A Phase III Clinical Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Botulinum Toxin Type A (MASPORT) with DYSPORT for the Treatment of Glabellar Lines.

BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin type A is a widely used treatment of facial wrinkles. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of a new botulinum toxin type A (Masport [abobotulinum toxin A], MasoonDarou Co) with DYSPORT® for the treatment of glabellar lines. METHODS: 262 subjects with moderate-to-severe glabellar lines received either a fixed dose of 50 units of MASPORT® or DYSPORT® (Ipsen Company, England). Subjects were followed up at 14, 30, 60, 90 and 120 days after injection. Efficacy was assessed by investigator at maximum frown and rest and also by Subject Global Assessment of Change (SGA). The responders were defined as persons with +2 grade improvement from baseline for both investigator and patient assessment. The occurrence and duration of adverse effects were recorded up throughout the study. RESULTS: According to the investigator evaluations, the responder rate at maximum frown were 94.5% for MASPORT and 95.6% for DYSPORT group on day 30 and at rest were 85.45% and 85.68% for MASPORT and DYSPORT group, respectively. According to the subject self-assessment, the proportion of responders in MASPORT group at day 30 was 95.28% versus 97.04% for DYSPORT group. No serious drug related adverse effect was recorded in either study groups, and the rates of adverse effects were similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: Abobotulinum toxin A [MASPORT] is equally safe and effective as commercial product [DYSPORT] for the treatment of glabellar lines with the dose of 50 units, up to 120 days. 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 .

Comparison of UVA Protection Factor Measurement Protocols.

BACKGROUND: In the past, it was taught that UVA wavelengths (320- 400nm) only plays a major role in skin aging but recently the scientific researches also show that UVA cause cancerous keratinocyte cells in deep layer of the epidermis. Therefore, the protective ability of the product against UVA is important in addition to protection against UVB rays. The UVA protective factor (UVA-PF) is used to evaluate the effectiveness of sunscreen products against UVA rays. This study aims to review and compare all outstanding protocols in the field of UVA-PF measurement and finally the introduction of the best method of measuring UVA-PF based on the further benefits. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four standards including ISO 24443 (AS/NZS 2604: 2012 recommended approach), CEN 2006, FDA 2007 and FDA 2011 are selected. RESULTS: In order to measure UVA-PF with in vivo method, two standards of CEN 2006 and FDA 2007 recommended persistent pigment darkening (PPD) method. Although the general principle of both is similar, there are some differences in detail. For in vitro measurement of UVA-PF, CEN and FDA 2011 standards use critical wavelengths. FDA 2007 introduces the modified Diffey fraction, and ISO 24443 standard meets the UVA-PF measurement in a manner that is consistent with PPD. CONCLUSION: Finally, this review discussed the comparison of all in vitro and in vivo UVA-PF measurement standards and provided information in the form of texts and tables to move towards the creation of an integrated standard. Since in vitro methods of UVA-PF measurement are not reproducible due to differences in test conditions, it may be concluded that the in vivo PPD method is a more suitable option.

Quick and brief review: Comparison between different in vivo SPF determination methods.

BACKGROUND: The use of sunscreen products has grown considerably in the last few decades because sunscreen products considered as one of the most important ways of skin protection against UV rays by different mechanisms such as reflecting, absorbing, or scattering. Excess expose to UV causes sunburn, early skin aging, and skin cancers. OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to review and compare prominent in vivo sun protection factor (SPF) determination protocols and investigate their approach in test criteria. Finally, this can help skin care specialists to choose the comprehensive SPF determination protocol. METHODS: Four current SPF determination protocols including ISO 24444, AS/NZS 2604:2012, CEN 2006, and FDA 2011 were selected and compared to each other. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Despite the similarity of the test method among these protocols, there are some obvious differences in test criteria which results in a better performance in the individual steps of the test process for each of these methods.