ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
Global Pharmacovigilance of Aesthetic Botulinum Toxin Type A: Analysis of Adverse Event Reports From the USA, Europe, Canada, and Australia.
Article in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMonitoring of adverse events for aesthetic BoNT-A (BoNT-A) through pharmacovigilance databases provides critical insight into real-world safety profiles. Previous analyses suggested substantial underreporting, yet comprehensive international multi-database analysis remains absent.
methodsAdverse event reports for aesthetic BoNT-A indications were extracted from FDA FAERS, EMA EudraVigilance, Health Canada MedEffect, and TGA DAEN databases from 2002 to 2025. Reports were filtered for cosmetic indications using procedure codes, anatomical sites, and indication descriptions. Events were categorized by clinical manifestation and severity using MedDRA classification.
resultsAnalysis identified 43,809 adverse event reports across four databases. FDA FAERS contributed 38,321 reports (87.5%), EudraVigilance 3,526 (8.0%), Health Canada 1,835 (4.2%), and TGA DAEN 127 (0.3%). Effectiveness issues comprised 57.3% of reports (n = 25,092), followed by local injection-site reactions (19.7%, n = 8,611), facial paresis/ptosis/asymmetry (9.9%, n = 4,348), and headache (6.0%, n = 2,650). Peak reporting occurred in 2018 for FAERS (1,375 reports) and 2020 for Health Canada (242 reports). Among FAERS reports with brand attribution, onabotulinumtoxinA accounted for 86.8%, abobotulinumtoxinA 9.7%, and incobotulinumtoxinA 2.4%. Co-reported adverse event analysis revealed drug ineffective with therapeutic response decreased as the most frequent pairing (n = 2,947), followed by drug ineffective with off-label use (n = 1,102).
conclusionsThe predominance of effectiveness issues over traditional safety concerns distinguishes aesthetic BoNT-A pharmacovigilance from typical pharmaceutical surveillance. Geographic concentration of reporting in the United States despite global market distribution indicates systematic underreporting internationally. These findings suggest current pharmacovigilance systems inadequately capture aesthetic medicine adverse events, with direct implications for patient safety and regulatory oversight.
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.