Efficacy of a New Hyaluronic Acid Dermal Filler on Nasolabial Folds Correction: A Prospective, Comparative, Double-Blinded Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hyaluronic acid-based dermal fillers are the cornerstones of wrinkle correction and facial contour redefinition. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of EST LF compared with RES L for the treatment of nasolabial folds (NLFs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective, split-face, randomized, investigator and subject-blinded trial, 45 subjects with moderate-to-severe symmetrical NLFs were randomized to EST LF on one side of the face and RES L on the other side and were followed up for 9 months. The primary end point was change in WSRS score from the baseline to Month 1 (M1). Secondary end points included changes in WSRS score at other time points, aesthetic improvement, wrinkle volume quantification, adverse events, and local tolerance. RESULTS: The efficacy difference between EST LF and RES L at M1 was in favor of EST LF (-0.16, CI, -0.28 to -0.03]), demonstrating its noninferiority. Considering other time points, significant differences were observed at 3 and 6 months for EST LF , assessed with WSRS, GAIS, or NLF volume quantification. Both treatments were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: EST LF is effective and well tolerated for the treatment of NLFs.

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.

PrabotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Adult Males With Moderate to Severe Glabellar Lines: Post-hoc Analyses of the Phase III Clinical Study Data.

BACKGROUND: Despite a growing interest among men in cosmetic procedures such as botulinum toxin, comparator clinical trial data in this population are limited. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the efficacy and safety of prabotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of males with moderate to severe glabellar lines. METHODS: Post-hoc analyses were performed on the subpopulation of male patients treated with either a single dose of 20 U prabotulinumtoxinA (n = 25) or 20 U onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 31) in the EVB-003 Phase III glabellar line clinical study. One key efficacy endpoint was the proportion of responders with a ≥1-point improvement from baseline at maximum frown on the 4-point Glabellar Line Scale. RESULTS: Compared with onabotulinumtoxinA-treated males, the percentages of responders who had a ≥1-point improvement on the Glabellar Line Scale at maximum frown were higher at all postbaseline time points for prabotulinumtoxinA-treated males (P > 0.05 at all visits) by an absolute overall mean difference of 10.1% across all visits. Similar trends were observed for efficacy endpoints based on global aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction. PrabotulinumtoxinA-treated males had a higher incidence of treatment-related headache and eyelid ptosis. CONCLUSIONS: The percentages of patients who met the definition of a responder were higher at almost all time points examined for prabotulinumtoxinA-treated males. Despite the high level of consistency across all measures, differences between the 2 treatment groups did not reach statistical significance. Further study is warranted to establish if these post-hoc analyses observations are reproducible in a larger male patient population.

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.

BACKGROUND: PrabotulinumtoxinA is a 900-kDa botulinum toxin type A produced by Clostridium botulinum. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to investigate the efficacy and safety of prabotulinumtoxinA compared to onabotulinumtoxinA and placebo for the treatment of glabellar lines. METHODS: This was a 150-day, multicenter, double-blind, controlled, single-dose Phase III study. Adult patients (n = 540) with moderate to severe glabellar lines at maximum frown as assessed by the investigator on the validated 4-point Glabellar Line Scale (0 = no lines, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe), who also felt that their glabellar lines had an important psychological impact, were enrolled. Patients were randomized 5:5:1 to receive a single treatment (0.1 mL injected into each of 5 glabellar sites) of 20 U prabotulinumtoxinA (n = 245), 20 U onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 246), or placebo (n = 49). The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of responders (patients with a Glabellar Line Scale score of 0 or 1 at maximum frown by investigator assessment) on day 30. RESULTS: Responder rates for the primary efficacy endpoint were 87.2%, 82.8%, and 4.2% in the prabotulinumtoxinA, onabotulinumtoxinA, and placebo groups, respectively. The absolute difference between prabotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA groups was 4.4% (95% confidence interval [-1.9, 10.8]). Given that the lower bound of the 95% confidence interval for the difference was less than -10.0%, noninferiority of prabotulinumtoxinA vs onabotulinumtoxinA was concluded. Five patients (3 prabotulinumtoxinA, 1.2%; 1 onabotulinumtoxinA, 0.4%; 1 placebo, 2.0%) experienced serious adverse events, none of which were study drug related. CONCLUSIONS: A single treatment of 20 U prabotulinumtoxinA was safe and effective and noninferior to 20 U onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines.