Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2022
Efficacy and Safety of Botulinum Toxin Type A for Treatment of Glabellar Lines: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
СтатьяОбзорNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Xue, Sui Changlin, Xia Xiujuan, Chen Xianjin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT/A) has been used in aesthetic applications worldwide, including glabellar lines. Currently, four BoNT/A preparations were approved for the improvement of moderate-to-severe glabellar lines: onabotulinumtoxinA, abobotulinumtoxinA, incobotulinumtoxinA, and prabotulinumtoxinA. DaxibotulinumtoxinA is a new form of BoNT/A drug that is developed in clinical application. We performed this network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the efficacy and safety of all these different BoNT/A formulations for treating glabellar lines.
METHODS: The investigators searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms "botulinum toxin" and "glabellar lines." We searched the relevant studies in electronic databases as following: PubMed, Elsevier, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. The end points included the percentage of subjects with a glabellar line severity (GLS) score of none (0) or mild (1), and the percentage of subjects achieving ≥ 1-point and 2-point improvement in glabellar line severity at maximum frown at approximately month 1 by the investigators' assessment.
RESULTS: All formulations of BoNT/A were far superior to placebo in efficacy. DaxibotulinumtoxinA was the only treatment that significantly increased the proportion of subjects achieving ≥ 1 point improvement in GLS score compared with other BoNT/A formulations. Moreover, daxibotulinumtoxinA was ranked the highest for the proportion of subjects achieving ≥ 2-point improvement in GLS score. No significant differences were revealed for the incidence of any adverse events (AEs) that related to treatment or drug among all BoNT/A preparations.
CONCLUSION: The overall results of this NMA suggested that daxibotulinumtoxinA is a new BoNT/A preparation that may be not only more effective but also well-tolerated for the treatment of glabellar lines.
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 .
METHODS: The investigators searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms "botulinum toxin" and "glabellar lines." We searched the relevant studies in electronic databases as following: PubMed, Elsevier, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. The end points included the percentage of subjects with a glabellar line severity (GLS) score of none (0) or mild (1), and the percentage of subjects achieving ≥ 1-point and 2-point improvement in glabellar line severity at maximum frown at approximately month 1 by the investigators' assessment.
RESULTS: All formulations of BoNT/A were far superior to placebo in efficacy. DaxibotulinumtoxinA was the only treatment that significantly increased the proportion of subjects achieving ≥ 1 point improvement in GLS score compared with other BoNT/A formulations. Moreover, daxibotulinumtoxinA was ranked the highest for the proportion of subjects achieving ≥ 2-point improvement in GLS score. No significant differences were revealed for the incidence of any adverse events (AEs) that related to treatment or drug among all BoNT/A preparations.
CONCLUSION: The overall results of this NMA suggested that daxibotulinumtoxinA is a new BoNT/A preparation that may be not only more effective but also well-tolerated for the treatment of glabellar lines.
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 .