A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Single-Dose, Phase III, Non-Inferiority Study Comparing PrabotulinumtoxinA and OnabotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Glabellar Lines in Adult Patients

Comparative Study on the Duration and Efficacy of Various Botulinum Toxin Type A Injections for Reducing Masseteric Muscle Bite Force and Treating Facial Wrinkles

OBJECTIVE

Botulinum toxin serotype A (BoNT/A) is widely used for minimal invasive aesthetic treatments. Different brands of BoNT/A exhibit structural variations. The aim of this study was to compare the duration and efficacy of various BoNT/A brands available in Thailand for reducing bite force and treating wrinkles.

METHODS

Fifty participants were randomly assigned to one of five groups, with each group receiving a different BoNT/A brand, namely, incobotulinumtoxinA (IncoA), onabotulinumtoxinA (OnaA), abobotulinumtoxinA (AboA), letibotulinumtoxinA (LetiA), and prabotulinumtoxinA (PraboA). BoNT/A was administered to the masseter muscle and the upper face. Bite force was measured before injection and at 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 weeks post-injection. Evaluation scores for wrinkle improvement were assessed after the treatment.

RESULTS

The most significant reduction in bite force occurred between 2 and 4 weeks post-injection. PraboA demonstrated the most substantial reduction in bite force, while IncoA had the least effect. However, the percentage of bite force reduction did not exhibit statistical significance between BoNT/A types. Additionally, the reduction in bite force for all BoNT/A types was reversed at 4 months post-injection. More than half of the participants experienced improvement beyond 16 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

The structural differences among BoNT/A brands did not significantly affect the longevity and efficacy of bite force reduction and wrinkle treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: TCTR20211205001 (registered 4 Dec 2021).

Real-World Patient Experience With PrabotulinumtoxinA in the United Kingdom: A Single-Center Survey and Analysis of 254 Patients

Background

Botulinum toxin Type A (BoNT-A) injection is the most widely performed nonsurgical cosmetic procedure in the United Kingdom. PrabotulinumtoxinA is a new BoNT-A, recently licensed in the United Kingdom, for treating moderate-to-severe glabellar lines in adults under 65. Although clinical trials have established safety and efficacy, real-world data can help clinicians translate study findings into practice and support prabotulinumtoxinA use in a more diverse patient population.

Objectives

To understand the real-world patient experience and patient perceptions of prabotulinumtoxinA performance for treatment of the glabellar region.

Methods

In this single-center survey study, a single injector administered prabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of glabellar lines to real-world patients presenting for BoNT-A treatment. Two weeks later, patients received surveys asking about their experience through email. There were no incentives for participation. Responses returned within 5 weeks of treatment were included.

Results

From February to June 2023, 457 patients received prabotulinumtoxinA injections for glabellar line treatment. Survey response rate was 56% (254/457 patients). For most patients, treatment onset was 2 to 3 days following injection and peak response occurred after 7 to 10 days. Adverse effects were minimal, with 67% of patients experiencing none. Among survey respondents, 83% rated their treatment positively (5-point satisfaction scale), and 72% would choose prabotulinumtoxinA again.

Conclusions

These data support safety and effectiveness of prabotulinumtoxinA in a diverse, real-world population, and confirm patient satisfaction among experienced BoNT-A patients, as well as suggest a rapid time to onset and peak effect.

Level of Evidence 4

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 .

A Preclinical Study Comparing the Activity and Potency of OnabotulinumtoxinA and PrabotulinumtoxinA

Objective

The goal of this study was to compare the unit-to-unit biological activity of the vacuum-dried formulation of prabotulinumtoxinA (prabotA) and onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) in preclinical assays.

Methods

Reconstituted 100 U vials of prabotA and onabotA were tested in 3 distinct assays: plate-capture light chain activity (PC-LCA), measuringlight chain enzymatic activity after recovery of toxin from reconstituted product using a proprietary toxin capture step; cell-based potency assay (CBPA), measuring the intoxication steps of binding, translocation, and light chain activity (synaptosomal-associated protein 25 [SNAP25] cleavage); and mouse Digit Abduction Score (DAS), evaluating muscle paresis. Each assay tested 3 separate prabotA and onabotA lots on several independent test dates.

Results

Multiple orthogonal assays established that when assessed on a unit-to-unit basis, the biological activity of prabotA is lower than that of onabotA. In the PC-LCA and CBPA assays, onabotA displayed 1.51 ± 0.14-fold higher (mean ± SD) and 1.33 ± 0.07-fold higher (mean of pooled lots ± SEM) activity than prabotA, respectively. Similarly, the mouse DAS data showed that onabotA had 1.4 ± 0.1-fold higher (mean ± SEM) potency than prabotA. Results of all 3 assays demonstrated differences in potency, efficacy, and duration of action between onabotA and prabotA on a unit-to-unit basis.

Conclusion

Preclinical assays established differences in the biological activity of onabotA and prabotA, supporting that the units of biological activity are not interchangeable.

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.

Botulinum Toxin: An Update on Pharmacology and Newer Products in Development

Since its introduction as a treatment for strabismus, botulinum toxin (BoNT) has had a phenomenal journey and is now recommended as first-line treatment for focal dystonia, despite short-term clinical benefits and the risks of adverse effects. To cater for the high demand across various medical specialties, at least six US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved formulations of BoNT are currently available for diverse labelled indications. The toxo-pharmacological properties of these formulations are not uniform and thus should not be used interchangeably. Synthetic BoNTs and BoNTs from non-clostridial sources are not far from clinical use. Moreover, the study of mutations in naturally occurring toxins has led to modulation in the toxo-pharmacokinetic properties of BoNTs, including the duration and potency. We present an overview of the toxo-pharmacology of conventional and novel BoNT preparations, including those awaiting imminent translation from the laboratory to the clinic.

The mechanisms of action and use of botulinum neurotoxin type A in aesthetics: Key Clinical Postulates II

BACKGROUND

The literature on botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNT-A) is extensive, often contradictory, and confounded by a competitive market of products and research attempting to distinguish brand individuality.

METHODS

A comprehensive review of literature on the principles of BoNT-A in aesthetics as well as clinical examples.

RESULTS

In 2017, the Eight Key Clinical Postulates were formulated as a guide for the aesthetic practitioner in understanding BoNT-A pharmacodynamics and to compare different toxins. These are now updated to include (a) All type A toxins act identically; (b) The mathematical relationship between toxin and receptor is the basis of efficacy, and clinical efficacy is influenced by molecular potency and patient attributes including muscle mass, gender, age, and ethnicity; (c) Efficacy, onset, and duration are functions of "molecular potency" defined as the number of active 150 kDa molecules available for binding; (d) "Molecular potency" is difficult to objectively quantify for commercially available toxins; (e) Up to a point, increased molecular potency decreases time to onset and increases duration of effect, and the "Molecular Potency Quotient" is a construct for comparing molecular potency commercial cost; (f) The area of effect of a toxin injection is dependent upon molecular potency, diffusion (passive), and spread (active); (g) Differing reconstitution volumes; and (h) Increased number of injection sites can affect spread, onset, and duration of effect.

CONCLUSIONS

The principles of BoNT-A use in aesthetics are complex yet understandable as outlined in the framework of the updated Eight Key Clinical Postulates and serves as a useful tool for providing the most effective treatment and interpreting research on present and future toxin formulations.

PrabotulinumtoxinA-xvfs for the Treatment of Moderate-to-Severe Glabellar Lines

OBJECTIVE

PrabotulinumtoxinA-xvfs (Jeuveau), a botulinum toxin type A, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the temporary improvement in the appearance of moderate-to-severe glabellar lines in February 2019. This article will review phase II and III clinical trials to assess the efficacy, safety, and clinical application of this novel, aesthetic-only drug.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic literature review was performed using the terms "glabellar lines AND prabotulinumtoxinA" in the PubMed database. ClinicalTrials.gov was searched to identify nonpublished studies.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Articles written in English between November 2019 and June 2020 discussing phase II and phase III clinical trials were evaluated.

DATA SYNTHESIS

By the primary efficacy end point on day 30, more patients achieved a greater than 2-point improvement on the Glabellar Line Scale (GLS) at maximum frown compared with baseline on day 0. The proportions of participants who responded to treatment with prabotulinumtoxinA were 67.5% and 70.4% versus 1.2% and 1.3% in placebo groups across 2 identical clinical trials (P < 0.001). Patients receiving prabotulinumtoxinA experienced greater improvement in GLS at maximum frown on day 30 (87.2%) compared with onabotulinumtoxinA (82.8%) and placebo (4.2%; P < 0.001). PrabotulinumtoxinA was well tolerated across all studies.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

This review provides a detailed analysis of the safety and efficacy of prabotulinumtoxinA-xvfs and includes special considerations to help guide patients and clinicians.

CONCLUSION

PrabotulinumtoxinA is a safe and effective new addition to the repository of available treatments for the appearance of glabellar lines.

Updates on Botulinum Neurotoxins in Dermatology

Being the most popular non-surgical cosmetic procedure, botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) injections are increasingly of interest to all cosmetic practitioners across the globe. This article serves to update readers on the new botulinum toxins that are currently in development or close to market in the USA and Canada, including daxibotulinumtoxin A, prabotulinumtoxin A, letibotulinumtoxin A, and botulinum toxin E. Despite having relatively similar characteristics and equivalent clinical efficacies, these neurotoxins manifest a multitude of unique potential advantages that will be explored in this review, including but not limited to a longer duration of action, the absence of animal-derived components or human albumin, and a rapid onset with short duration of action.