BACKGROUND PrabotulinumtoxinA is a 900-kDa botulinum toxin Type A produced by Clostridium botulinum.

OBJECTIVE To investigate the efficacy and safety of prabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of glabellar lines.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Adult subjects (n = 330 in EV-001; n = 324 in EV-002) with moderate to severe glabellar lines at maximum frown on the 4-point Glabellar Line Scale (GLS; 0 = no lines, 1 = mild, 2 = moderate, and 3 = severe) were enrolled in 1 of 2 identical 150-day, double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose, Phase III studies. Subjects were randomized 3:1 to receive 20-U prabotulinumtoxinA or placebo. The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of responders on Day 30 where the investigator and subject independently agreed that a ≥2-point improvement had occurred on the GLS at maximum frown from Day 0. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated throughout the study.

RESULTS Responder rates in the prabotulinumtoxinA and placebo groups were 67.5% and 1.2% in EV-001 and 70.4% and 1.3% in EV-002; absolute differences between groups were 66.3% and 69.1% in EV-001 and EV-002, respectively (both p < .001). No serious AE in either study was assessed as study drug related.

CONCLUSION In these studies, a single dose of 20-U prabotulinumtoxinA was safe and effective for the treatment of glabellar lines.

BACKGROUND PrabotulinumtoxinA is a 900-kDa botulinum toxin Type A produced by Clostridium botulinum.

OBJECTIVE 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.

CONCLUSION 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.

BACKGROUND The use of esthetic products by millennials is increasing, yet published clinical trial data in this population are limited.

OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy and safety of prabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines in millennial and nonmillennial patients.

METHODS AND MATERIALS Post hoc analyses were performed on the pooled population of all patients treated with 20U prabotulinumtoxinA in the 3 single-dose Phase III glabellar line clinical studies. Patients were grouped by age: millennials (born 1982–2000) versus nonmillennials (born ≤ 1981). One key efficacy end point was the proportion of responders with a ≥1-point improvement from baseline at maximum frown on the 4-point Glabellar Line Scale. Adverse events were also summarized.

RESULTS Responder rates among millennials (n = 65) were greater than those of nonmillennials (n = 668) by 7.7% on average across all visits; differences were statistically significant at Day 90. Responder rates at Day 90 were 90.2% and 76.1%, respectively (absolute difference of 14.0%, p = .01). Headache was the most common treatment-related adverse event, occurring in 9.0% and 9.4% of millennials and nonmillennials, respectively.

CONCLUSION A single dose of 20U prabotulinumtoxinA administered for the treatment of glabellar lines was similarly well-tolerated by both millennials and nonmillennials; overall, it was more efficacious in millennials.

BACKGROUND Despite a growing interest among men in cosmetic procedures such as botulinum toxin, comparator clinical trial data in this population are limited.

OBJECTIVE 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.

CONCLUSION 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.