Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Efficacy and Safety of Combined Topical Lidocaine and Tetracaine Cream for Facial Fractional Laser Resurfacing Compared With Its Reference Product in Chinese Adults: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double‐Blind Phase 3 Study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Efficacy and Safety of Combined Topical Lidocaine and Tetracaine Cream for Facial Fractional Laser Resurfacing Compared With Its Reference Product in Chinese Adults: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double‐Blind Phase 3 Study
Do you wish to request the book?
Efficacy and Safety of Combined Topical Lidocaine and Tetracaine Cream for Facial Fractional Laser Resurfacing Compared With Its Reference Product in Chinese Adults: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double‐Blind Phase 3 Study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Efficacy and Safety of Combined Topical Lidocaine and Tetracaine Cream for Facial Fractional Laser Resurfacing Compared With Its Reference Product in Chinese Adults: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double‐Blind Phase 3 Study
2025
Overview
Background As a potentially effective anesthetic, CU‐30101 is comprised of 7% lidocaine and 7% tetracaine and is a generic drug of Pliaglis. This study aimed to investigate the equivalence between CU‐30101 and Pliaglis as topical anesthetics for fractional laser. Methods This Phase 3 trial recruited Chinese adults scheduled for facial fractional laser resurfacing. Participants were randomized to receive opposite treatment sequences of CU‐30101 and Pliaglis on contralateral sides of the face prior to laser application. Visual Analog Scale (VAS), participant and investigator satisfaction ratings, local tolerability, and safety were assessed. Results Two hundred eighty‐four participants completed the study, with mean VAS scores of 35.3 ± 24.51 for CU‐30101 and 37.3 ± 24.17 for Pliaglis. The 95% confidence interval of −3.78 to −0.13 for the VAS difference laid within the predefined equivalence margin of ±4.7, confirming equivalence in efficacy. The results in the per‐protocol set further corroborated the equivalence. Both participants and investigators expressed consistently high satisfaction with CU‐30101 and Pliaglis. Furthermore, both treatments were well tolerated and exhibited favorable safety profiles. Conclusion This study demonstrated the equivalent efficacy of CU‐30101 to its reference product, Pliaglis, among Chinese adults undergoing facial fractional laser resurfacing. CU‐30101 showed commendable local tolerability and safety profiles, consistent with those of Pliaglis.
Publisher
John Wiley and Sons Inc
Subject
/ Adult
/ Anesthetics, Local - administration & dosage
/ Anesthetics, Local - adverse effects
/ China
/ efficacy
/ Face
/ Female
/ Humans
/ Laser Therapy - adverse effects
/ Lidocaine - administration & dosage
/ Male
/ Original
/ safety
/ Skin Aging - radiation effects
/ Skin Cream - administration & dosage
/ Skin Cream - adverse effects
/ Tetracaine - administration & dosage
