Pooled Subject-Reported Outcomes From 2 Phase 3 Studies of OnabotulinumtoxinA for Simultaneous Treatment of Forehead and Glabellar Lines

Self-perception of natural outcome, appearance, and emotional well-being after OnabotulinumtoxinA treatment for upper facial lines: Post hoc analysis across age and gender

BACKGROUND

OnabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) is indicated for upper facial lines (UFL). Fear of unnatural-looking outcomes is a frequently reported treatment barrier.

AIMS

Examine patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after onabotA treatment for UFL.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis was conducted on two 12-month pivotal studies of onabotA for forehead and glabellar lines (20 U each), with/without treatment of crow's feet lines (±24 U). This analysis used PROs from the Facial Line Satisfaction Questionnaire: Items 4 (natural look), 5 (treatment effect), 11 (met expectations), and Impact Domain (appearance and psychological impact). The analysis included 458 neurotoxin-naive adults achieving a ≥2-grade improvement in forehead line (FHL) severity on the Facial Wrinkle Scale at Day 30 (primary endpoint). [Corrections made on 28 December 2023, after first online publication: 'UFL' in the previous sentence has been corrected to 'forehead line (FHL)' in this version.] Data were further stratified into millennials and men.

RESULTS

At Day 30, 90.5% of all participants, 94.6% of millennials, and 85.7% of men were satisfied with receiving a natural look. Millennials had higher odds of being satisfied with natural outcomes at Day 30. This measure remained > 80% for all groups throughout the 12 months. Additionally, ≥80% were satisfied with the treatment effect, and >90% reported results met expectations. At Day 30, ≥50% reported positive impacts on self-perceived appearance and psychological well-being, but millennials had higher, and men had lower odds of reporting these improvements.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants achieving a ≥2-grade improvement in FHL severity after onabotA reported high satisfaction with natural outcomes and the treatment effect, with improved self-perceived appearance and psychological well-being. [Corrections made on 28 December 2023, after first online publication: 'UFL' in the previous sentence has been corrected to 'FHL' in this version.] These results may help aesthetic providers and patients address fears regarding unnatural results with onabotA.

High Patient Satisfaction for up to 6 Months With OnabotulinumtoxinA Treatment for Upper Facial Lines

BACKGROUND

OnabotulinumtoxinA safety and efficacy are well established for upper facial lines (UFL), including forehead lines (FHL), glabellar lines (GL), and crow's feet lines (CFL).

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of onabotulinumtoxinA efficacy with patient-reported psychological impacts and satisfaction in UFL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A pooled analysis of data from 4 pivotal Phase 3 trials (onabotulinumtoxinA vs placebo in FHL ± GL, FHL + GL ± CFL, CFL, and CFL + GL for ≤180 days) evaluated investigator-assessed ≥1-grade severity improvement on the Allergan Facial Wrinkle Scale at Day 30 (responders). Facial Line Outcomes (FLO-11) Questionnaire, Facial Line Satisfaction Questionnaire (FLSQ), and Subject Assessment of Satisfaction of Appearance (SASA) were used to evaluate responder appearance-related psychological impacts and satisfaction.

RESULTS

OnabotulinumtoxinA patients, by primary study focus (FHL, GL, or CFL), totaled 921, 921, and 833, respectively; 786 patients received placebo. Most patients were female, White, and aged 45 to 50 years (median). Through 150 days, >42% FHL, >43% GL, and ≥32% CFL patients were onabotulinumtoxinA responders. Responders reported improvements in appearance-related psychological impacts (FLO-11) and high satisfaction (FLSQ and SASA), sustained through ≥150 days.

CONCLUSION

A ≥1-grade improvement with onabotulinumtoxinA is a clinically meaningful outcome in UFL, associated with long-lasting improved patient-reported psychological impacts and high satisfaction.

To click or not to click - The importance of understanding the layers of the forehead when injecting neuromodulators - A clinical, prospective, interventional, split-face study

BACKGROUND

Differences in the effectiveness of neuromodulator treatments for horizontal forehead lines dependent on depth of product administration have been described. However, knowledge in respect to the fascial anatomy of the forehead still remains elusive.

AIMS

To relate the fascial anatomy of the forehead to the effectiveness of neuromodulator treatments by conducting a clinical, prospective, interventional split-face study in which injections for the treatment of horizontal forehead lines are performed differently between facial sides.

METHODS

This study included a total of n = 14 patients with a mean age of 35.71 (7.8) years and mean body mass index of 21.9 (3.0) kg/m² . One side of the forehead was injected superficially by positioning the product in the superficial fatty layer, whereas the contralateral side was injected deep targeting the supraperiosteal plane (random selection). The treatment outcome was rated by the physician and by two independent observers according to a forehead line severity scale (0-4) at 14 and at 30 days.

RESULTS

All three observers agreed in their ratings (ICC: 0.942) that the deep injection technique resulted in a superior outcome: D14 (superficial vs deep) 0.17 (0.4) vs 0.14 (0.4; P = .583) at rest and 1.26 (0.6) vs 0.43 (0.5; P < .001) for frontalis contraction; D30 0.17 (0.4) vs 0.14 (0.3) at rest (P = .583) and 1.21 (0.6) vs 0.43 (0.5; P < .001) for frontalis contraction.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study underscore how detailed anatomic knowledge can enhance results of aesthetic interventions, in this case horizontal forehead line treatment with neuromodulators.