Comparison of two formulations of botulinum toxin type A for the treatment of glabellar lines: A double-blind, randomized study - 09/08/11
London, United Kingdom, and Santa Monica, California
Abstract |
Background |
Different formulations of botulinum toxin type A can behave differently. There has been little clinical research directly comparing formulations.
Objective |
We sought to compare the efficacy and tolerability of two botulinum toxin type A formulations—BoNTA1 and BoNTA2—in the treatment of moderate and severe glabellar lines.
Methods |
Sixty-two patients with moderate or severe glabellar lines at maximum contraction were randomly assigned to receive 20 U of BoNTA1 or 50 U of BoNTA2 (20% in the procerus muscle, 80% in the corrugator muscles).
Results |
The incidence of 1-grade improvement or greater in glabellar line severity at maximum contraction was as follows: 77% (BoNTA1) versus 59% (BoNTA2) at week 12, 53% versus 28% at week 16. The estimated incidence of relapse was 23% (BoNTA1) versus 40% (BoNTA2) at week 16. Both formulations were similarly well tolerated.
Limitations |
Few male and non-Caucasian subjects were studied.
Conclusion |
BoNTA1 offered more prolonged efficacy than BoNTA2 in the treatment of glabellar lines at the dose ratio of 2.5:1 (BoNTA2:BoNTA1) used in this study.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Supported by an unrestricted grant from Allergan, Inc (Irvine, Calif) to Clinical Research Specialists, Inc, Santa Monica, Calif. Disclosure: Drs P. Lowe and R. Patnaik have received research grants from Allergan, Inc. Dr N. Lowe owns stock in Allergan, Inc, and has received research grants, consulting payments, and educational grants from Allergan, Inc. He has also received research grants and consulting payments from Medicis. Gill Shears, PhD (of Gill Shears, Inc), provided assistance with the writing of the manuscript. Presented as a poster at the 64th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, March 3-7, 2006, San Francisco, Calif. |
Vol 55 - N° 6
P. 975-980 - décembre 2006 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?