedure. By Subjects for the Nasolabial Fold Indication Prior procedure Related AE p-value* Yes No Yes 8 (100%) 0 0.091 No 34 (65.4%) 18 * Fisher's exact test Table 14: MA-1300-15 Intensity of Adverse Event, Subject Diary for the Lip Augmentation Indication Study No Treatment (N=45) 1st Treatment (N=172) 2nd treatment (N=93) No Treatment (N=45) 1st Treatment with Restylane (N=172) 2nd Treatment with Restylane (N=93) Subjects Reporting Symptoms Subjects Reporting Symptoms Subjects Reporting Symptoms None Tolerable Affects Daily Activity Disabling None Tolerable Affects Daily Activity Disabling None Tolerable Affects Daily Activity Disabling Maximum Severity Reported for any Diary AE Upper and Lower Lips Combined 2 167 89 37 (95%) 2 (5%) 0 0 2 (1%) 88 (52%) 62 (37%) 17 (10%) 1 (1%) 60 (67%) 25 (28%) 4 (4%) Bruising Upper and Lower Lips Combined 2 147 58 37 (95%) 2 (5%) 0 0 22 (13%) 109 (65%) 33 (20%) 5 (3%) 31 (35%) 48 (53%) 10 (11%) 1 (1%) Redness Upper and Lower Lips Combined 1 130 60 38 (97%) 1 (3%) 0 0 39 (23%) 118(70%) 12 (7%) 0 30 (33%) 55 (62%) 2 (2%) 3 (3%) Swelling Upper and Lower Lips Combined 0 166 89 39(100%) 0 0 0 3 (2%) 90 (53%) 65 (38%) 11 (7%) 1 (1%) 64 (71%) 22 (25%) 3 (3%) Pain (includes burning) Upper and Lower Lips Combined 1 146 72 38 (97%) 1 (3%) 0 0 23 (14%) 111 (66%) 27 (16%) 8 (5%) 18 (20%) 55 (61%) 14 (16%) 3 (3%) Tenderness Upper and Lower Lips Combined 1 164 81 38 (97%) 1 (3%) 0 0 5 (3%) 120 (71%) 40 (24%) 4 (2%) 9 (10%) 63 (70%) 15 (17%) 3 (3%) Itching Upper and Lower Lips Combined 0 56 23 39(100%) 0 0 0 114 (67%) 51 (30%) 5 (3%) 0 67 (74%) 22 (25%) 1 (1%) 0 Table 15: MA-1300-15 Duration of Adverse Event, Subject Diary for the Lip Augmentation Indication Study Location/Adverse Event No Treatment at Baseline (N =45) Number of Days Any n (%) 1 n (%) 2-7 n (%) 8-13 n (%) 14 n (%) Upper and Lower Lip Combined Bruising 2 (4%) 2 (100%) 0 0 0 Redness 1 (2%) 1 (100%) 0 0 0 Swelling 0 0 0 0 0 Pain (includes Burning) 1 (2%) 1 (100%) 0 0 0 Tenderness 1 (2%) 1 (100%) 0 0 0 Itching 0 0 0 0 0 Location/Adverse Event First Treatment with Restylane (N=172) Number of Days Any1 n (%) 1 n (%) 2-7 n (%) 8-13 n (%) 14 n (%) Upper and Lower Lip Combined Bruising 147 (85%) 7 (5%) 93 (63%) 43 (29%) 4 (3%) Redness 130 (76%) 20 (15%) 86 (66%) 23 (18%) 1 (<1%) Swelling 166 (97%) 3 (2%) 88 (53%) 50 (30%) 25 (15%) Pain (includes Burning) 146 (85%) 35 (24%) 95 (65%) 14 (10%) 2 (1%) Tenderness 164 (95%) 11 (7%) 81 (49%) 49 (30%) 23 (14%) Itching 55 (32%) 16 (29%) 32 (58%) 7 (13%) 0 Location/Adverse Event Second Treatment with Restylane (N=93) Number of Days Any1 n (%) 1 n (%) 2-7 n (%) 8-13 n (%) 14 n (%) Upper and Lower Lip Combined Bruising 59 (63%) 3 (5%) 40 (68%) 16 (28%) 0 Redness 60 (65%) 16 (27%) 38 (63%) 5 (8%) 1 (2%) Swelling 89 (96%) 10 (11%) 54 (61%) 21 (24%) 4 (5%) Pain (includes Burning) 72 (77%) 21 (30%) 43 (60%) 5 (7%) 3 (4%) Tenderness 81 (87%) 5 (6%) 52 (65%) 16 (20%) 8 (10%) Itching 23 (25%) 10 (43%) 13 (57%) 0 0 1 Duration of “other” diary symptoms could not be calculated. Table 16:MA-1300-15 Summary of Treatment Emergent Adverse Events for the Lip Augmentation Indication Study Adverse Event No Treatment at Baseline (N=45) First Treatment with Restylane (N=172) Second Treatment with Restylane (N=93) Events Subjects Events Subjects Events Subjects Pain 1 1 (2%) 97 36 (21%) 51 19 (20%) Swelling 0 0 224 100 (58%) 103 52 (56%) Tenderness 0 0 69 38 (22%) 29 16 (17%) Nasopharyngitis 3 2 (4%) 9 9 (5%) 2 2 (2%) Contusion (bruising/ ecchymosis) 0 0 131 76 (44%) 41 26 (28%) Headache 3 2 (4%) 17 12 (7%) 3 3 (3%) Erythema 0 0 57 29 (17%) 19 10 (11%) Skin Exfoliation** 0 0 21 14 (8%) 2 2 (2%) **Includes sloughing of the skin, peeling, desquamation, and superficial desquamation. Table 17: MA-1300-13K Maximum Intensity of Symptoms after Initial Treatment, Subject Diary for the Lip Augmentation Indication Pilot Study Reaction (N=20) Total subjects reporting symptoms n (%) None n (%) Tolerable n (%) Affected Daily Activity n (%) Disabling n (%) Bruising 17 (85%) 3 (15%) 13 (65%) 4 (20%) 0 (0%) Redness 14 (70%) 6 (30%) 12 (60%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%) Swelling 19 (95%) 1 (5%) 12 (60%) 7 (35%) 0 (0%) Pain 17 (85%) 3 (15%) 17 (85%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Tenderness 19 (95%) 1 (5%) 18 (90%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) Itching 2 (10%) 18 (90%) 2 (10%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Mass Formation1 18 (90%) 2 (10%) 17 (85%) 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 1 Documentation of mass formation was the result of a miscommunication with the subjects. Subjects were specifically instructed to record any product palpability as mass formation in their diary, whether or not the palpability was the intended feel of the product. U.S. Clinical Studies 31GE0003: Prospective, Randomized, Blinded, Controlled, Clinical Study Design 1:1 randomized, prospective study at 6 U.S. centers, which compared the safety and effectiveness of Restylane and Zyplast in a “within-patient” control model of augmentation correction of bilateral nasal folds, using Restylane on the randomized nasal labial fold and the control treatment on the opposite nasal labial fold. Patients were partially masked; evaluating physicians were independent and masked; treating physicians were  unmasked. Effectiveness was studied with 6-month follow-up. Safety was studied with 12-month follow-up. Endpoints - Effectiveness Primary The difference in effect of Restylane and Zyplast on the visual severity of the nasolabial folds, as assessed by an Evaluating Investigator at 6 months after baseline. Secondary Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) score assessed at other follow-up points by the evaluating investigator and by the patient. Global Aesthetic Improvement (GAI): Very much improved / much improved / improved / no change / worse, assessed at 2, 4, and 6 months by the evaluating investigator and by the patient. Number of treatment sessions to achieve optimal cosmesis. The primary evaluation parameter was the 5-point WSRS Score. A change in WSRS=1 was considered to be clinically significant during follow-up. Baseline was defined to begin at the follow-up demonstrating that optimal correction had been sustained for 2 weeks. Optimal correction was defined to be the best cosmetic result obtainable, as determined by the evaluating physician. A specific, objective score or goal for correction was not defined; 2 injectable implant sessions were expected. Outcomes Demographics The study enrolled a population of predominately healthy, female, Caucasian non-smokers with history of prior facial aesthetic procedures and minimal sun exposure. There were few men or other racial/ethnic groups; few smokers or patients with extensive sun exposure. Gender Male: 9 (6.6%) Female: 128 (93.4%) Tobacco Use Non-smokers: 118 (86.1%) Smokers: 19 (13.9%) Ethnicity Caucasian: 122 (89.0%) Black: 2 (1.5%) Asian: 2 (1.5%) Hispanic: 11 (8.0%) Sun Exposure None: 83 (60.6%) Natural Sun: 52 (38.0%) Artificial: 2 (1.5%) Effectiveness Primary Based on the per patient evaluation, the WSRS scores at 6 months by the evaluating investigator demonstrated that WSRS for Restylane was lower (better) than Control: in 78 patients Restylane was equal to Control: in 46 patients Restylane was higher (worse) than Control: in 13 patients For the entire cohort, however, the Mean of the WSRS Score by evaluating investigator demonstrated that while there was essentially no difference between Restylane and Control-treated cohort sides at pre-treatment (0.02 units WSRS) and baseline (0.01 units WSRS), for the cohort of 134 patients, there was a difference of 0.58 units of WSRS at 6 months. Table 18: Blinded Evaluator Mean Wrinkle Severity Scores N Restylane Control Absolute Difference Pre-treatment 138 3.29 3.31 0.02 Baseline 138 1.80 1.79 0.01 6 months 134 2.36 2.94 0.58 MA-1400-02: Prospective, Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Clinical Study Design 1:1 randomized, prospective study at 17 U.S. centers, which compared the safety and effectiveness of Restylane and Perlane following treatment to baseline condition. Patients were randomized to either Restylane or Perlane treatment. A touch-up was allowed 2 weeks after initial treatment. Patients were partially masked; evaluating physicians were independent and masked; treating physicians were unmasked. Effectiveness was studied with 6 months follow-up. Safety was studied with 6 months follow-up. Endpoints - Effectiveness Primary The difference in effect of Restylane at week 12 versus baseline condition on the visual severity of the nasolabial folds, as assessed by the Blinded Evaluator. The primary study endpoint was wrinkle severity 12 weeks after optimal correction was achieved. Wrinkle severity was evaluated on a five-step validated Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) ( i.e., none, mild, moderate, severe, extreme) by a live evaluator blinded to treatment. Patient success was defined as maintaining at least a one point improvement on the WSRS at 12 weeks after optimal correction was achieved. The percent of patient successes were calculated for each treatment group. Each group was compared to its own baseline, with no comparison of Restylane to Perlane. Secondary Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) assessed at other follow-up points (2, 6, and 24 weeks after optimal correction) by the Blinded Evaluator, the investigator and the patient and compared to baseline score by the same evaluator. Duration of effect was defined as 6 months or time point, if earlier, at which less than 50% of patients had at least a 1-grade response remaining in both nasolabial folds (NLFs). Safety assessments included: collection of patient symptoms in a 14-day diary; investigator evaluation of adverse events at 72 hours, and at 2, 6, 12, and 24 weeks; development of humoral or cell-mediated immunity; and the relationship of adverse events to injection technique. Outcomes Demographics The study enrolled 283 (i.e., 142 Restylane and 141 Perlane ) patients with moderate to severe NLF wrinkles. The patients were predominantly healthy ethnically diverse females. Bilateral NLFs and oral commissures were corrected with 2.1 mL to 5.2 mL of Restylane. The greatest amount used in any patient was 8.8 mL. Gender Female: 266 (94%); Male: 17 (6%) Ethnicity White: 226 (80%); Hispanic or Latino: 31 (11%); African American: 23 (8%); Asian: 3 (1%) Efficacy The results of the blinded evaluator assessment of NLF wrinkle severity for Restylane and control (Perlane) are presented in Table 19. In the primary effectiveness assessment at 12 weeks, 77% of the Restylane and 87% of the control patients had maintained at least a 1 point improvement over baseline. Table 19: Blinded Evaluator Wrinkle Severity Response Scores Time point No. of Restylane Patients No. of Restylane Pts. maintaining ≥ 1 Unit Improvement of NLF on WSRS No. of Perlane Patients No. of Perlane Pts. maintaining ≥1 Unit Improvement of NLF on WSRS 6 weeks 136 113 (83%)1 136 121 (89%)1 12 weeks 140 108 (77%)1 141 122 (87%)1 24 weeks 140 103 (74%)1 138 87 (63%)1 1 All p-values < 0.0001 based on t-test compared to baseline condition Antibody Testing 15/142 (10.6%) patients displayed a pre-treatment antibody response against Restylane (which was believed to be related to co-purifying Streptococcus capsule antigens). One patient also developed measurable increase in antibody titer after Restylane injection. 7/21 (33.3%) patients with antibodies against Restylane had adverse events at the injection site, which was similar to the local adverse event rate observed in the entire Restylane population (i.e., 53/142 (37%)). No severe events were noted and the patient who developed an antibody response after Restylane injection did not experience any adverse event at the injection site. Immediate type skin testing demonstrated that no patient developed IgE to Restylane. Post-exposure histopathology of skin biopsies of an implant site on each patient demonstrated that no patient developed cell-mediated immunity to Restylane. MA-1400-01: Prospective, Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Clinical Study Design 1:1 randomized, prospective study at 10 U.S. centers, which compared the safety and effectiveness of Restylane and Perlane following treatment to baseline condition in 150 patients with pigmented skin and predominantly African-American ethnicity. Patients were randomized to Restylane or Perlane treatment in a “within-patient” model of augmentation correction of bilateral nasolabial folds (NLFs) and oral commissures with one treatment assigned to one side and the other treatment to the other side. A touch-up was allowed 2 weeks after initial treatment. Patients and treating physicians were partially masked. Evaluations were performed by live investigator assessment for the primary analysis. Effectiveness was studied with 6 months follow-up. Safety was studied with 6 months follow-up. Endpoints - Effectiveness Primary The difference in effect of Restylane at week 12 versus baseline condition on the visual severity of the NLFs. The primary study endpoint was wrinkle severity 12 weeks after optimal correction was achieved. Wrinkle severity was evaluated with a five-step validated Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) (i.e., none, mild, moderate, severe, extreme) by an on-site blinded evaluator. Patient success was defined as maintaining at least a one point improvement on the WSRS at 12 weeks after optimal correction was achieved. The percent of patient successes was calculated for each group. Each treatment group was compared to its own baseline, with no comparison of Restylane to Perlane. Secondary Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) was assessed at other follow-up points (2, 6, and 24 weeks after optimal correction) by the investigator and the patient and compared to baseline score by the same evaluator. A photographic assessment of patient outcomes was also performed. Duration of effect was defined as 6 months or time point, if earlier, at which less than 50% of patients had at least a 1-grade response at both nasolabial folds. Safety assessments included: collection of patient symptoms in a 14-day diary; investigator evaluation of adverse events at 72 hours, and at 2, 6, 12, and 24 weeks; development of humoral or cell-mediated immunity; and the relationship of adverse events to injection technique. Outcomes Demographics The study enrolled 150 patients with moderate to severe NLF wrinkles. The patients were predominantly healthy African-American females. Gender Female: 140/150 (93%); Male 10/150 (7%) Ethnicity White: 2 (1.3%); Hispanic or Latino: 9 (6%); African-American: 137 (91%); American Indian: 2 (1.3%) Fitzpatrick Skin Type I to III: 0 (0%); IV: 44 (29%); V: 68 (45%); VI: 38 (25%) Efficacy The results of the live blinded evaluator assessment of wrinkle severity for Restylane and control (Perlane) are presented in Table 20 and are based on the Intent-to-Treat analysis. In the primary effectiveness assessment at 12 weeks, 93% of the Restylane-treated and 92% of the Perlane-treated NLF maintained at least a 1 point improvement over baseline. Table 20: Live Evaluator Wrinkle Severity Response Scores Time point No. of patients No. of Restylane Pts. maintaining 1 Unit Improvement on WSRS 95% Restylane Confidence Interval No. of Perlane Pts. maintaining 1 1 Unit Improvement on WSRS 95% Perlane Confidence Interval 6 weeks 148 142 (96%)1 92-99% 140 (95%) 1 90-99% 12 weeks 149 139 (93%) 1 89-98% 137 (92%) 1 87-97% 24 weeks 147 108 (73%) 1 66-81% 104 (71%) 1 63-77% 1 All p-values < 0.0001 based on t-test compared to baseline condition Antibody Testing 9/150 (6%) patients displayed a pre-treatment antibody response against Restylane (which was believed to be related to co-purifying Streptococcus capsule antigens). No patients developed a measurable increase in antibody titer after Restylane injection. 1/6 (17%) patients with antibodies against Restylane had adverse events at the injection site as compared to the local adverse event rate observed in the entire Restylane population (i.e., 28/150 (18.7%)). All the adverse events in the patients with a humoral response against Restylane were mild in severity. Immediate type skin testing demonstrated that no patient developed IgE to Restylane. Post-exposure histopathology of skin biopsies of an implant site on each patient demonstrated that no patient developed cell-mediated immunity to Restylane. MA-04-003 The duration of effectiveness of Restylane for correction of nasolabial folds (NLF) was evaluated in a randomized, evaluator-blinded, multi-center study. Restylane was shown to have an overall duration of effectiveness of 18 months from baseline following re-treatment at 4.5 or 9 months. MA-04-003: Randomized Clinical Study Design Randomized, evaluator-blinded study at 3 U.S. centers, which compared the safety and effectiveness of Restylane using two re-treatment schedules. Initially Restylane was injected in both nasolabial folds (NLF). Subsequently, one NLF was re-treated at 4.5 months after the initial treatment. The contralateral NLF was treated with Restylane and re-treated at 9 months (± 1 week). The Blinded Evaluators were blinded to the re-treatment schedule while patients and treating physicians were not. Effectiveness was studied at 18 months after the initial injection (i.e., either 9 or 13.5 months after the second treatment). Endpoints - Effectiveness Primary The difference in effect of Restylane injected 4.5 or 9 months after the initial treatment on the visual severity of the nasolabial folds was assessed by an Evaluating Investigator at 18 months after the baseline treatment. The primary study endpoint was the proportion of patients with at least one grade improvement in the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) from baseline as assessed by the Blinded Evaluator at the 18 month visit. Secondary The Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) score was assessed by the evaluating investigator at all follow-up visits prior to the 18 month visit and at all visits by patients and independent photographic reviewers. Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) comparing the pre-treatment appearance at all follow-up visits up to 18 months, was determined by the treating investigator and patient. The GAIS is a 5-point scale for assessing global aesthetic improvement: “very much improved / much improved / improved / no change / worse.” Safety Severity and duration of injection site reactions and adverse events were recorded. Outcomes Demographics The study enrolled an adult population of predominately Caucasian, healthy, non-smoking females. Number of Patients Age Gender Race Prior Augmentation to NLF History of Tobacco Use History of Sun Exposure 75 Mean ± SD 53.8 ± 8.4 Male 5 (6.7%) White 50 (66.7%) Yes 6 (8.0%) No 55 (73.3%) No 63 (84.0%) Median 54 Female 70 (93.3%) Black 3 (4.0%) No 69 (92.0%) Yes 20 (26.7%) Yes 12 (16.0%) Minimum 26 Hispanic 22 (29.3%) Maximum 73 Number of Patients enrolled and observed at 4.5, 9, 12, 15 and 18 months SCR/TRT Touch-up Wk2 M4.5 M9 M12 M15 M18 Enrolled 75 - 75 75 75 75 75 75 Withdrew Consent (total) 0 - 1 5 6 6 6 7 Lost to Follow-up 0 0 2 4 4 4 4 Missed Visit 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 Actual 75 44 72 67 65 64 64 64 Volume (mL) Of Restylane Treatment Used By Visit Visit Side Assigned to Re-treatment at 4.5 Months Side Assigned to Re-treatment at 4.5 Months Baseline N 75 75 Mean ± SD 1.1 ± 0.61 1.1 ± 0.56 Median 1.0 1.0 Minimum 0.1 0.2 Maximum 2.5 2.5 Touch-up Visit N 44 44 Mean ± SD 0.5 ± 0.22 0.5 ± 0.21 Median 0.5 0.5 Minimum 0.2 0.2 Maximum 1.0 1.0 Re-treatment Visit (4.5 Months/9 months) N 67 63 Mean ± SD 0.7 ± 0.33 0.7 ± 0.36 Median 0.8 0.6 Minimum 0.2 0.1 Maximum 1.8 2.0 Effectiveness The results of the blinded evaluator assessment of NLF wrinkle severity for patients treated at baseline, 4.5 or 9 months is presented in the Figure below for patient outcomes at 4.5, 9, 12, 15 and 18 months after initial treatment. At 18 months after the initial treatment, the blinded evaluator determined that 97% of the NLFs re-treated at 4.5 months displayed at least 1 WSRS grade improvement over baseline, with a mean change in wrinkle severity score of 1.7 units. At 18 months after the initial treatment, the blinded evaluator determined that 95% of the NLFs re-treated at 9 months displayed at least 1 WSRS grade improvement over baseline, with a mean change in wrinkle severity score of 1.6 units. MA-1100-001: Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Clinical Study Design 1:1 randomized, prospective study at 3 U.S. centers, which compared the safety, tolerability, and pain reduction of Restylane-L compared to Restylane in 60 patients. Patients were randomized to Restylane-L or Restylane treatment in a “within-patient” model of bilateral nasolabial folds (NLFs) correction, with one treatment assigned to one side and the other treatment to the remaining side. Patients and treating physicians were blinded; evaluating physicians were independent and blinded. The study included 53.3% of patients with darker skin types based on classification of Fitzpatrick Skin Types IV, V, or VI (35% Skin Type IV and 18.3% Skin Type V or VI). Pain was assessed by each patient for each treatment site independently on the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at the end of injection and at 15-minute intervals for 60 minutes post-treatment. Patient assessment of appearance using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) (Very much improved / much improved / improved / no change / worse) was performed at the Day 14 visit. Safety was studied with 14-day follow-up. Endpoints Primary The proportion of patients that had a within-patient difference in the VAS (Restylane – Restylane-L) of at least 10 mm at injection together with a 95% confidence interval. The objective was to show that the confidence interval lay above 50%. Secondary The proportion of patients that had a within-patient difference in VAS of at least 10 mm at post-injection time points (15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes after injection) together with a 95% confidence interval, the mean VAS by treatment and within-patient difference in VAS at each time point, the comparison of VAS between Restylane-L and Restylane, at each time point, and patient assessment on GAIS by treatment. Safety assessments included: collection of patient symptoms in a 14-day diary and investigator evaluation of adverse events at 14 days. Outcomes Demographics The study enrolled 60 patients with moderate to severe NLF wrinkles. The patients were predominantly healthy ethnically diverse females. Gender Female: 58 (96.7%); Male: 2 (3.3%) Ethnicity White: 34 (56.7%); Hispanic or Latino: 21 (35.0%); African American: 3 (5.0%); Asian: 1 (1.7%); Other: 1 (1.7%) Fitzpatrick Skin Type Type I-III; 28 (46.7 %); Type IV: 21 (35.0%); Type V and VI: 11 (18.3%) Volume The mean volume of Restylane-L per wrinkle was 1.24 mL. The mean volume of Restylane per wrinkle was 1.23 mL. Volume Injected per Wrinkle (mL) (Study MA-1100-001) Treatment Volume (mL) n Mean Std Min Median Max Restylane-L per NLF 60 1.24 0.54 0.60 1.00 3.00 Restylane per NLF 60 1.23 0.55 0.60 1.00 3.00 Difference within patient* 60 -0.01 0.18 -0.50 0.00 0.40 * Restylane volume – Restylane-L volume Abbreviations: n=number of patients; std=standard deviation; Min=minimum; Max=maximum Primary: The primary efficacy analysis for pain reduction showed that 71.7% of patients had a within-patient difference in VAS (Restylane minus Restylane-L) of at least 10 mm at the time of injection. The primary objective was met, since statistically more than 50% of patients had at least 10 mm lower score on VAS on the side treated with Restylane-L (confidence interval was 58.6 to 82.5). At 15 minutes post-injection, 46.7% still had a within-patient difference in VAS of at least 10 mm. Treatment Difference (Δ) in VAS (Restylane Side – Restylane-L Side) — ITT Population (Study MA-1100-01) Time point No. of patients with assessments** Number of patients with Δ > 10 mm n % 95% LCL 95% UCL Treatment* 60 43 71.7 58.6 82.5 15 Minutes 60 28 46.7 33.7 60.0 30 Minutes 60 17 28.3 17.5 41.4 45 Minutes 60 10 16.7 8.3 28.5 60 Minutes 60 4 6.7 1.8 16.2 * Primary endpoint **Denominator (N), %=100*n/N; UCL=upper confidence limit; LCL=lower confidence limit Secondary: Both pain scores decreased over time, but the mean within-patient difference on VAS (Restylane – Restylane-L) was statistically significantly larger than zero at all time points (at injection and at 15, 30, 45 and 60 minutes post-injection). Patients' Mean VAS Assessments of Pain by Time Point (Study MA-1100-001) Time point VAS pain by treatment (mm) VAS difference (mm)* p-value** Restylane-L Restylane Treatment 14.7 44.9 30.3 <0.001 15 Minutes 6.1 23.2 17.2 <0.001 30 Minutes 2.5 11.7 9.2 <0.001 45 Minutes 1.4 7.0 5.6 <0.001 60 Minutes 1.0 3.2 2.2 <0.001 * Within-patient difference (Restylane side – Restylane-L side), ** One-sample T-test At Day 14, subjects showed improvement from baseline: 100% on the Restylane-L side of the face and 98.3% on the Restylane side of the face. Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) Evaluation at the Day 14 Visit (Study MA-1100-001) Category GAIS Restylane-L Restylane n % n % Very Much Improved (4) 17 28.3 18 30.0 Much Improved (3) 29 48.3 29 48.3 Improved (2) 14 23.3 12 20.0 No Change (1) - 0.0 1 1.7 Worse (0) - 0.0 0.0 MA-1300-15 The safety and effectiveness of Restylane for lip fullness augmentation was evaluated in a randomized, evaluator blinded, no treatment controlled study. MA-1300-15: Randomized Clinical Study Design This was a randomized, evaluator blinded, no treatment as a control study of 180 subjects who were seeking lip fullness augmentation at 12 investigational centers. At entry of the study, subjects were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to (1) Restylane treatment or (2) no treatment. The study recruited a minimum of 30 subjects with darker skin types based on classification of Fitzpatrick skin types IV, V, or VI. Each lip qualified by MLFS score was analyzed for effectiveness and all lips were analyzed for safety. Subjects randomized to treatment at baseline were re-treated at 6 months and subjects randomized to no treatment at baseline received their first treatment at 6 months. The safety of all subjects was then monitored for one month after the 6 month treatment. Endpoints - Effectiveness Primary The primary effectiveness objective was to identify whether Restylane was more effective in lip augmentation than no treatment. This was determined by the blinded evaluator assessment of lip fullness at 8 weeks after the first treatment as compared to the baseline assessment by the treating investigator, separately in the upper and lower lips (co-primary endpoints), using separate 5-grade Medicis Lip Fullness Scales (MLFS) with photoguides for each (one scale for upper lip and one scale for lower lip). Treatment success was defined as at least a one grade improvement in the MLFS for the blinded evaluator assessments at Week 8 (as compared to the treating investigator's baseline assessment of the MLFS) for both the upper and lower lips. The primary safety objective was to define the incidence of all adverse events; including subject complaints reported during the first fourteen days after treatment as recorded in the subject diary; safety assessments at the 72 hour visits; treating investigator assessments at 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 weeks as well as 2 and 4 weeks after the 6 month treatment; and any reported or observed adverse events. Secondary Secondary effectiveness objectives included: Assessment of lip fullness augmentation after treatment with Restylane as compared to no treatment, as measured by the blinded evaluator, treating investigator, and IPR at post-baseline time points as compared to the baseline assessment. Response was determined by at least one grade improvement from baseline in the upper and lower lips using the MLFS. Identification of lip improvement at each time point after treatment with Restylane as compared to no treatment using the GAIS by the treating investigator and the subject. Response is defined as a GAIS rating of “improved” or better in the upper or lower lips. The secondary safety objectives included assessment of lip texture, firmness, symmetry, product palpability, mass formation, lip movement, function, and sensation. Outcomes Demographics The study enrolled an adult population of predominately Caucasian healthy females. Characteristics Total (N=180) Age (years) n 180 Mean (S.D.) 47.6 (10.6) Median 50.0 Minimum 18 Maximum 65 Gender Male 1 (<1%) Female 179 (99%) Characteristics Total (N=180) Race American Indian/Alaskan Native 2 (1%) Black/African American 2 (1%) Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1 (<1%) Asian 0 White 169 (94%) Other 6 (3%) Ethnicity Not Hispanic or Latino 161 (89%) Hispanic or Latino 19 (11%) Fitzpatrick Skin I, II, and III 139 (77%) IV and V 41 (23%) Volume (mL) of Restylane used Assessment (upper and lower lips) Initial Treatment 6 Month Treatment No Treatment (N=45) Restylane (1st Treatment) (N=135) No Treatment (1st Treatment) (N=45) Restylane (2nd Treatment) (N=135) Volume of Injection (mL) (includes treatment and touch up) n - 135 37 93 Mean (S.D.) - 2.853 (0.984) 2.387 (1.380) 1.783 (0.921) Median - 3.000 2.250 1.700 Minimum - 0.60 0.60 0.03 Maximum - 5.60 8.00 5.00 Effectiveness The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of Restylane for soft tissue augmentation of the lips. The results confirm that Restylane is highly effective for adding fullness to both the upper and lower lips for at least 6 months. The results of the blinded evaluator MLFS assessments of lip fullness are presented in the figure below for subject outcomes 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 weeks. Proportion (%) of MLFS Responders Measured by the Blinded Evaluator p-value < 0.001 for all time points Subjects assessed lip improvement at each time point after treatment with a 7-point non-validated GAIS. When upper and lower lip outcomes were combined, the following percentage of Restylane subjects assessed themselves as improved or better from Baseline: 97.7% (Week 2), 99.2% (Week 4), 96.7% (Week 8), 91.7% (Week 12), 85.0% (Week 16), 76.1% (Week 20), and 74.1% (Week 24). No patients in the No Treatment group assessed themselves as improved from Baseline at any visit. 80% of the eligible subjects elected to receive re-treatment at Week 24 which suggests that subjects believed that the safety concerns associated with Restylane lip injections were less than the aesthetic value provided by the device. MA-1300-13K Design A prospective, open label, single center, blinded evaluator study in 20 subjects Endpoints The effectiveness evaluation parameter was the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) To assess the incidence and severity of adverse experiences from Restylane when used in the lips Outcomes A total of 20 subjects (2 male, 18 female) were enrolled and 19 subjects completed the study. One 80 year old subject died during the study due to cardio-respiratory arrest. Mean age was 52.8 years old. Seventeen subjects were white. At 12 weeks, 7/19 (37%) subjects were rated as improved on their GAIS assessment by the Blinded Evaluator. At 12 weeks, all (100%) subjects rated themselves as improved on their GAIS assessment. Parameter N n Subjects with Lip Improvement Percent 90% Cl p-value1 Lip Improvement Using the Blinded Evaluator's Assessment1 20 19 7 37% (0.19, 0.58) 0.820 Lip Improvement Using the Treating Investigator's Assessment 20 19 19 100% (0.85, 1.00) <0.001 Lip Improvement Using the Subject's Assessment 20 17 17 100% (0.84, 1.00) <0.001 1 Due to the protocol deviation, the live blinded evaluator's assessment was a photo assessment. Mean Volume Used Lip Statistic Volume of Injection (mL) Upper N 20 Mean (S.D.) 0.82 (0.30) Median 0.73 Min, Max 0.08, 1.40 Lower N 20 Mean (S.D.) 0.88 (0.37) Median 0.80 Min, Max 0.05, 1.80 Total N 20 Mean (S.D.) 1.69 (0.62) Median 1.60 Min, Max 0.13, 3.20

Restylane-L® (hyaluronic acid) Injectable Gel with 0.3% Lidocaine Caution: Federal Law restricts this device to sale by or on the order of a physician or licensed practitioner. DESCRIPTION Restylane-L is a gel of hyaluronic acid generated by Streptococcus species of bacteria, chemically crosslinked with BDDE, stabilized and suspended in phosphate buffered saline at pH=7 and concentration of 20 mg/mL with 0.3% lidocaine.

INDICATIONS Restylane-L is indicated for mid-to-deep dermal implantation for the correction of moderate to severe facial wrinkles and folds, such as nasolabial folds. Restylane-L is indicated for submucosal implantation for lip augmentation in patients over the age of 21. DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION Directions For Assembly Of 29 G Needle To Syringe Use the thumb and forefinger to hold firmly around both the glass syringe barrel and the Luer-Lok adapter. Grasp the needle shield with the other hand. To facilitate proper assembly, both push and rotate firmly. Pre-Treatment Guidelines Prior to treatment, the patient should avoid taking aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, St. John's Wort, or high doses of Vitamin E supplements. These agents may increase bruising and bleeding at the injection site. Treatment Procedure It is necessary to counsel the patient and discuss the appropriate indication, risks, benefits and expected responses to the Restylane-L treatment. Advise the patient of the necessary precautions before commencing the procedure. Assess the patient's need for appropriate anesthetic treatment for managing comfort, i.e., topical anesthetic, local or nerve block. The patient's face should be washed with soap and water and dried with a clean towel. Cleanse the area to be treated with alcohol or another suitable antiseptic solution. Sterile gloves are recommended while injecting Restylane-L. Before injecting, press rod carefully until a small droplet is visible at the tip of the needle. Restylane-L is administered using a thin gauge needle (29 G x ½"). The needle is inserted at an approximate angle of 30° parallel to the length of the wrinkle, fold, or lip. For nasolabial folds, Restylane-L should be injected into the mid-to-deep dermis. For lip augmentation, Restylane-L should be injected into the submucosal layer, care should be taken to avoid intramuscular injection. If Restylane-L is injected too superficially this may result in visible lumps and/or bluish discoloration. Inject Restylane-L applying even pressure on the plunger rod. It is important that the injection is stopped just before the needle is pulled out of the skin to prevent material from leaking out or ending up too superficially in the skin. Only correct to 100% of the desired volume effect. Do not overcorrect. With cutaneous deformities the best results are obtained if the defect can be manually stretched to the point where it is eliminated. The degree and duration of the correction depend on the character of the defect treated, the tissue stress at the implant site, the depth of the implant in the tissue and the injection technique. Typical usage for each treatment session is specific to the site as well as wrinkle severity. In a prospective study of midface wrinkle correction, the median total dose was 3.0 mL. Based on U.S. clinical studies, the maximum recommended dose per treatment is 6.0 mL for the nasolabial folds and 1.5 mL per lip per treatment. Injection Techniques Restylane-L can be injected by a number of different techniques that depend on the treating physician's experience and preference, and patient characteristics. Serial puncture (A) involves multiple, closely spaced injections along wrinkles or folds. Although serial puncture allows precise placement of the filler, it produces multiple puncture wounds that may be undesirable to some patients. Linear threading (includes retrograde and antegrade) (B) is accomplished by fully inserting the needle into the middle of the wrinkle or fold and injecting the filler along the track as a “thread.” Although threading is most commonly practiced after the needle has been fully inserted and is being withdrawn, it can also be performed while advancing the needle (“push-ahead” technique). To enhance the vermillion of the lip, the retrograde linear threading technique is the most advisable Serial threading is a technique that utilizes elements of both approaches. Cross-hatching (C) consists of a series of parallel linear threads injected at intervals of five to ten mm followed by a new series of threads injected at right angles to the first set to form a grid. This technique is particularly useful in facial contouring when coverage of the treatment region needs to be maximized. Note! The correct injection technique is crucial for the final result of the treatment. A. Serial Puncture B. Linear Threading (includes retrograde and antegrade) C. Cross-hatching Dissection of the sub-epidermal plane with lateral movement of the needle, rapid flows (> 0.3 mL/min), rapid injection or high volumes may result in an increase in short-term episodes of bruising, swelling, redness, pain, or tenderness at the injection site. When the injection is completed, the treated site should be gently massaged so that it conforms to the contour of the surrounding tissues. If an overcorrection has occurred, massage the area firmly between your fingers or against an underlying area to obtain optimal results. If so called “blanching” is observed, i.e., the overlying skin turns a whitish color, the injection should be stopped immediately and the area massaged until it returns to a normal color. If the wrinkles or lips need further treatment, the same procedure should be repeated until a satisfactory result is obtained. Additional treatment with Restylane-L may be necessary to achieve the desired correction. If the treated area is swollen directly after the injection, an ice pack can be applied on the site for a short period. Ice should be used with caution if the area is still numb from anesthetic to avoid thermal injury. Patients may have mild to moderate injection site reactions, which typically resolve in less than 7 days in the nasolabial folds and less than 14 days in the lip. Sterile Needle(s) Follow national, local or institutional guidelines for use and disposal of medical sharp devices. Obtain prompt medical attention if injury occurs. To help avoid needle breakage, do not attempt to straighten a bent needle. Discard it and complete the procedure with a replacement needle. Do not reshield used needles. Recapping by hand is a hazardous practice and should be avoided. Discard unshielded needles in approved sharps collectors. Restylane-L is provided with a needle that does not contain engineered injury protection. Administration of Restylane-L requires direct visualization and complete and gradual insertion of the needle making engineered protections infeasible. Care should be taken to avoid sharps exposure by proper environmental controls. HOW SUPPLIED Restylane-L is supplied in a disposable glass syringe with a Luer-Lok® fitting. Restylane-L is co-packed with sterilized needle(s) as indicated on the carton (29 G x ½"). A patient record label is a part of the syringe label. Remove it by pulling the flap marked with three small arrows. This label is to be attached to patient records to ensure traceability of the product. The contents of the syringe are sterile. The volume in each syringe and needle gauge is as stated on the syringe label and on the carton. Shelf Life And Storage Restylane-L must be used prior to the expiration date printed on the package. Store at a temperature of up to 25° C (77° F). Do not freeze. Protect from sunlight. Refrigeration is not required. Do not resterilize Restylane-L as this may damage or alter the product. Do not use if the package is damaged. Immediately return the damaged product to Galderma Laboratories, L.P. Manufactured for: Galderma Laboratories, L.P., 14501 N. Freeway, Fort Worth, TX 76177 USA, Phone: 1-855-425-8722. Manufactured by : Q-Med AB, Seminariegatan 21, SE-752 28 Uppsala, Sweden Ordering Information Galderma Laboratories, L.P. and its distributor, McKesson, Specialty, are your only credits for FDA-approved, Restylane-L. Purchasing from any other agent is illegal. Revised: Sep 2014 Manufactured for: Galderma Laboratories, L.P., 14501 N. Freeway, Fort Worth, TX 76177 USA, Phone: 1-855-425-8722. Manufactured by: Q-Med AB, Seminariegatan 21, SE-752 28 Uppsala. Revised: Sep 2014

PATIENT INFORMATION No information provided. Please refer to the WARNINGS and PRECAUTIONS sections.

SIDE EFFECTS Adverse Experiences There were seven U.S. studies that reported adverse experiences. Five of the seven studies were conducted in support of the indication of mid-to-deep dermal implantation for the correction of moderate to severe facial wrinkles and folds, such as nasolabial folds, and two of the seven studies were conducted in support of the indication of submucosal implantation for lip augmentation. Studies Conducted In Moderate To Severe Facial Wrinkles And Folds, Such As Nasolabial Folds Three U.S. studies (i.e., Study 31GE0003, MA-1400-01, and Study MA-1400-02) involved 430 patients at 33 centers. In study 31GE0003, 138 patients at 6 centers received Restylane injections in 1 side of the face and a bovine collagen dermal filler (Zyplast®) in the other side of the face. In Study MA-1400-01, 150 patients were injected with Restylane on one side of the face and Perlane® on the other side of the face. In study MA-1400-02, 283 patients were randomized to receive either Restylane or Perlane injection on both sides of the face. The adverse outcomes reported in patient diaries during 14 days after treatment in these studies are presented in Tables 1–6. The physician diagnosed adverse events identified in studies MA-1400-01 and MA-1400-02 at 72 hours after injection are presented in Table 7. Table 8 presents all investigator-identified adverse experiences recorded at study visits 2 weeks or more after injection in studies MA-1400-01, MA-1400-02, and 31GE0003. In the fourth U.S. study (MA-004-03) involving 75 patients at 3 centers, adverse events reported by Restylane patients are presented in Table 11. Patients in the study received Restylane injections in both nasolabial folds at baseline, a second treatment in one nasolabial fold at 4.5 months and in the contralateral nasolabial fold at 9 months. In a fifth U.S. study (MA-1100-001) 60 patients at three centers randomly received Restylane-L injections on one side of the face and Restylane injections on the other side of the face. The adverse events reported in patient diaries during 14 days after treatment are presented in Tables 7 and 8. The physician recorded adverse events identified in study MA-1100-001 at 14 days after injection are presented in Table 12. Table 9 shows the number of adverse experiences identified by investigators at 72 hours after injection for Studies MA-1400 -01 and MA-1400-02. Some patients had multiple adverse experiences or had the same adverse experience at multiple injection sites. No adverse experiences were of severe intensity. Table 10 presents the number of patients and per patient incidence of all adverse experiences identified by investigators at visits occurring two or more weeks after injection. In a clinical study (31GE0003) in which safety was followed for 12 months with repeat administration of Restylane at six to nine months following the initial correction, the incidence and severity of adverse events were similar in nature and duration to those recorded during the initial treatment sessions. In all three studies, investigators reported the following local and systemic events that were judged unrelated to treatment and occurred at an overall incidence of less than 2%, i.e., acne; arthralgia; tooth disorders (e.g., pain, infection, abscess, fracture); dermatitis (e.g., rosacea, unspecified, contact, impetigo, herpetic); unrelated injection site reactions (e.g., desquamation, rash, anesthesia); facial palsy with co-administration of botulinum toxin; headache/migraine; nausea (with or without vomiting); syncope; gastroenteritis; upper respiratory or influenza-like illness; bronchitis; sinusitis; pharyngitis; otitis; viral infection; cystitis; diverticulitis; injuries; lacerations; back pain; rheumatoid arthritis; and various medical conditions such as chest pain, depression, pneumonia, renal stones, urinary incontinence, and uterine fibroids. Table 11 presents the number of patients and per patient incidence and severity of injection site adverse events identified by the investigator. Two subjects had adverse events that were severe, one subject with bilateral facial bruising and one subject with infection at the injection site. These events were considered probably or possibly related and both subjects had their events resolve in approximately 3 weeks. Table 12 shows the number of adverse events identified by investigators during Day 1 through Day 14 after injection in Study MA-1100-001. Some patients had multiple adverse events or had the same adverse events at bilateral injection sites. No adverse events were of severe intensity. Patients were queried on adverse events on the day of injection and at the Day 14 visit. Study MA-1100-001, included 52 subjects who had no prior cosmetic treatment and 8 subjects who had prior dermal filler treatment. There were no statistical differences in the proportion of subjects with adverse events who had prior treatment and those with no prior treatment. Studies Conducted For Submucosal Implantation For Lip Augmentation In the U.S. pivotal study (MA-1300-15) involving 180 subjects at 12 centers, the adverse outcomes reported in subject diaries are presented in Tables 14 and 15. Physician reported treatment emergent adverse events are presented in Table 16. At baseline, subjects were randomized to receive Restylane injections in the lips or no treatment (control group). At 6 months, all subjects were eligible to receive treatment or re-treatment in the lips with Restylane. Of the 180 subjects enrolled in the study, 172 subjects received their first treatment with Restylane at either baseline/Day 0 or at 6 months, and 93 subjects received a second treatment at 6 months. There were 8 subjects enrolled in the study that were never treated. The number of events and subjects reporting TEAEs decreased between the first and second treatments. 87% of subjects receiving their first treatment reported a total of 795 TEAEs while 65% of subjects that received a second treatment reported a total of 267 TEAEs. Furthermore, an overwhelming majority of these TEAEs were mild in intensity (672/795, 85%; and 264/267, 99%; first and second treatment respectively), and were transient in nature, resolving in approximately 15 days or less. The study results showed injection of greater than 1.5 Ml per lip (upper or lower), per treatment session increased the occurrence of the total of moderate and severe injection site reactions. The incidence was 43% (33/76) for subjects receiving more than 3.0 mL of Restylane and 21% (20/96) for subjects receiving less than 3.0 mL of Restylane in a single treatment session. When optimal correction requires greater than 1.5 mL per upper or lower lip, subsequent treatment using additional product is recommended. 97% of the subjects reported at least one event of swelling, redness, tenderness, or pain in their diaries. These were mainly short-term events, which occurred immediately after treatment and resolved within 14 days. 15% of the subjects reported adverse events (typically swelling and tenderness) that lasted longer than 15 days in their diary. 46% of subjects reported at least one event as “affecting their daily activity” or “disabling.” Additional safety assessments in the study included lip texture, firmness, symmetry, movement, function, sensation, mass formation, and product palpability, which were evaluated as appropriate at the screening visits and at follow-up visits. The majority of texture and firmness assessments showed mild abnormalities and lasted for less than 4 weeks.  Sixteen subjects reported severe asymmetry (difference > 2 mm) post-treatment, which all resolved within 4 weeks. GAIS assessments by these 16 subjects were rated as at least improved during those visits. Assessments made by the trained health care provider showed 92% of subjects had product palpability at week 8, and 61% at week 24. The majority of palpations were rated as “expected feel.” 3% of the subjects reported “unexpected feel” during the study, all of which were resolved with massaging. One subject reported one mass formation (mucocele) during the study. The mucocele was drained and resolved by the next visit. All other lip safety assessments showed no remarkable findings. In the pilot study MA-1300-13K, 20 subjects were enrolled at 1 center and received Restylane for lip augmentation. Subjects were followed up through 24 weeks. Seven adverse events were reported. Two of the seven events, which were mild bruising, were related to injection procedure. The adverse outcomes reported in subject diaries are presented in Table 17. Table 16 presents commonly reported (≥ 5%) treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) by treatment group. For study MA-1300-13K, seven treatment emergent adverse events were experienced by four subjects. Two of these events, mild bruising, were considered related to treatment. Post-Marketing Surveillance The following adverse events were received from post-marketing surveillance for Restylane and Perlane in the U.S. and other countries: presumptive bacterial infections, inflammatory adverse events, necrosis, injection site numbness/tingling, and vasovagal reactions. Reported treatments have included systemic steroids, systemic antibiotics, and intravenous administrations of medications. Additionally, delayed inflammatory reaction to Restylane has been observed with swelling, redness, tenderness, induration and rarely acneform papules at the injection site with onset as long as several weeks after the initial treatment. Average duration of these effects is two weeks. Implant and injection site reactions, mostly non-serious events, have also been reported. These include: discoloration, bruising, swelling, mass formation, erythema, pain, scarring and ischemia. Most instances of discoloration including hyperpigmentation, sometimes described as a blue or brown color and ranging from mild to severe, have occurred within the same day as treatment but have also occurred up to 6 months posttreatment. These events typically resolve within a few days but with some infrequent instances lasting up to 18 months. Implant and/or injection site bruising, swelling, erythema and pain generally occurred on the same day as treatment usually resolving within 1 to 4 weeks. Some occurrences have persisted for up to 6 months. Severity for these events is generally mild to moderate although some cases have been severe. Mild to moderate mass formations (typically described as lumps or bumps) have also been seen ranging in onset from 1 day to 6 months post-implantation. Rarely, events of this type have been observed for up to 13 months. These events usually resolved within 1 to 5 months. Mild to moderate scarring was rarely observed. Onset of symptoms ranged from immediate post-treatment to up to 1 year following implantation. Symptom resolution was approximately 3 weeks with 1 instance lasting up to 3 years. Most ischemic events have occurred immediately following implantation and ranged in severity from moderate to severe. Events were resolving as early as 2 days and up to 9 weeks post-treatment. Symptoms associated with herpetic eruptions which included swelling, pain, whiteheads, vesicles and erythema have been reported and commonly occurred within 2 days to 1 month following implantation. Severity ranged from mild to moderate and resolution of symptoms ranged from 1 to 15 weeks. Telangiectasias and capillary disorders, commonly characterized as broken capillaries, have been reported and occurred with an onset of 1 day to 7 weeks. Most events ranged in severity from mild to moderate with a few severe instances. Duration of events ranged from 2 weeks up to 13 months. Very rarely, instances of moderate to severe biopsy confirmed granuloma were observed. Onset ranged from 3 weeks to 4 months with resolution between 6 weeks to 11 months. Events of mild to moderate hypoaesthesia have occurred ranging in onset from 1 day to 1 week. Duration and resolution occurred between 1 day and 10 weeks. Serious adverse events have been rarely reported. The most commonly reported serious adverse events (by MedDRA Preferred Term) were hypersensitivity, and implant and/or injection site swelling, ischemia and discoloration. Of these infrequently reported serious events, only the following occurred in a frequency of 5 or greater: Hypersensitivity reactions ranging from moderate to severe mostly occurred within 1 to 2 days of implantation and up to 3 weeks. Reported symptoms included swelling; itching on chest and back; puffy, burning, watery, and itchy eyes; and shortness of breath. Treatments included steroids, diphenhydramine, unspecified intravenous medication, oxygen and various creams. An evaluation of patients who reported potential hypersensitivity reactions did not demonstrate any evidence of IgE or cell mediated immunologic reactions specifically directed at hyaluronic acid. Most hypersensitivity events resolved within 1 to 14 days with or without treatment. Allergic reaction and anaphylactic shock: Eight patients experienced immediate post-injection reactions which included extreme swelling of lips and the whole face. Two of these patients had symptoms of hypersensitivity and one patient experienced anaphylactic shock and presented with shortness of breath, headache, nausea and vomiting. These patients had to be admitted to the emergency room or were hospitalized for immediate medical interventions. Delayed hypersensitivity: Two patients developed symptoms of hypersensitivity 7–10 days after injection. One patient experienced severe erythema and swelling in the lips and all over her face to the point that her eyes were shut and the other had swelling of the lips accompanied by dyspnea, lymphadenopathy, peripheral and laryngeal edema. Vascular accidents and necrosis: In 5 patients, skin discoloration, bruising, and blanching was seen immediately post-injection due to vascular accidents. The lesions later turned into necrosis and in some cases remained as scarring or dark spots. One example was a patient who had a “mustache-like” mark above her lips, even after receiving treatments. Later, one patient in this group developed hard bumps in her upper lips that looked like “granulomas.” Infection/Abscess: Serious abscess formations ranging from moderate to severe occurred in eleven patients. Onset ranged from 3 days to one week with an average duration of approximately one month to resolution. Symptoms included swelling, redness, pain and hard nodules. Five patients required hospitalization for incision and drainage (I&D) and intravenous (IV) antibiotic therapy. Cultures for all patients ranged from gram positive staphylococcal, gram negative cellulitis, apathogen streptococci, gram positive cocci infection, polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMN) with no bacteria and positive proprionibacterium malassezia. The remaining cultures were either negative or not reported. Treatment included various antibiotics and steroids in some cases. The following non-serious events, extrusion of device, ischemia/necrosis, and device dislocation, were also reported in a frequency of 5 or more. These events were considered non-serious as they did not meet seriousness criteria. Adverse reactions should be reported to Galderma Laboratories, L.P. at 1-855-425-8722. DRUG INTERACTIONS No information provided.