case_images: PMC6885652_01
case_images: (A) Proportion of subjects with >=1 grade improvement in NLF severity based on the NLF-SRS as assessed by the investigator and the independent reviewer of photographs ("reviewer"). (B) Proportion of subjects with >=2 grades improvement in NLF severity based on the NLF-SRS as assessed by the investigator.. Notes: Percentages are based on the number of subjects in the analysis set (N=60). The evaluation of 1 subject was missing at all post-baseline visits.. Abbreviations: N, number of subjects; NLF, nasolabial fold; NLF-SRS, nasolabial fold-severity rating scale.
case_images: CCID-12-857-g0002.jpg
case_images: PMC6885652_01_CCID-12-857-g0002.jpg
case_images: F0002
case_images: The proportion of subjects with an improvement of at least 1 grade of the NLF-SRS as assessed by the investigator is shown in Table 1 and by the independent reviewer of photographs is shown in Figure 2A. The investigator's rating of a >=2-grade improvement was 88% of subjects at week 4, 68% at week 24 and 60% at week 36 (Figure 2B). 
case_images: Proportion of subjects with improved aesthetics as assessed by the investigator using the GAIS.. Notes: The GAIS score was averaged over both nasolabial folds. Percentages are based on the number of subjects in the analysis set (N=60). The evaluation of 1 subject was missing at all postbaseline visits.. Abbreviations: GAIS, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale; N, number of subjects.
case_images: CCID-12-857-g0003.jpg
case_images: PMC6885652_01_CCID-12-857-g0003.jpg
case_images: F0003
case_images: At week 36 66.1% had GAIS Score 1, 27.1% had GAIS Score 2, 5.1% had GAIS Score 3 and 1.7% had GAIS Score 4 (no change) (Figure 3).
case_images: Subject satisfaction ratings.. Notes: Percentages are based on the number of subjects in the analysis set (N=60). The evaluation of 1 subject was missing at all post-baseline visits.. Abbreviation: N, number of subjects.
case_images: CCID-12-857-g0004.jpg
case_images: PMC6885652_01_CCID-12-857-g0004.jpg
case_images: F0004
case_images: At week 36, 56 subjects (93.3%) were "very satisfied" or "satisfied" with the treatment, while no subject was "very unsatisfied" (Figure 4).
case_images: Pain score immediately after injection.. Notes: Percentages of subjects with their Pain Score immediately after injection at Initial treatment and at Touch-up treatment. Percentages are based on the number of subjects in the analysis set (N=60) for the initial treatment and N=20 for touch-up treatment. The evaluation of 1 subject was missing at all post-baseline visits.. Abbreviation: N, number of subjects.
case_images: CCID-12-857-g0005.jpg
case_images: PMC6885652_01_CCID-12-857-g0005.jpg
case_images: F0005
case_images: Immediately after the injection 36.7% of subjects had pain score 0, 18.3% had pain score 1, 18.3% had pain score 2, 18.3% had pain score 3, 5% had pain score 4 and 3.3% had pain score 5, no patient reported pain scores 6-10 (Figure 5). Twenty subjects received a touch-up treatment 8.3% had pain score 0, 6.7% had pain score 1, 8.3% had pain score 2, 6.7% had pain score 4, 1.7% had pain score 5 and 1.7% had pain score 6, no patient reported pain scores 6-10 (Figure 5).