Search

Given differences in buttock versus thigh cellulite, collagenase clostridium histolyticum-aaes (CCH-aaes) injection technique may impact treatment effects at these sites.To evaluate efficacy and safety of 5 CCH-aaes injection techniques.A phase 2A, open-label trial enrolled women with mild-to-severe cellulite (Clinician Reported Photonumeric Cellulite Severity Scale) on both buttocks or thighs. CCH-aaes 0.84 mg was administered as 12 injections in each of two buttock or two thigh treatment areas (total dose, 1.68 mg) during three treatment sessions (Days 1, 22, 43). On Day 1, women were sequentially assigned to: Technique A = shallow injection/3 aliquots; Technique B = shallow injection/1 aliquot; Technique C = deep injection/1 aliquot; Technique D = deep and shallow injections/5 aliquots; or Technique E = shallow injection/4 aliquots. Change from baseline in Hexsel Cellulite Severity Scale (CSS) depression depth (range, 0 [no depressions] to 3 [deep depressions]) was assessed at Day 71. Safety was evaluated via adverse events.Sixty-three women with buttock (n = 31) or thigh (n = 32) cellulite received ≥1 CCH-aaes dose. For buttock cellulite, CCH-aaes injection Technique A resulted in the greatest baseline-adjusted improvement in CSS score on Day 71 (least-squares mean, 1.17-point improvement). For thigh cellulite, CSS score improvement was greatest with Technique D (least-squares mean, 1.40-point improvement). CCH injection Techniques A, D, and E were associated with more favorable safety profiles than Techniques B and C.Different CCH-aaes injection techniques are required with buttock (Technique A) versus thigh (Technique D) cellulite to optimize treatment outcomes.

Background Letibotulinumtoxin A (Hugel, Inc., Chuncheon, Republic of Korea and CROMA Pharma, Leobendorf, Austria) is a newly manufactured neurotoxin derived from Clostridium botulinum strain CBFC26. Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of letibotulinumtoxin A in reducing glabellar line severity (GLS) and to evaluate long-term safety and efficacy following repeated injections. Methods In this prospective, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled Phase III clinical trial, 355 subjects with moderate to severe glabella frown lines received injections of 20 U of letibotulinumtoxin A or placebo. GLS, onset and duration of effect, time to retreatment, and adverse events were evaluated. Response to treatment was defined as a GLS score of 0 or 1 (assessed by the subject and the investigator) and an improvement at Week 4 of ≥2 points in GLS score relative to baseline. Results At 4 weeks, 78.6% of the active treatment subjects were responders based on the investigator’s assessment and 68.8% based on the subject’s assessment, resulting in a composite responder rate of 64.7% for the active treatment group, whereas the corresponding rate was 0.0% in the placebo group (P Conclusions Letibotulinumtoxin A demonstrates high efficacy and a convincing safety profile in the treatment of glabellar lines. Level of Evidence: 2

Midface rejuvenation is among the most valuable indications of hyaluronic acid dermal fillers, because malar projection and full upper cheeks significantly contribute to a youthful appearance. Hyaluronic acid fillers have evolved over the past 2 decades to meet specific clinical needs such as strong projection capacity and adaptability to facial dynamism. As a result, they now represent the treatment of choice for midface rejuvenation throughout age ranges by offering the potential for noninvasive treatment, immediate results, and minimal downtime. Because the 5-layered structure of the midface plays a central role in the human face, injecting the midface area may also indirectly improve other aesthetic concerns such as infraorbital hollowing and nasolabial folds. Nonetheless, midface rejuvenation requires a tailored treatment approach and a thorough knowledge of anatomy to minimize procedural risks and achieve natural-looking results. This article provides an extensive anatomical description of the midface and of the usual course and depth of vascular structures circulating nearby to delineate a treatment area and minimize procedural risks. Furthermore, considering the differential mobility and mechanical constraints of each layer of the midface, a multilayer treatment algorithm is proposed for adapting the treatment strategy to patient specificities (including age, gender, skin type, and morphology). Emphasis is also placed on desirable filler properties to create deep structural support on the one hand and accompany facial movement on the other hand.

Maximizing patient comfort during hyaluronic acid gel injection is a common concern that is usually addressed by selecting fillers with lidocaine.Two randomized, double-blinded, split-face trials aimed to demonstrate noninferiority of specific hyaluronic acid fillers incorporating mepivacaine (RHA-M) versus their lidocaine controls, at providing pain relief.Thirty subjects per trial received injections of RHA R -M versus RHA R , and RHA4-M versus RHA4, respectively, in the perioral rhytids (PR) and nasolabial folds (NLF). Pain was assessed on a visual analog scale; aesthetic effectiveness was evaluated with validated scales, and safety was monitored based on common treatment responses (CTRs) and adverse events (AEs).RHA-M fillers proved as effective as their lidocaine counterparts at reducing pain (noninferior, p.0002 and p.0001). Bilateral wrinkle improvement was measured both in the PR (-1.5 ± 0.6 points on each side) and in the NLF (-1.8 ± 0.6 and -1.9 ± 0.5 points) trials at one month, with virtually identical responder rates (≥96.7%). Common treatment responses and AEs were similar between treated sides, and none was clinically significant.Resilient hyaluronic acid fillers with either mepivacaine or lidocaine are equally effective at reducing pain during treatment and equally performant and safe for correction of dynamic facial wrinkles and folds.

The chin is important for facial appearance, affecting overall balance and harmony of the face. The purpose of this study was to evaluate effectiveness of the hyaluronic acid filler Restylane Defyne for chin augmentation and correction of chin retrusion versus a no-treatment control.Male and female subjects, aged 22 years or older, with mild to moderate chin retrusion, were randomized 3:1 to the hyaluronic acid filler Restylane Defyne ( n = 107) or no treatment ( n = 33). Assessments included live, blinded evaluations on a validated chin retrusion scale (Galderma Chin Retrusion Scale), aesthetic improvement (Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale), subject-reported FACE-Q Satisfaction with Chin, and safety follow-up.Galderma Chin Retrusion Scale responder rate (≥1 grade improvement) was higher for the hyaluronic acid filler Restylane Defyne (81 percent) than for control (6 percent) ( p0.001) at week 12, and remained higher at week 48 (74 percent versus 11 percent; p0.001). Aesthetic improvement rates were high throughout the study as reported by investigators (≥96 percent) and subjects (≥85 percent). Subject satisfaction was higher in the hyaluronic acid filler Restylane Defyne group than in the control group at week 12 ( p0.001). In the individual FACE-Q scale items, 87 to 98 percent of subjects were satisfied at week 12. Treatment-related adverse events were mild to moderate.The hyaluronic acid filler Restylane Defyne was safe and effective for augmentation of the chin region to improve the chin profile and associated with high aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction. Effectiveness was sustained throughout 48 weeks.Therapeutic, II.

Background PrabotulinumtoxinA is a 900-kDa botulinum toxin type A produced by Clostridium botulinum. Objectives The authors sought to investigate the safety of prabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of glabellar lines. Methods This was a multicenter, open-label, repeat-dose, 1-year phase II safety study. Adults with moderate to severe glabellar lines at maximum frown, as assessed by the investigator on the validated 4-point photonumeric Glabellar Line Scale (0 = no lines, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe), were enrolled. On day 0, patients received an initial treatment of 20 U prabotulinumtoxinA (4 U/0.1 mL freeze-dried formulation injected into 5 target glabellar sites). On and after day 90, patients received a repeat treatment (RT) if their Glabellar Line Scale score was ≥2 at maximum frown by investigator assessment. Safety was evaluated throughout the study. Results The 352 study patients received a median total dose of 60 U, that is, 3 treatments per year. Fifty-one patients (14.5%) experienced adverse events (AEs) assessed as possibly study drug related; 11.1% experienced study drug-related AEs after the initial treatment. With each RT, progressively lower percentages of patients experienced study drug-related AEs. Six patients (1.7%) experienced study drug-related AEs of special interest: 3 eyelid ptosis (0.9%), 2 speech disorder (0.6%), and 1 blepharospasm (0.3%). Seven patients (2.0%) experienced serious AEs; none were study drug related. Of the 2393 samples tested, 2 patients (0.6%) tested positive for antibotulinum toxin antibodies at a single postbaseline visit. Conclusions The safety of RTs of 20 U of prabotulinumtoxinA for moderate to severe glabellar lines was first established in this early phase II study based on a broad range of outcomes. Level of Evidence: 2

Background PrabotulinumtoxinA is a 900-kDa botulinum toxin type A produced by Clostridium botulinum. Objectives The authors sought to investigate the safety of prabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of glabellar lines. Methods This was a multicenter, open-label, repeat-dose, 1-year phase II safety study. Adults with moderate to severe glabellar lines at maximum frown, as independently assessed by both investigator and patient on the validated 4-point photonumeric Glabellar Line Scale (0 = no lines, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe), were enrolled. On day 0, patients received an initial treatment (IT) of 20 U prabotulinumtoxinA (4 U/0.1 mL final vacuum-dried formulation injected into 5 glabellar sites). On and after day 90, patients received a repeat treatment (RT) if their Glabellar Line Scale score was ≥2 at maximum frown by investigator assessment. Safety outcomes were evaluated throughout the study. Results The 570 study patients received a median total dose of 60 U, that is, 3 treatments. Sixty-one patients (10.7%) experienced adverse events (AEs) assessed as possibly study drug related; 6.5% experienced study drug–related AEs after the IT. With each RT, progressively lower percentages of patients experienced study drug–related AEs. Eight patients (1.4%) experienced study drug–related AEs of special interest: 5 experienced eyelid ptosis (0.9%), 3 eyebrow ptosis (0.5%), 1 blepharospasm (0.2%), and 1 blurred vision (0.2%). Seven patients (1.2%) experienced serious AEs, but none were study drug related. A total of 4060 serum samples were tested for antibotulinum toxin antibodies; no seroconversion was observed. Conclusions The safety of RTs of 20 U of prabotulinumtoxinA for moderate to severe glabellar lines was confirmed in this second phase II study based on a broad range of outcomes. Level of Evidence: 2

BACKGROUND Fibrous septae play a role in contour alterations associated with cellulite. OBJECTIVE To assess collagenase clostridium histolyticum-aaes (CCH) for the treatment of cellulite. MATERIALS AND METHODS Two identically designed phase 3, double-blind, randomized studies (RELEASE-1 and RELEASE-2) were conducted. Adult women with moderate/severe cellulite (rating 3–4 on the Patient Reported Photonumeric Cellulite Severity Scale [PR-PCSS] and Clinician Reported PCSS [CR-PCSS]) on the buttocks received up to 3 treatment sessions of subcutaneous CCH 0.84 mg or placebo per treatment area. Composite response (≥2-level or ≥1-level improvement from baseline in both PR-PCSS and CR-PCSS) was determined at Day 71. RESULTS Eight hundred forty-three women received ≥1 injection (CCH vs placebo: RELEASE-1, n = 210 vs n = 213; RELEASE-2, n = 214 vs n = 206). Greater percentages of CCH-treated women were ≥2-level composite responders versus placebo in RELEASE-1 (7.6% vs 1.9%; p = .006) and RELEASE-2 (5.6% vs 0.5%; p = .002) and ≥1-level composite responders in RELEASE-1 (37.1% vs 17.8%; p < .001) and RELEASE-2 (41.6% vs 11.2%; p < .001). Most adverse events (AEs) in the CCH group were injection site related; few CCH-treated women discontinued because of an AE (≤4.3%). CONCLUSION Collagenase clostridium histolyticum-aaes significantly improved cellulite appearance and was generally well tolerated.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text., BACKGROUND HARK was recently approved in the US for lip augmentation and correction of upper perioral rhytids. OBJECTIVE To demonstrate noninferiority of HARK versus a control (HAJV) in lip fullness augmentation at Week 8 after last injection (blinded evaluation). Secondary objectives were to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of HARK in lip fullness augmentation and correction of upper perioral rhytids. METHODS AND MATERIALS Treatment with HARK or control (randomized 2:1) was administered on Day 1 in this 48-week, evaluator-blinded study with optional touch-up at Week 4. Primary endpoint was change from baseline to Week 8 in lip fullness. Secondary endpoints included lip fullness, wrinkle severity, aesthetic improvement, subject satisfaction, adverse events, and local tolerability (subject diary entries). RESULTS The primary objective was met; HARK was noninferior to control in lip fullness augmentation at Week 8. Lip fullness and wrinkle severity improvement persisted at Week 48, and was accompanied by high aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction scores. The mean volume of HARK injected was approximately 20% lower than control. Treatment-related adverse events and local tolerability symptoms were predominantly mild and transient. CONCLUSION HARK was noninferior to control in lip fullness augmentation at Week 8, well-tolerated, and effective throughout this 48-week study.

Supplemental Digital Content is Available in the Text., BACKGROUND VYC-20L is a hyaluronic acid soft tissue filler with lidocaine designed to restore facial volume. OBJECTIVE Evaluate the safety and effectiveness of VYC-20L in patients with chin retrusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS Adults with chin retrusion were randomized (3:1) to receive VYC-20L in the chin at study onset (treatment group) or 6 months later (control group). The primary effectiveness end point was ≥1-point improvement on the Allergan Chin Retrusion Scale (ACRS) from baseline at Month 6. Safety assessments included injection site responses (ISRs) and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS VYC-20L was administered to 192 participants (treatment group, n = 144; control group, n = 48). At Month 6, significantly more participants had an ACRS response in the treatment versus control group (56.3% vs 27.5%; p = .0019). Effectiveness was also demonstrated by the proportion of participants with improved/much improved Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale scores and responses on the FACE-Q Satisfaction with Chin questionnaire and FACE-Q Psychological Wellbeing module. Treatment benefit remained evident at Month 12. Most common ISRs were tenderness (81.1%) and firmness (75.1%). One participant (0.5%) discontinued the study due to 2 treatment-related serious AEs of facial cellulitis and injection site inflammation, both resolved without sequelae. CONCLUSION VYC-20L significantly improved an ACRS response and was generally safe and well tolerated.

Background: DaxibotulinumtoxinA for Injection (DAXI) is a novel botulinum toxin type A formulation in clinical development. A phase 2 dose-ranging study identified an optimal dose and demonstrated efficacy with a median duration of 24 weeks. Methods: In two phase 3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (SAKURA 1 and SAKURA 2), subjects with moderate or severe glabellar lines at maximum frown were assigned randomly to receive placebo or 40 U of DAXI. Glabellar lines were evaluated at least every 4 weeks for at least 24 weeks until severity returned to baseline (≤36 weeks). Results: Overall, 609 subjects were enrolled (DAXI, n = 405; placebo, n = 204). DAXI was significantly more effective than placebo in achieving the primary efficacy outcome (≥2-point improvement in glabellar line severity at maximum frown at week 4 according to both investigator and subject ratings): 73.6 percent versus 0.0 percent (SAKURA 1), and 74.0 percent versus 1.0 percent (SAKURA 2) (both p < 0.0001). Composite investigator and subject ratings of maximum frown after DAXI treatment showed that glabellar line severity of none or mild was maintained for a median of 24.0 weeks (SAKURA 1) and 23.9 weeks (SAKURA 2), and glabellar line severity did not return to baseline levels for a median of 27.7 and 26.0 weeks, respectively. DAXI was generally well tolerated, with the most common adverse events related to DAXI treatment being headache (SAKURA 1, 7.0 percent; SAKURA 2, 5.9 percent) and injection-site pain (5.0 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively). Conclusions: Results from both studies were highly consistent. DAXI may offer a prolonged duration of response (median, ≥24 weeks) and is generally well tolerated. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, I.

Previous studies indicate that the efficacy and durability of a single AbobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) treatment for moderate to severe glabellar lines may be enhanced with increasing dose, while safety outcomes remain consistent with those of the licensed dose (50 U).Evaluation of subject-reported indicators of treatment efficacy, satisfaction, and psychological well-being with ABO dose escalation.A Phase 2, 36-week, multicenter, randomized, dose-ranging, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in adults with moderate to severe glabellar lines. Subjects received a single ABO treatment, dosed at 50, 75, 100, or 125 U, or placebo. Efficacy endpoints comprised subject-assessed improvement in line severity of ≥1-grade from baseline at maximum frown, global aesthetic improvement scale (GAIS) grade, FACE-Q™ appraisal of lines, psychological well-being and age, and subject satisfaction.The study included 399 subjects (88.2% were female). Respective responder rates (≥1-grade improvement) with ABO 50-125 U doses ranged between 96.3%-100% at Week 4, 65.0%-67.9% at Week 24, and 33.8%-44.4% at Week 36. GAIS responder rate and FACE-Q appraisal of lines showed a similar pattern of change. Satisfaction was high and psychological well-being was improved from Week 4 through Week 36, with natural, youthful, and refreshed appearance reported for all ABO doses.A single ABO treatment (dosed at 50-125 U) provided significant and sustained improvements in glabellar line severity over durations up to 36 weeks, versus placebo. Treatment satisfaction was high with all doses. Participants reported natural and youthful appearance, alongside improvements in psychological well-being.

Collagen-rich fibrous septae and subcutaneous adipose protrusions play a role in cellulite pathophysiology. Collagenase clostridium histolyticum-aaes (CCH-aaes) injection causes enzymatic release of septae to resolve cellulite depressions and create a skin smoothing effect. This analysis pooled data from two identically designed, phase-3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies to examine the efficacy and safety of CCH-aaes.Adult women with moderate/severe cellulite (3-4 on Clinician Reported Photonumeric Cellulite Severity Scale and Patient Reported Photonumeric Cellulite Severity Scale) on the buttocks received up to three treatment sessions (Days 1, 22, and 43) of subcutaneous CCH-aaes 0.84 mg or placebo per treatment area. Composite and individual component response (≥2-level or ≥1-level improvement from baseline in Patient Reported Photonumeric Cellulite Severity Scale and/or Clinician Reported Photonumeric Cellulite Severity Scale) and additional patient-reported outcomes were determined at Day 71.Analysis included 424 CCH-aaes-treated and 419 placebo-treated women. CCH-aaes-treated women were 5.9 times more likely than placebo-treated women to be ≥2-level composite responders at Day 71 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval], 5.9 [2.2-15.4];CCH-aaes treatment significantly improved moderate-to-severe buttock cellulite appearance and was generally well tolerated.

Background For aesthetic treatment with botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNTA), interest in maximizing treatment duration and efficacy has prompted study of doses higher than those used in registration studies. As data emerge, it is important that physicians understand how to apply study findings to their own practice so that patient demand is satisfied. Objectives To bring together leading experts in neuromodulators for a roundtable discussion on the implications of high-dose BoNTA studies for patient care. Methods The authors reviewed and discussed recent data from high-dose BoNTA studies for abobotulinum toxin A, incobotulinum toxin A, and Oonobotulinumtoxin A. Results Discussion focused on the challenges of data interpretation and extrapolation of study findings for real-world patient care. The authors participated in a candid discussion of whether the observed improvements in treatment duration and patient satisfaction warrant treatment with high-dose regimens delivered as high-concentration injections. Safety was also discussed, as well as economic considerations for both practices and patients. Of note, for BoNTA products, the registration dose, when administered in a smaller total volume, appears to give rise to more durable results than those observed in pivotal trials, implicating product concentration as an important consideration. Importantly, at higher doses, extended duration of effect does not appear to be at the expense of natural-looking results. Conclusions While the authors provide considerations for the development of individual clinical practice, there is no one-size-fits-all recommendation. It may be that “high-dose” BoNTA is in reality the optimal dose; however, important economic considerations may prevent rapid uptake for all patients.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of AbobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) dose escalation in the correction of moderate-to-severe glabellar lines. DESIGN Phase 2, 36-week, multicenter, randomized, dose-ranging, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. METHODS Adults with moderate-to-severe glabellar lines received a single ABO treatment, dosed at 50, 75, 100, or 125 U, or placebo. Primary endpoint was week 4 composite ≥2-grade responder rate among those achieving a severity score of 0 (none) or 1 (mild) at maximum frown, evaluated using concurrent investigator and subject assessments. Secondary endpoints included ≥1-grade severity improvement, duration of effect, and reporting of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). RESULTS Overall, 399 subjects were included (88.2% were female). Week 4 composite ≥2-grade ABO responder rate was 80.0% (50 U), 88.8% (75 U), 90.0% (100 U) and 95.1% (125 U), versus 2.6% with placebo (P

Background Injectables that behave similarly to native tissue and preserve facial expressiveness represent a new frontier in aesthetic medicine. A range of fillers made of high molecular weight hyaluronic acid (HA) chains with low crosslinking have been specifically developed to complement facial dynamics. Aims The efficacy and safety of one of these resilient HA fillers, and its noninferiority to an effective comparator available in the US, were tested in the treatment of dynamic wrinkles. Methods A 15‐month, prospective, multicenter, controlled, randomized, double‐blind, within‐subject (split‐face) clinical trial was conducted on 140 subjects with moderate‐to‐severe nasolabial folds (NLF). Study endpoints included improvement on a proprietary Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, according to Blind Live Evaluators (BLE), subjects, and treating investigators (TI). Subject perception was evaluated with FACE‐Q and satisfaction scales. Results The per‐protocol population included 88 subjects (92% women) of all Fitzpatrick phototypes, with a mean age of 57 years. WSRS improvement was significantly greater with the resilient HA than its comparator over 15 months, including at week 24 (primary endpoint), as rated by BLE and TI. Results demonstrated the noninferiority of the resilient HA filler to its comparator. Aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction were durably high, with an overall trend toward higher scores for the resilient HA filler. Both treatments were safe and well tolerated. Conclusion The resilient HA filler made of long chains lightly crosslinked is at least equivalent to a well‐established comparator for the correction of NLF in subjects of diverse skin phototypes.

Background A range of monophasic dermal fillers made of high-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid (HA) chains with reduced cross-linking was developed for aesthetic procedures. Objective The efficacy, durability, and safety of 2 of these resilient HA (RHA) fillers, and their noninferiority to an effective HA comparator available in the United States, were tested in the treatment of dynamic facial wrinkles. Methods A 15-month, prospective, multicenter, active-controlled, randomized, double-blinded, split-face clinical trial was carried out on 174 subjects presenting moderate-to-severe bilateral nasolabial folds (NLFs). Assessed parameters included improvement on a proprietary Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale, according to Blind Live Evaluators, subjects, and treating investigators. Self-perception was evaluated with FACE-Q and satisfaction scales. Results The per-protocol populations included 67 and 62 subjects of all Fitzpatrick skin-phototypes, in the 2 comparison groups. Significant improvement of mean WSRS scores and associated responder rates established the noninferiority of RHA fillers to their comparator, over 15 months. Aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction were durably high, with no meaningful differences between the fillers. Treatments were safe and well tolerated. Conclusion The 2 RHA fillers are at least equivalent to a well-established comparator for the correction of NLF in subjects of diverse skin-phototypes.

PrabotulinumtoxinA is a 900-kDa botulinum toxin type A produced by Clostridium botulinum.The authors sought to investigate the safety of prabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of glabellar lines.This was a multicenter, open-label, repeat-dose, 1-year phase II safety study. Adults with moderate to severe glabellar lines at maximum frown, as assessed by the investigator on the validated 4-point photonumeric Glabellar Line Scale (0 = no lines, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe), were enrolled. On day 0, patients received an initial treatment of 20 U prabotulinumtoxinA (4 U/0.1 mL freeze-dried formulation injected into 5 target glabellar sites). On and after day 90, patients received a repeat treatment (RT) if their Glabellar Line Scale score was ≥2 at maximum frown by investigator assessment. Safety was evaluated throughout the study.The 352 study patients received a median total dose of 60 U, that is, 3 treatments per year. Fifty-one patients (14.5%) experienced adverse events (AEs) assessed as possibly study drug related; 11.1% experienced study drug-related AEs after the initial treatment. With each RT, progressively lower percentages of patients experienced study drug-related AEs. Six patients (1.7%) experienced study drug-related AEs of special interest: 3 eyelid ptosis (0.9%), 2 speech disorder (0.6%), and 1 blepharospasm (0.3%). Seven patients (2.0%) experienced serious AEs; none were study drug related. Of the 2393 samples tested, 2 patients (0.6%) tested positive for antibotulinum toxin antibodies at a single postbaseline visit.The safety of RTs of 20 U of prabotulinumtoxinA for moderate to severe glabellar lines was first established in this early phase II study based on a broad range of outcomes.

Background DaxibotulinumtoxinA for Injection (DAXI) is a novel botulinum toxin type A in clinical development. Phase 2 data have shown it offers a more prolonged duration of response than onabotulinumtoxinA. Objective To further evaluate the efficacy, duration of response, and safety of 40 U DAXI compared with placebo in the treatment of glabellar lines. Methods Two identical, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies were performed ( NCT03014622 and NCT03014635 on www.clinicaltrials.gov ). Participants with moderate or severe glabellar lines were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 40 U DAXI or placebo into the corrugator/procerus muscles. Glabellar line severity was assessed by investigators and participants for up to 36 weeks (≥24 weeks). Results Among 609 participants enrolled (405 DAXI, 204 placebo), 92% completed. DAXI was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing glabellar line severity and maintained none or mild glabellar line severity for a median of 24.0 weeks. It was also generally well tolerated—treatment-related adverse effects were most commonly headache (6.4% vs 2.0%) and injection site pain (3.7% vs 3.9%). Limitations The study population was predominantly female and white and received only a single treatment. Conclusions DAXI offers a prolonged duration of response for glabellar line reduction and is well tolerated.

Not Available Study supported by BioPharmX.