BACKGROUND:Nasolabial folds (NLFs) are common age-related facial lines, often treated with dermal fillers. Princess FILLER Lidocaine (PFL; now saypha filler Lidocaine) and Juvéderm Ultra XC (JUXC) are both hyaluronic acid-based fillers used for this purpose. OBJECTIVES:The aim of the authors of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PFL in reducing NLF severity compared with JUXC using a split-face study design. METHODS:In this randomized, subject- and investigator-blinded multicenter study, patients with moderate-to-severe NLFs received PFL on one side of the face and JUXC on the other. Baseline NLF severity was assessed using the 5-point NLF-Severity Rating Scale (NLF-SRS). Follow-up assessments occurred at Weeks 12, 24, 36, and/or 48. The primary endpoint was the proportion of NLF-SRS responders at Week 24. Secondary endpoints included assessments by photographic reviewers and treating investigators, along with Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) ratings. Safety was monitored by adverse event reporting and patient diaries. FACE-Q questionnaires evaluated patient satisfaction. Repeat treatment was permitted at Week 36 or 48 if needed. RESULTS:At Week 24, PFL demonstrated noninferiority to JUXC (82.2% vs 81.9% responders; difference 0.37%, P < .0001). Secondary assessments confirmed this finding. Adverse events occurred in 24.4% of patients post PFL, with most being mild to moderate. Serious treatment-emergent adverse events were rare (1.1%). CONCLUSIONS:PFL is a noninferior alternative to JUXC for treating moderate-to-severe NLFs, with comparable efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 (THERAPEUTIC):For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.
Autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is widely used for alopecia, but outcomes are often inconsistent due to procedural differences and patient-to-patient biological variability, including platelet yield, leukocyte content, and the mixed presence of stimulatory and inhibitory mediators. This commentary outlines a rationale for moving from variable autologous PRP toward defined PRP-inspired, growth-factor-based platelet mimetic formulations with batch-specified concentrations and relative proportions to enable more reproducible dosing and clearer clinical evaluation, aligned with Precision Re-Engineered Efficacy Optimization as a framework for standardizing potency, composition, and performance. Such formulations may improve consistency and scalability, but should be viewed as controlled reconstructions of selected PRP-associated signals rather than complete replicas of platelet releasate. Their translational value will depend on careful formulation characterization, staged proof-of-concept testing, and controlled clinical studies to establish safety, dosing, and comparative effectiveness.
BACKGROUND:Acne vulgaris is a chronic inflammatory disorder of the pilosebaceous unit and one of the most prevalent dermatological conditions globally. Its multifactorial pathogenesis and variable clinical presentation necessitate a multimodal therapeutic approach. While pharmacological interventions remain first-line therapy, cosmetic and dermatologic procedures are increasingly utilized as adjunctive strategies to enhance clinical outcomes. This narrative review synthesizes current evidence on four commonly employed cosmetic modalities in acne management: chemical peels, mechanical peels, light-based therapies, and radiofrequency-assisted microneedling. AIM:The aim of this study is to evaluate the role of procedural treatments as adjunctive options in the management of acne vulgaris. METHODS:A literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus with no time restrictions, focusing on patients with acne vulgaris and adjunct cosmetic/procedural interventions. RESULTS:Given the narrative scope, this was a non-comprehensive, non-exhaustive evidence synthesis, with treatment options organized thematically. Overall, these cosmetic procedures can provide meaningful adjunctive benefits when integrated into individualized acne treatment plans. However, variability in study designs, procedural parameters, and outcome measures limits direct comparison across modalities. Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are necessary to establish standardized protocols and to determine long-term safety and efficacy. CONCLUSIONS:Procedural treatments can serve as valuable adjuncts in the management of acne vulgaris by enhancing therapeutic outcomes and addressing treatment-resistant cases. However, individualized treatment selection and further high-quality studies are needed to optimize their use and long-term benefits.
