Safety, Tolerability, and Efficacy of Repeat-Dose Injections of IncobotulinumtoxinA in the Treatment of Upper Facial Lines: Results from a Prospective, Open-Label, Phase III Study.

In aesthetic practice, wrinkles in the upper face are commonly treated with repeat-dose injections. The objective of this study was to investigate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of repeat-dose injections of incobotulinumtoxinA in the combined treatment of moder-ate to severe upper facial lines (UFL) [glabellar frown lines (GFL), horizontal forehead lines (HFL), and lateral periorbital lines (LPL)]. Healthy subjects (≥18 years) with moderate to severe GFL, HFL, and LPL on the Merz Aesthetics Scales (MAS) at maximum contrac-tion were administered 54 to 64 U of incobotulinumtoxinA (GFL, 20 U; HFL, 10 to 20 U; LPL, 24 U) in up to four, 120-day treatment cycles. Adverse events (AE) were recorded for each cycle until 120 ± 7 days after treatment. Investigator-assessed MAS scores were evaluated for each treated area at maximum contraction on day 30 [responder = score of “none” (0) or “mild” (1)]. Subject-assessed scores for overall appearance of the upper face of “much improved” or “very much improved” were noted at day 30 of each treatment cycle on the Global Impression of Change Scale (GICS). Overall, 140 subjects were treated, and 125 subjects completed the study. Mean injected units per injection cycle ranged from 56.3 U to 57.7 U. During the four-cycle study period 17.1% of total treated subjects experienced a treatment emergent adverse event (TEAE). TEAEs of special interest were documented for 9 subjects (6.4%), in 6 of these subjects (4.3%) the TEAEs were related to treatment. No clinically significant mean changes in laboratory and vital-sign values were observed from screening to final-treatment visit. Over the study interval, a response rate of > 80% on the investigator-assessed MAS was reported for all treated areas except HFL. Greater than 80% of subjects in cycles 1, 3, and 4 and 78.5% of subjects in cycle 2 reported ratings of “much improved” or “very much improved” on the GICS for the overall appearance of the upper face. Incobotu-linumtoxinA for the repeat-dose treatment of UFL is safe and well tolerated with a stable safety profile, without new formation of neutralizing antibodies and has excellent efficacy during prolonged administration. J Drugs Dermatol. 2020;19(5):461-469. doi:10.36849/JDD.2020.5013.

Efficacy of IncobotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Glabellar Frown Lines in Male Subjects: Post-Hoc Analyses From Randomized, Double-Blind Pivotal Studies.

BACKGROUND: Males are increasingly seeking minimally invasive cosmetic procedures such as botulinum toxin injection. However, few studies have specifically examined the efficacy of such procedures among men. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of incobotulinumtoxinA for treating glabellar frown lines (GFLs) in men. METHODS: Three incobotulinumtoxinA studies were included in post hoc analyses of responder rates: 2 pivotal Phase 3 US registration studies for GFLs (n = 55 males in a pooled analysis) and a European pivotal Phase 3 study for upper facial lines (UFLs; n = 21 males). RESULTS: In the pooled analysis of Phase 3 GFL studies, 55.9% of males and 81.4% of females were responders on the Facial Wrinkle Scale (FWS) at 30 days. Similarly, 54.5% and 88.0% of males and females, respectively, treated for GFLs in the upper facial line study were responders on the Merz Aesthetics Scales (MAS) at 30 days. Lower proportions of male responders on the Facial Wrinkle Scale /Merz Aesthetics Scales were consistent with results from onabotulinumtoxinA and abobotulinumtoxinA GFL studies. CONCLUSION: Compared with females, males demonstrate lower response rates on wrinkle severity scales in studies on all 3 available botulinum toxins. Variations in treatment response are potentially associated with key male anatomic differences (e.g., muscle mass). Results emphasize the need for customized treatment plans.

IncobotulinumtoxinA Is an Effective and Well-Tolerated Treatment for Upper Facial Lines: Results From an Open-Label Extension Period of a Phase III Study.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, different upper facial areas are commonly treated together. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of repeated incobotulinumtoxinA injections for the treatment of upper facial lines (UFL) in a 3-month open-label extension (OLEX) period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the main study period (randomized, double blind, placebo controlled; n = 156), subjects with moderate-to-severe UFL (glabellar frown lines [GFL], horizontal forehead lines [HFL], and lateral periorbital lines [LPL]) on the 5-point Merz Aesthetics Scales (MAS) received 54 to 64 U incobotulinumtoxinA or placebo. In the OLEX, all subjects (n = 139) received 1 treatment with 54 to 64 U incobotulinumtoxinA. Investigator- and subject-assessed MAS scores were evaluated at rest and maximum contraction. Response was defined either as a MAS score of "none" or "mild" or a ≥1-point improvement in MAS scores. RESULTS: A clear, rapid treatment response was seen in each individual treated area and for all areas combined. At Day 30, a response of none or mild at maximum contraction (investigator's rating) was reported for 80.1%, 77.2%, and 66.9% of subjects for GFL, HFL, and LPL, respectively. IncobotulinumtoxinA was well tolerated, with no evidence of an increase in adverse events with repeat injection. CONCLUSION: IncobotulinumtoxinA is highly effective for the simultaneous treatment of UFL with a good safety profile (EudraCT Number: 2011-005887-20).

Safety of IncobotulinumtoxinA in the Treatment of Facial Lines: Results From a Pooled Analysis of Randomized, Prospective, Controlled Clinical Studies.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of incobotulinumtoxinA in aesthetics has been established in multiple studies. Although individual studies have been reported, a combined assessment of incobotulinumtoxinA safety across studies is not available. OBJECTIVE: To assess the frequency of adverse events (AEs) across prospective incobotulinumtoxinA studies in aesthetics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Safety data were assessed from 9 placebo-controlled or active-controlled single-dose studies on glabellar frown lines (GFL), crow's feet (CF), and upper facial lines (UFL). Analyses by treatment cycle included 4 repeat-dose studies on GFL and UFL. RESULTS: One thousand three hundred seventy-seven subjects received incobotulinumtoxinA (GFL, n = 1,189; CF, n = 83; UFL, n = 105) in single-dose studies (placebo-controlled studies: incobotulinumtoxinA, n = 866; placebo, n = 395). Over 1,000 subjects received incobotulinumtoxinA in repeat-dose studies (GFL, n = 880; UFL, n = 290). In placebo-controlled single-dose studies, incidences of treatment-related AEs ranged from 5.4% (GFL) to 22.9% (UFL). The most frequent treatment-related AE in single-dose studies was headache (GFL, 4.8%; UFL, 11.4%). In repeat-dose studies, incidence of AEs was highest during cycle 1 (GFL, 8.9%; UFL, 17.2%) and decreased across treatment cycles. No serious treatment-related AEs were observed. CONCLUSION: Results confirm the favorable safety and tolerability of incobotulinumtoxinA. The frequency of treatment-related AEs was low and may decrease with subsequent treatments.

Safety and performance of cohesive polydensified matrix hyaluronic acid fillers with lidocaine in the clinical setting - an open-label, multicenter study.

Cohesive polydensified matrix (CPM®) hyaluronic acid fillers are now available with or without lidocaine. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and performance of CPM® fillers with lidocaine in the clinical setting. In an open-label, prospective, postmarketing study, 108 patients from seven sites in Germany and Denmark were treated with one or more lidocaine-containing CPM® fillers. Performance was assessed using the Merz Aesthetics Scales® (MAS). Pain was rated on an 11-point visual analog scale. Patients' and physicians' satisfaction as well as adverse events were recorded. Improvements of ≥1-point on MAS immediately after and 17 days posttreatment were observed in ~90% of patients compared with baseline. All investigators assessed ejection force, product positioning, and performance as similar or superior to the respective nonlidocaine products. Overall, 94% of investigators were satisfied with the esthetic outcomes and were willing to continue using the products. All patients except one were satisfied with the results, and all were willing to repeat the treatment. Mean pain scores were low during (<3.0) and after injection (<0.6). Except for one case of bruising, all adverse events were mild to moderate. CPM® fillers with lidocaine are safe and effective for a wide range of esthetic facial indications.