Versatility of OnabotulinumtoxinA in Aesthetic Medicine.

BACKGROUND: OnabotulinumtoxinA is an injectable product that was introduced into medicine in the 1970s and has been the subject of thousands of clinical and nonclinical publications. OBJECTIVE: To review the data related to the versatility of onabotulinumtoxinA in medical aesthetics. METHODS: PubMed was searched to identify literature evaluating the effects of onabotulinumtoxinA, with preference given to randomized, placebo-controlled trials and safety meta-analyses. RESULTS: OnabotulinumtoxinA is effective and safe across multiple facial indications, racial and ethnic groups, age groups, genders, and facial line severities. Patient-reported outcomes have been prioritized in aesthetic clinical trials and indicate high patient satisfaction and appearance-related psychological outcomes. Integrated safety meta-analysis and immunogenicity analyses have documented acceptable adverse event rates and low immunogenicity of onabotulinumtoxinA. CONCLUSION: OnabotulinumtoxinA is a versatile aesthetic product supported by a strong literature base and positive physician and patient-reported outcomes that reflect a meaningful impact on patient's quality of life.

Safety, Pharmacodynamic Response, and Treatment Satisfaction With OnabotulinumtoxinA 40 U, 60 U, and 80 U in Subjects With Moderate to Severe Dynamic Glabellar Lines.

BACKGROUND: OnabotulinumtoxinA 20 U reduces glabellar line (GL) severity at maximum frown for approximately 3 to 4 months. Small studies have suggested that >20-U doses may increase the efficacy and duration of response for GLs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate safety, pharmacodynamic response, and treatment satisfaction with onabotulinumtoxinA doses ≥20 U for GLs. METHODS: This 48-week, double-blind study compared 40, 60, and 80 U onabotulinumtoxinA vs 20 U and placebo in women with moderate or severe dynamic GLs on the Allergan Facial Wrinkle Scale. The following parameters were evaluated: the percentage of subjects with investigator-assessed ≥1-grade Facial Wrinkle Scale improvement from baseline at maximum frown (responders) at Week 24; the estimated median duration of response; the proportion of mostly/very satisfied responders on the Facial Line Satisfaction Questionnaire follow-up Items 1 to 5; and treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: The modified intent-to-treat population (N = 226) had a mean age of 48.0 years, with similar baseline GL severity between treatment groups. Week 24 responder rates were 0% for placebo and 16.0%, 32.0%, 30.6%, and 38.5% for onabotulinumtoxinA 20, 40, 60, and 80 U, with significant (P < 0.05) differences for 40 and 80 U vs 20 U. Median duration of response was longer with all higher doses vs 20 U (≥24.0 vs 19.7 weeks; P < 0.05 vs 20 U at Week 24). Facial Line Satisfaction Questionnaire results indicated high subject satisfaction. The incidence and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events did not exhibit a dose-response effect. CONCLUSIONS: GL treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA doses >20 U demonstrated longer duration of response and higher patient-reported satisfaction vs the on-label 20-U dose with no apparent impact on safety variables.

Real-World Assessment of Dexamethasone Intravitreal Implant in DME: Findings of the Prospective, Multicenter REINFORCE Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Dexamethasone intravitreal implant (DEX) (Ozurdex; Allergan plc, Dublin, Ireland) is approved for the treatment of diabetic macular edema (DME). This study assessed the real-world effectiveness, safety, and reinjection interval of DEX in adult patients with DME. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a phase 4, prospective, multicenter (18 U.S. sites), observational study. RESULTS: The study population comprised 177 patients (180 eyes; 93.8% previously treated). Baseline mean best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and central retinal thickness (CRT) were 54.4 letters and 424.6 µm, respectively. DEX was administered as monotherapy or with other DME therapy (55%/45%). The mean reinjection interval was 5.0 months. Mean maximum BCVA change from baseline after the first three DEX injections was +9.1 letters, +7.7 letters, and +7.0 letters, respectively (P < .001); 36.0% of eyes achieved 15-letter or greater BCVA improvement. Mean maximum CRT change from baseline was -137.7 µm (P < .001). CONCLUSION: DEX used alone or with other DME therapy improved visual and anatomic outcomes in DME patients in clinical practice, with no new safety concerns. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2018;49:425-435.].

Bimatoprost/timolol fixed combination versus latanoprost in treatment-naïve glaucoma patients at high risk of progression: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare a fixed combination of 0.03% bimatoprost and 0.5% timolol (BTFC) with latanoprost monotherapy (LM) in treatment-naïve patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) and risk factors for glaucomatous progression. METHODS: Patients were enrolled at 15 sites in Spain and Portugal, and were randomized 1:1 to BTFC or LM. Patients instilled one drop of medication once per day at 8 pm for 12 weeks. The primary outcome was change in intraocular pressure (IOP) at 12 weeks. RESULTS: Of 81 patients enrolled, 43 were randomized to BTFC and 38 to LM. Mean (SD) change in IOP from baseline to 12 weeks was significantly greater for BTFC than for LM: -13.5 mmHg (4.48) versus -11.4 mmHg (3.19), respectively (P=0.003). Similarly, at 12 weeks, significantly more BTFC patients than LM patients had IOP reductions of ≥40% (74.4% versus 47.4%, P=0.015) or ≥50% (46.5% versus 15.8%, P=0.003). Adverse events were more frequent with BTFC than with LM (33 versus 13 events), but most were mild in severity. The only serious adverse event (colon cancer) was adjudged unrelated to the study medication. CONCLUSION: BTFC was effective and well tolerated in treatment-naïve patients with OAG at high risk of progression.