Trial reportAesthetic plastic surgery2023
Efficacy and Safety of AbobotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Glabellar Lines in Chinese Patients: A Pivotal, Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind and Open-Label Phase Study.
Trial report in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT02450526 (A Phase III, Randomised, Double Blind and Open Label Phase, Multicentre, Active and Placebo Controlled Study to Investigate the Efficacy and Safety of Dysport Including a Comparison to Botox in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Glabellar Lines, and to Assess the Long Term Efficacy and Safety of Dysport Following Repeated Treatments in This Indication), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Phase III, Randomised, Double Blind and Open Label Phase, Multicentre, Active and Placebo Controlled Study to Investigate the Efficacy and Safety of Dysport Including a Comparison to Botox in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Glabellar Lines, and to Assess the Long Term Efficacy and Safety of Dysport Following Repeated Treatments in This Indication
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Efficacy and Safety of Novel Botulinum Toxin Type A (Protoxin) in the Treatment of Moderate to Severe Glabellar Lines: A Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blind, Active-Controlled Phase III Study.Annals of dermatology · 2026Article
- A Real-World Study of Patient and Physician Satisfaction With Repeated AbobotulinumtoxinA Treatment of Glabellar Lines in Chinese Patients.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
- Revealing the Patient Perspective: Evolution of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Botulinum Toxin Studies in Aesthetic Medicine.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Review
- Efficacy and Safety Analysis of Botox Application and Iatrogenic Botulism: Panacea or Peril?Current pharmaceutical design · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
14 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious botulinumtoxinA formulations are approved for glabellar lines treatment worldwide, including abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport
objectivesAssess abobotulinumtoxinA superiority versus placebo and non-inferiority versus active comparator (onabotulinumtoxinA; Botox
methodsPhase 3, randomized study (NCT02450526) comprising a double-blind (cycle 1) phase and an open-label (cycles 2-5) phase. Patients received abobotulinumtoxinA 50 units or matching placebo (5:1), active comparator (onabotulinumtoxinA 20 units) or matching placebo (5:1). In cycles 2-5, eligible patients were retreated with abobotulinumtoxinA only. Responders had glabellar lines of none/mild severity. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: responder rates at cycle 1, day 29 at maximum frown with abobotulinumtoxinA versus placebo (for superiority; by investigator's live assessment [ILA] and subject's self-assessment [SSA]), and versus active comparator (for non-inferiority; by ILA). Treatment-emergent adverse events were recorded.
resultsOverall, 520 patients were randomized. Superiority and non-inferiority, respectively, were demonstrated for abobotulinumtoxinA versus placebo (ILA, SSA; both p < 0.0001) and abobotulinumtoxinA versus active comparator. AbobotulinumtoxinA efficacy was maintained over open-label cycles; median time to onset of efficacy was 2.0 days. After 6 months, 17% of patients treated with abobotulinumtoxinA remained responders. AbobotulinumtoxinA was well-tolerated. Safety results were in line with the known profile of abobotulinumtoxinA; adverse events rate decreased with repeated treatment.
conclusionsAfter a single injection, abobotulinumtoxinA demonstrated superiority versus placebo and non-inferiority versus onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of moderate-to-severe glabellar lines in Chinese patients. Multiple injections of abobotulinumtoxinA demonstrated efficacy and safety in the treatment of glabellar lines in Chinese patients. 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 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.