Liquid Formulation of AbobotulinumtoxinA: A 6-Month, Phase 3, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study of a Single Treatment, Ready-to-Use Toxin for Moderate-to-Severe Glabellar Lines

NivobotulinumtoxinA in the Treatment of Glabellar Lines With or Without Concurrent Treatment of Lateral Canthal Lines in Two Phase 3 Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Botulinum neurotoxins in aesthetic medicine require reconstitution before administration, which may be inconvenient and present errors among injectors.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ready-to-use nivobotulinumtoxinA liquid formulation for the treatment of glabellar lines (GL) with or without treatment of lateral canthal lines (LCL).

METHODS

Two multicenter, phase 3, double-blind, randomized trials enrolled participants with moderate-to-severe GL (Study 001) or moderate-to-severe GL + LCL (Study 005). Participants received double-blind nivobotulinumtoxinA (20 U) or placebo (Period 1) then ≤2 open-label nivobotulinumtoxinA GL treatments (Period 2) in Study 001 or double-blind nivobotulinumtoxinA 20 U (GL), nivobotulinumtoxinA 44 U (GL + LCL), or placebo (Period 1) then ≤2 double-blind injections of the same treatment (Period 2) in Study 005. The composite primary endpoint was the proportion of participants achieving a ≥2-grade improvement on a facial wrinkle scale at maximum frown on investigator and participant assessment; coprimary endpoints were investigator- and participant-assessed FWS "none or mild" ratings.

RESULTS

At Day 30, significantly higher responder rates were observed for the composite primary endpoint with GL treatment alone (Study 001, 46.1%; Study 005, 45.1%) and GL + LCL (Study 005, 41.3%) vs placebo (0%; all P < .001). Responder rates of "none or mild" by investigator and participant assessment, respectively, were significantly higher for GL treatment alone (Study 001, 77.2% and 65.0%; Study 005, 74.3% and 68.8%) and GL + LCL (Study 005, 74.0% and 61.2%) vs placebo (all P < .001). Adverse events were similar between treatment groups and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Liquid nivobotulinumtoxinA was effective and well tolerated for treating moderate-to-severe GL alone or with LCL.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 (THERAPEUTIC)

Innovation in Botulinum Toxins

This study aims to analyze and discuss recent trials of high-dose and liquid toxins for treating moderate to severe glabellar lines. A comprehensive review of clinical studies and patient outcomes data was conducted to assess the effectiveness and safety profiles of high-dose and liquid toxins. Clinical studies have demonstrated that high-dose toxins provide prolonged muscle relaxation and reduced wrinkles, with well-tolerated safety profiles. Liquid toxins offer comparable efficacy to traditional formulations with quicker onset and extended duration of effects. The introduction of high-dose and liquid toxins represents a significant advancement in esthetic medicine, providing patients with more options for achieving natural-looking, long-lasting results.

A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, active-controlled, phase 3 clinical trial to compare the effectiveness and safety of two botulinum toxin type A formulations for improving moderate to severe glabellar wrinkles in Asians

Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) was first isolated in 1946, and since then, several formulations have been developed and widely used to treat wrinkles by inducing muscle paralysis. This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, active-controlled phase 3 clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a newly developed BoNT-A formulation, BMI2006, in improving moderate to severe glabellar wrinkles and to compare with existing onabotulinumtoxin A (OBoNT) injections. A total of 276 subjects were enrolled and received 20 units of the randomized material, which was intramuscularly injected into five different locations on the forehead. The primary endpoint, assessed at 4 weeks, showed no statistically significant difference in the improvement rate of glabellar wrinkles between the two groups, with BMI2006 demonstrating non-inferiority to comparator BoNT-A. Secondary endpoints, evaluated by both treating investigators and independent investigators, also exhibited similar improvement rates throughout the study period. Both groups reported high levels of satisfaction with no statistical difference between the two groups. Safety evaluations indicated mild and transient adverse events, with no serious reactions observed. In conclusion, BMI2006 is an effective and safe BoNT-A for treating glabellar wrinkles with an expected duration of action between 8 and 12 weeks.

Ready-to-use abobotulinumtoxinA solution versus powder botulinumtoxinA for treatment of glabellar lines: Investigators' and subjects' experience in a Phase IV study

BACKGROUND

Botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNT-A) is well-established for treatment of glabellar lines (GLs), and mostly formulated as powders requiring reconstitution for injection. The approved liquid formulation, ready-to-use (RTU) abobotulinumtoxinA was developed to ease injection procedures and prevent reconstitution errors. This multicenter, open-label, Phase IV study evaluated GL treatment experience using RTU abobotulinumtoxinA versus powder BoNT-A (onabotulinumtoxinA).

METHODS

Females with experience of BoNT-A facial treatment were randomized 2:1 to GL treatment with 50 U RTU abobotulinumtoxinA (N = 99) or 20 U powder BoNT-A (N = 51) and followed-up for 6 months or 1 month, respectively. Assessments included: time to prepare each product for injection (primary endpoint); investigators' experience with product preparation/reconstitution; investigators' and subjects' treatment experience; safety; and for the RTU product: aesthetic improvement of GLs; subject satisfaction.

RESULTS

Compared with powder BoNT-A, RTU abobotulinumtoxinA required statistically significantly less preparation time (mean 0:33 vs. 1:34 min: s; p < 0.0001). Investigators preferred RTU abobotulinumtoxinA over powder BoNT-A (81% of treatment sessions) and found it allowed more time to communicate with subjects (97%). All investigators (100%) also found it easy-to-use, easy-to-learn, and that it fulfilled their expectations. Subjects found the RTU abobotulinumtoxinA treatment comfortable (91%), and through 6 months posttreatment, most reported satisfaction with their appearance (≥88%), looking natural (≥95%) and refreshed (≥80%). At Month 1, 99% of RTU-treated subjects had investigator-assessed improved aesthetic appearance in GLs, maintained in 76% at Month 6. No serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSION

RTU abobotulinumtoxinA for GL treatment is well-tolerated, efficacious, shows high levels of subject satisfaction throughout 6 months, saves time, and is preferred by clinicians over powder BoNT-A.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV REGISTRY

NCT05277337.

Efficacy and Safety of AbobotulinumtoxinA for Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Glabellar Lines: A Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) and ABO solution for injection (ASI) for treating moderate-to-severe glabellar lines.

METHODS

The EMBASE, PubMed, and web of science databases were systematically searched. Methodological quality was checked using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We also performed statistical analyses using Stata software to examine the efficacy and safety of ABO.

RESULTS

Nine randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that at maximum frown, the proportion of responders as measured by the investigator's live assessment and subject's self-assessment of moderate-to-severe glabellar lines were significantly higher in the ABO and ASI treatment groups than in the placebo group. In addition, from baseline to maximum frown, the ≥1-grade improvement rate in moderate-to-severe glabellar lines severity was also significantly higher in the ABO and ASI treatment groups than in the placebo group. No significant differences in adverse events were found between ABO, ASI and placebo groups, indicating that ABO and ASI have good safety.

CONCLUSIONS

ABO and ASI are effective and safe options for the treatment of moderate-to-severe glabellar lines. More high-quality studies are needed to verify these conclusions.

International Consensus Recommendations on the Aesthetic Usage of Ready-to-Use AbobotulinumtoxinA (Alluzience)

Alluzience (abobotulinumtoxinA RTU; Ipsen, Paris, France and Galderma SA, Lausanne, Switzerland) is the first ready-to-use (RTU) botulinum toxin type A liquid solution approved for the treatment of glabellar lines in Europe. In this article, the authors provide consensus recommendations on the aesthetic usage of abobotulinumtoxinA RTU. Members of the International Board on Alluzience convened to develop consensus on the treatment of glabellar lines as well as other facial wrinkles based on their own extensive experience. Consensus recommendations were developed to provide practical guidelines for injection of abobotulinumtoxinA RTU. General guidance on proper assessment, treatment planning, and patient education is provided, as well as specific injection guidelines per indication. Indications covered include glabellar lines, crow's feet, horizontal forehead lines, lateral eyebrow lift, lower eyelid wrinkles, bunny lines, drooping nasal tip, perioral wrinkles, drooping mouth corners, masseter hypertrophy, hollow cheek lines, dimpled chin, and platysmal bands. These guidelines provide a practical framework to support routine injection of facial muscles with Alluzience.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5

Efficacy and Safety of AbobotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Glabellar Lines in Chinese Patients: A Pivotal, Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind and Open-Label Phase Study

BACKGROUND

Various botulinumtoxinA formulations are approved for glabellar lines treatment worldwide, including abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport^®).

OBJECTIVES

Assess abobotulinumtoxinA superiority versus placebo and non-inferiority versus active comparator (onabotulinumtoxinA; Botox^®), for the treatment of Chinese patients with moderate/severe glabellar lines.

METHODS

Phase 3, randomized study (NCT02450526) comprising a double-blind (cycle 1) phase and an open-label (cycles 2-5) phase. Patients received abobotulinumtoxinA 50 units or matching placebo (5:1), active comparator (onabotulinumtoxinA 20 units) or matching placebo (5:1). In cycles 2-5, eligible patients were retreated with abobotulinumtoxinA only. Responders had glabellar lines of none/mild severity.

PRIMARY ENDPOINT

responder rates at cycle 1, day 29 at maximum frown with abobotulinumtoxinA versus placebo (for superiority; by investigator's live assessment [ILA] and subject's self-assessment [SSA]), and versus active comparator (for non-inferiority; by ILA). Treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Overall, 520 patients were randomized. Superiority and non-inferiority, respectively, were demonstrated for abobotulinumtoxinA versus placebo (ILA, SSA; both p < 0.0001) and abobotulinumtoxinA versus active comparator. AbobotulinumtoxinA efficacy was maintained over open-label cycles; median time to onset of efficacy was 2.0 days. After 6 months, 17% of patients treated with abobotulinumtoxinA remained responders. AbobotulinumtoxinA was well-tolerated. Safety results were in line with the known profile of abobotulinumtoxinA; adverse events rate decreased with repeated treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

After a single injection, abobotulinumtoxinA demonstrated superiority versus placebo and non-inferiority versus onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of moderate-to-severe glabellar lines in Chinese patients. Multiple injections of abobotulinumtoxinA demonstrated efficacy and safety in the treatment of glabellar lines in Chinese patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Efficacy and Safety of Botulinum Toxin Type A for Treatment of Glabellar Lines: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT/A) has been used in aesthetic applications worldwide, including glabellar lines. Currently, four BoNT/A preparations were approved for the improvement of moderate-to-severe glabellar lines: onabotulinumtoxinA, abobotulinumtoxinA, incobotulinumtoxinA, and prabotulinumtoxinA. DaxibotulinumtoxinA is a new form of BoNT/A drug that is developed in clinical application. We performed this network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the efficacy and safety of all these different BoNT/A formulations for treating glabellar lines.

METHODS

The investigators searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms "botulinum toxin" and "glabellar lines." We searched the relevant studies in electronic databases as following: PubMed, Elsevier, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. The end points included the percentage of subjects with a glabellar line severity (GLS) score of none (0) or mild (1), and the percentage of subjects achieving ≥ 1-point and 2-point improvement in glabellar line severity at maximum frown at approximately month 1 by the investigators' assessment.

RESULTS

All formulations of BoNT/A were far superior to placebo in efficacy. DaxibotulinumtoxinA was the only treatment that significantly increased the proportion of subjects achieving ≥ 1 point improvement in GLS score compared with other BoNT/A formulations. Moreover, daxibotulinumtoxinA was ranked the highest for the proportion of subjects achieving ≥ 2-point improvement in GLS score. No significant differences were revealed for the incidence of any adverse events (AEs) that related to treatment or drug among all BoNT/A preparations.

CONCLUSION

The overall results of this NMA suggested that daxibotulinumtoxinA is a new BoNT/A preparation that may be not only more effective but also well-tolerated for the treatment of glabellar lines.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I

This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Safety of Botulinum Toxin A Injections for Facial Rejuvenation: A Meta-Analysis of 9,669 Patients

PURPOSE

To quantitatively evaluate safety profile for botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) injections among patients undergoing treatment for cosmetic indications is produced, with special attention to clinically relevant covariates and their relative impact on safety.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using PubMed (1996-January 2020) and Embase (1947-January 2020) to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported safety data for patients receiving BTX-A for cosmetic indications compared to placebo. A meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled risk ratios (RR) for treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and for specific adverse events. Meta-regression and additional analyses were performed for significant and/or clinically relevant covariates.

RESULTS

Following the review of 8,690 studies, 32 RCTs involving 9,669 patients were included. The pooled RR of any TRAE occurring after BTX-A injection compared to placebo injection was 1.53 (95% CI, 1.33-1.77; p < 0.001). Statistically significant covariates included individual injection volume and total injection volume. The type of BTX-A formulation, treatment site, total BTX-A units, and BTX-A units per injection were not significant. Specific adverse events more likely to occur following BTX-A injection rather than placebo injection included eyelid/eyebrow malposition (RR 3.55; p < 0.001), facial paresis (RR 2.42; p = 0.316), and headache (RR 1.45; p = 0.003). Injection site reactions and injection site bruising occurred at similar rates in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall safety profile of BTX-A is acceptable and consistent with previous publications. The authors' additional analyses provide a relative comparison of the impact of various treatment parameters on safety.

Liquid AbobotulinumtoxinA: Pooled Data From Two Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase III Studies of Glabellar Line Treatment

BACKGROUND

AbobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) solution is a new ready-to-use formulation developed to reduce preparation time and improve reproducibility of injections.

OBJECTIVE

To further evaluate treatment of moderate-to-severe glabellar lines (GLs) using pooled data from 2 Phase III studies.

METHODS

Following double-blind treatment with 50 U aboBoNT-A solution (n = 251) or placebo (n = 123), GL severity was assessed by investigators (ILA) and subjects (SSA). Other assessments included subject-reported time to onset, subject satisfaction, FACE-Q, and adverse events.

RESULTS

One month after aboBoNT-A solution treatment, 88% had none-or-mild GLs at maximum frown and 93% had ≥1-grade improvement in ILA (similar for SSA), 24% to 27% remaining improved at Month 6. Glabellar lines responder rates remained higher than placebo throughout Month 6 ( p < .001). Almost two-thirds of subjects reported onset within 3 days, nearly a quarter reporting effect by Day 1. Subject satisfaction with GL appearance, and FACE-Q satisfaction with facial appearance overall and psychological well-being were also improved over placebo throughout Month 6, p < .05. Treatment-related adverse events were nonserious and mild or moderate.

CONCLUSION

Pooled analysis confirmed a duration of effect on GLs of up to 6 months for aboBoNT-A solution, with onset starting within 24 hours, high subject satisfaction, and improved psychological well-being. The treatment was well tolerated.

Efficacy and Safety of Letibotulinumtoxin A in the Treatment of Glabellar Lines: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Study

BACKGROUND

Letibotulinumtoxin A (Hugel, Inc., Chuncheon, Republic of Korea and CROMA Pharma, Leobendorf, Austria) is a newly manufactured neurotoxin derived from Clostridium botulinum strain CBFC26.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of letibotulinumtoxin A in reducing glabellar line severity (GLS) and to evaluate long-term safety and efficacy following repeated injections.

METHODS

In this prospective, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled Phase III clinical trial, 355 subjects with moderate to severe glabella frown lines received injections of 20 U of letibotulinumtoxin A or placebo. GLS, onset and duration of effect, time to retreatment, and adverse events were evaluated. Response to treatment was defined as a GLS score of 0 or 1 (assessed by the subject and the investigator) and an improvement at Week 4 of ≥2 points in GLS score relative to baseline.

RESULTS

At 4 weeks, 78.6% of the active treatment subjects were responders based on the investigator's assessment and 68.8% based on the subject's assessment, resulting in a composite responder rate of 64.7% for the active treatment group, whereas the corresponding rate was 0.0% in the placebo group (P < 0.001). Subjects noted a substantial improvement in GL severity as early as Day 2, with the median time to onset of effect being 3 days. The mean [standard deviation] time until first retreatment for the letibotulinumtoxin A group was 127.26 [65.6] days. Letibotulinumtoxin A was well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Letibotulinumtoxin A demonstrates high efficacy and a convincing safety profile in the treatment of glabellar lines.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2

Long-term Efficacy and Safety of Liquid AbobotulinumtoxinA Formulation for Moderate-to-Severe Glabellar Lines: A Phase III, Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled and Open-Label Study

BACKGROUND

A ready-to-use liquid formulation of abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A solution) has been developed.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the long-term efficacy and safety of aboBoNT-A solution for the treatment of glabellar lines.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, multinational, Phase III study (NCT02493946), with randomized double-blind placebo-controlled (DBPC; 2:1 aboBoNT-A solution 50 U/placebo) and open-label (4 cycles aboBoNT-A solution) periods; additional patients were recruited into the open-label period. Patients were 18 to 65 years old, BoNT-naïve, and dissatisfied/very dissatisfied with moderate/severe glabellar lines at maximum frown. Investigator's live assessment (primary endpoint)/subject's self-assessment of glabellar line severity at maximum frown, patient satisfaction with glabellar line appearance, and FACE-Q patient-reported scales (facial appearance overall, psychological well-being, aging) were assessed. Adverse events were monitored. Analyses were performed on DBPC and long-term analysis (LTA; all patients receiving ≥1 aboBoNT-A solution injection) populations.

RESULTS

Responder rates for the investigator's live assessment, the subject's self-assessment, and patient satisfaction were consistent at Day 29 postinjection across repeat LTA cycles (82.2%-87.8%, 62.8%-80.6%, and 72.2%-87.8%, respectively), with statistically significantly higher responder rates vs placebo (DBPC cycle: 81.6% vs 0.8%, 68.1% vs 2.3%, and 83.1% vs 5.7%, respectively; all P < 0.0001). Consistent improvements on FACE-Q scales occurred with repeat cycles (DBPC cycle: aboBoNT-A solution vs placebo, P < 0.0001). No new or unexpected adverse events, or neutralizing antibodies, were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the long-term efficacy and safety of aboBoNT-A solution, and its superiority over placebo, for treatment of glabellar lines in adults.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1

Botulinum toxin type A for facial wrinkles

BACKGROUND

Botulinum toxin type A (BontA) is the most frequent treatment for facial wrinkles, but its effectiveness and safety have not previously been assessed in a Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of all commercially available botulinum toxin type A products for the treatment of any type of facial wrinkles.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to May 2020: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included RCTs with over 50 participants, comparing BontA versus placebo, other types of BontA, or fillers (hyaluronic acid), for treating facial wrinkles in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were participant assessment of success and major adverse events (AEs) (eyelid ptosis, eyelid sensory disorder, strabismus). Secondary outcomes included physician assessment of success; proportion of participants with at least one AE and duration of treatment effect. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 65 RCTs, involving 14,919 randomised participants. Most participants were female, aged 18 to 65 years. All participants were outpatients (private office or day clinic). Study duration was between one week and one year. No studies were assessed as low risk of bias in all domains; the overall risk of bias was unclear for most studies. The most common comparator was placebo (36 studies). An active control was used in 19 studies. There were eight dose-ranging studies of onabotulinumtoxinA, and a small number of studies compared against fillers. Treatment was given in one cycle (54 studies), two cycles (three studies), or three or more cycles (eight studies). The treated regions were glabella (43 studies), crow's feet (seven studies), forehead (two studies), perioral (two studies), full face (one study), or more than two regions (nine studies). Most studies analysed moderate to severe wrinkles; mean duration of treatment was 20 weeks. The following results summarise the main comparisons, based on studies of one treatment cycle for the glabella. AEs were collected over the duration of these studies (over four to 24 weeks). Compared to placebo, onabotulinumtoxinA-20 U probably has a higher success rate when assessed by participants (risk ratio (RR) 19.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.60 to 43.99; 575 participants; 4 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) or physicians (RR 17.10, 95% CI 10.07 to 29.05; 1339 participants; 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) at week four. Major AEs are probably higher with onabotulinumtoxinA-20 U (Peto OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.50 to 8.74; 1390 participants; 8 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), but there may be no difference in any AEs (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.45; 1388 participants; 8 studies; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, abobotulinumtoxinA-50 U has a higher participant-assessed success rate at week four (RR 21.22, 95% CI 7.40 to 60.56; 915 participants; 6 studies; high-certainty evidence); and probably has a higher physician-assessed success rate (RR 14.93, 95% CI 8.09 to 27.55; 1059 participants; 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There are probably more major AEs with abobotulinumtoxinA-50 U (Peto OR 3.36, 95% CI 0.88 to 12.87; 1294 participants; 7 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Any AE may be more common with abobotulinumtoxinA-50 U (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.49; 1471 participants; 8 studies; low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, incobotulinumtoxinA-20 U probably has a higher participant-assessed success rate at week four (RR 66.57, 95% CI 13.50 to 328.28; 547 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence), and physician-assessed success rate (RR 134.62, 95% CI 19.05 to 951.45; 547 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Major AEs were not observed (547 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be no difference between groups in any AEs (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.53; 547 participants; 2 studies; low-certainty evidence). AbobotulinumtoxinA-50 U is no different to onabotulinumtoxinA-20 U in participant-assessed success rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.08, 388 participants, 1 study, high-certainty evidence) and physician-assessed success rate (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; 388 participants; 1 study; high-certainty evidence) at week four. Major AEs are probably more likely in the abobotulinumtoxinA-50 U group than the onabotulinumtoxinA-20 U group (Peto OR 2.65, 95% CI 0.77 to 9.09; 433 participants; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in any AE (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.54; 492 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). IncobotulinumtoxinA-24 U may be no different to onabotulinumtoxinA-24 U in physician-assessed success rate at week four (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05; 381 participants; 1 study; low-certainty evidence) (participant assessment was not measured). One participant reported ptosis with onabotulinumtoxinA, but we are uncertain of the risk of AEs (Peto OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.77; 381 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to placebo, daxibotulinumtoxinA-40 U probably has a higher participant-assessed success rate (RR 21.10, 95% CI 11.31 to 39.34; 683 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and physician-assessed success rate (RR 23.40, 95% CI 12.56 to 43.61; 683 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) at week four. Major AEs were not observed (716 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be an increase in any AE with daxibotulinumtoxinA compared to placebo (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.40; 716 participants; 2 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Major AEs reported were mainly ptosis; BontA is also known to carry a risk of strabismus or eyelid sensory disorders.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

BontA treatment reduces wrinkles within four weeks of treatment, but probably increases risk of ptosis. We found several heterogeneous studies (different types or doses of BontA, number of cycles, and different facial regions) hindering meta-analyses. The certainty of the evidence for effectiveness outcomes was high, low or moderate; for AEs, very low to moderate. Future RCTs should compare the most common BontA (onabotulinumtoxinA, abobotulinumtoxinA, incobotulinumtoxinA, daxibotulinumtoxinA, prabotulinumtoxinA) and evaluate long-term outcomes. There is a lack of evidence about the effects of multiple cycles of BontA, frequency of major AEs, duration of effect, efficacy of recently-approved BontA and comparisons with other treatments.

[New botulinum toxins for aesthetic dermatology : A comprehensive review]

Facial rejuvenation is gaining immense popularity among patients and clinicians. Botulinum toxins derived from bacteria are well-tolerated options as minimally invasive interventions for facial rejuvenation or other aesthetic procedures. These products have revolutionized aesthetic treatments. Several types of botulinum toxins (BoNT) are available. Currently type A and B are clinically used and only BoNT‑A products are approved for use for cosmetic indications in the Germany and the United States. Each product is unique in terms of its composition. Understanding the various BoNT‑A products is essential in choosing the optimal treatment for our patients. In this article we discuss different BoNT‑A products used for aesthetic intervention.

Onset and Duration of AbobotulinumtoxinA for Aesthetic Use in the Upper face: A Systematic Literature Review

OBJECTIVE: We sought to analyze the current literature regarding time to onset and duration of effect of abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A, Dysport®/Azzalure®) for upper facial aesthetic indications. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of literature databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar) to identify English-language publications relevant to: population (patients with aesthetic indications [including glabellar lines and wrinkles]); interventions (aboBoNT-A); comparators (no restrictions); outcomes (efficacy, including onset of action and duration of effect); and settings (clinical). A manual search of review paper bibliographies was performed. Structured data extraction was used to enable interstudy analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 42 original research papers relevant to aboBoNT-A onset and/or duration were identified. All 24 studies assessing efficacy within one week post-injection demonstrated some response at the first time point assessed, and all 37 studies assessing duration showed some response after 12 weeks. Although methodologies for assessing onset and duration differed, when outcomes were refined by reported mean/median, at least 50 percent of patients responding to treatment, or significance versus placebo or baseline at a given time point, onset was most often reported within 2 to 3 days (7 studies), and as early as 24 hours (2 studies). Duration was most often reported as four months (18 studies), although four studies provided evidence that aboBoNT-A efficacy was maintained at five months and three studies at or after six months post-injection. CONCLUSION: This review indicates that aboBoNT-A has a median onset of efficacy of 2 to 3 days and a longer duration of action (3-6 months across studies) than the current labelled minimum treatment interval (12 weeks).

Significantly Increased Patient Satisfaction Following Liquid Formulation AbobotulinumtoxinA Treatment in Glabellar Lines: FACE-Q Outcomes From a Phase 3 Clinical Trial

Background

The FACE-Q patient-reported outcome assesses patient experiences/outcomes with aesthetic facial procedure. A recent trial of abobotulinumtoxinA (ASI, liquid formulation) was the first to our knowledge to assess satisfaction with FACE-Q after glabellar line (GL) injection.

Objectives

The authors sought to evaluate patient satisfaction with ASI for GL treatment employing 3 FACE-Q scales: facial appearance, psychological well-being, and aging appearance.

Methods

This was a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (NCT02353871) of ASI 50 units in adults with moderate-to-severe GL with 6-month follow-up.

Results

Significantly greater least squares mean changes from baseline were associated with ASI treatment (N = 125) vs placebo (N = 59) for satisfaction with facial appearance at all visits until day 148 (5 months; P < 0.0001-0.0037), psychological well-being at all visits (P < 0.0001-0.0279), and aging appearance at all visits except day 148 (P < 0.0001-0.0409). Significant differences (ASI vs placebo) were observed at all visits for individual items: “how rested your face looks” (P < 0.0001-0.0415), “I feel okay about myself” (P = 0.0011-0.0399), and “I feel attractive” (P < 0.0001-0.0102). Maximal least squares mean (standard error) changes in aging appearance score were −1.4 (0.3; ASI) and −0.3 (0.4; placebo). Investigators’ live assessment of GL at maximum frown significantly correlated with improvements in FACE-Q facial appearance and psychological scales (all patients: r = −0.41 and r = −0.36 [both P < 0.0001], respectively).

Conclusions

Significant improvements in patient satisfaction with aging, facial appearance, and, importantly, psychological well-being were demonstrated with ASI employing FACE-Q scales up to 5 to 6 months post-injection. Results support a long duration of efficacy with ASI and use of FACE-Q in future trials and clinical practice.

Level of Evidence: 1