Survey Methodology • Baseline and primary endpoint (Month 4) images from HARMONYTM were pooled (84 subjects) ─ Of the 93 HARMONYTM subjects who completed pan-facial treatment, 9 subjects were excluded from this analysis due to inconsistencies unrelated to treatment between the before and after images (e.g. presence of makeup, lipstick, or changes in hair color). • An online task was developed to understand how a representative sample of the US population perceives the HARMONYTM subjects based on their facial appearance ─ Combined total of 2000 male and female respondents across the US • Task probed each respondent on key traits associated with impressions (e.g. attractive, successful, healthy, approachable) • The study included two respondent groups: ─ Group 1 (n=1500): viewed randomly selected single photographs of different HARMONYTM subjects (3 before, 3 after) ─ Group 2 (n=500): viewed 6 unique pairs of matched before/after photographs in random order • All respondents were also asked questions evaluating importance of facial appearance, attractiveness, and personal views of facial aesthetic treatments in society Pan-facial Treatment Positively and Significantly Impacts Social Perception Steven Dayan, MD1; Alexander Rivkin, MD2; Jonathan M. Sykes, MD3; Craig F. Teller, MD, FAAD4; Susan H. Weinkle, MD5; Garrett T. Shumate, BS6; Conor J. Gallagher, PhD6 1DeNova Research, Chicago, IL, USA; 2David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA; 3UC Davis Medical Group, Sacramento, CA, USA; 4Bellaire Dermatology Associates, Bellaire, TX, USA; 5University of South Florida, Bradenton, FL, USA; 6Allergan plc, Irvine, CA • HARMONYTM is the first clinical trial to examine the impact of a unique combination of multiple, non-invasive facial treatments using a range of validated measures ─ Results from HARMONYTM extended beyond physical improvement by demonstrating increased subject satisfaction and psychosocial benefits • Self-assessments and societal assessments are made based on the entire face and not just one feature. There is an increasing trend for a pan-facial approach to facial rejuvenation • Despite this trend, no studies have evaluated the impact of pan-facial aesthetic treatment on social perception • Objective: To evaluate how the social perception of each HARMONYTM subject is impacted following pan-facial treatment BACKGROUND • Pan-facial treatment positively and significantly impacted how HARMONYTM subjects were perceived by society ─ Subjects were perceived as being more socially adept, successful at attracting others, attractive, friendly, successful, healthy, approachable, educated, financially successful, hirable and younger • Respondents believe that attractiveness is important and facial aesthetic treatments are socially acceptable CONCLUSIONS Group 2: Paired Images • Respondents preferred the after treatment photo for all positive traits Trait X % of subjects were considered MORE (trait) following pan-facial treatment Attractive 80 % Someone with good social skills 80 % Intelligent 76 % Successful 75 % Kind 74 % Healthy 74 % Trustworthy 73 % Friendly 69 % Approachable 69 % Likeable 68 % Someone who has social anxiety 29 % Legend: Positive Attributes Negative Attributes • Respondents perceived after treatment photo as more successful at attracting others, hirable, educated, financially successful, and younger Question X % of subjects in which the after treatment photo was preferred Who is more successful at attracting others? 77 % Who would you hire? 73 % Who is more financially successful? 74 % Who has a higher level of education? 74 % Who is older? 20% (After image: mean 4.85 years younger) RESULTS • Subjects were perceived as significantly more socially adept, successful at attracting others, attractive, friendly, successful, healthy, approachable, and younger Trait Mean change (Before to After) *statistically significant difference (p<0.05) Someone who has social anxiety -0.29* Success at attracting others 0.22* Attractive 0.15* Someone with good social skills 0.13* Friendly 0.12* Successful 0.12* Healthy 0.10* Approachable 0.09* Age -1.21 yrs* Likeable 0.02 Intelligent -0.02 Trustworthy -0.02 Kind -0.01 Group 1: Single Image Responder Demographics 2000 Respondents Age (Mean) 41.1 Male 49% Female 51% Heterosexual 87% Student / Retired 13% Not employed 11% Hispanic 17% White 66% Black/AA 13% Group 1 & 2: Respondent Beliefs About Attractiveness • Respondents believe that attractiveness is important and facial aesthetic treatments are socially acceptable Low 1 Level of Agreement Society places emphasis on physical appearance 6.8 5.9 5.5 5.2 5.1 4.8 4.1 4.1 How important is physical attractiveness in social interactions? Facial aesthetic treatments are a socially acceptable way to... Physical attractiveness affects success professionally I would never consider facial aesthetic treatments Physical attractiveness becomes less important as men age Only vain people get facial aesthetic treatments Physical attractiveness becomes less important as women age High 8 What age is a woman old? 56.4 What age is a man old? 58.8 MATERIALS AND METHODS The person in this image is*… Which of the two images do you think looks more*... *Additional questions asked about the subject’s age, success at attracting others, education level, income level, and hireability (Please select one response per row.) Completely disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely agree 8 Kind Healthy Someone who has social anxiety Approachable Attractive Someone with good social skills Trustworthy Intelligent Friendly Likeable Successful Completely disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Completely agree 8 Kind Someone who has social anxiety Approachable Attractive Healthy Intelligent Successful Likeable Someone with good social skills Friendly Trustworthy Screening Group 1: Single Image Group 2: Paired Images Fall Clinical Dermatology Conference, Las Vegas, October 12-15, 2017 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: This study was funded by Allergan plc. Medical writing and editorial assistance was provided to the authors by Cactus Communications, and was funded by Allergan plc. All authors met the ICMJE authorship criteria. Neither honoraria nor other form of payments were made for authorship. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES: S Dayan received research support, speaking fees, or consulting fees from Allergan plc, Galderma, Merz, and Valeant. A Rivkin serves as a consultant and investigator for Allergan plc and Merz Aesthetics, USA. JM Sykes, CF Teller, and SH Weinkle have no conflicts to disclose. GT Shumate and CJ Gallagher are employees of Allergan plc and may own stock or stock options in the company. • Subjects were perceived as earning more Under 50K 62% Under 50K 58% Before (B) After (A) 50K and above 42% 50K and above 38% 4% 3% 11% 28% 39% 19% 9% 25% 41% 21% A Perceived Income Level $100,000 or more $75,000- $99,000 $50,000- $74,999 $25,000- $49,999 Less Than $25,000 • Subjects were more likely to be perceived as college educated 43% Before (B) After (A) 47% 5% 6% 22% 19% 25% 28% 18% 20% 25% 32% Perceived Educational Level Graduate Degree College Associate Degree Some College but No Degree Completed High School or Less • Subjects were more likely to be perceived as having a higher occupational status Perceived Occupational Level Manual or Service Worker 40% Managerial 20% Managerial 27% Manual or Service Worker 34% Before (B) After (A) Senior level managerial, admin, or professional Junior managerial, admin, or professional Clerical worker Skilled manual or service worker Semi-skilled manual or service worker Manual or service worker Other Retired Unemployed 13% 16% 13% 6% 6% 6% 7% 11% 14% 17% 17% 10% 17% 12% 9% 9% 8% 8% A Scan to obtain PDF of poster To obtain a PDF of this poster: Scan the QR code OR Visit www.allergancongressposters.com/859100 Charges may apply. No personal information is stored. Enter a valid e-mail to send this QR code or click to download. Please ensure that qrcode@allergancongressposters.com has been added to your safe senders list or spam filter. FC17PosterAllerganDayanPanFacialTxSocialPerception.pdf