Botulinum toxin type A for facial wrinkles (Review)
Publication Details
Camargo, C. P.,
Xia, J.,
Costa, C. S.,
Gemperli, R.,
Tatini, M. D.,
Bulsara, M.,
&
Riera, R.
(2021).
Botulinum toxin type A for facial wrinkles (Review).
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 7.
Abstract
Background
Botulinum toxin type A (BontA) is the most frequent treatment for facial wrinkles, but its effectiveness and safety have not previously been assessed in a Cochrane Review.
Objectives
To assess the effects of all commercially available botulinum toxin type A products for the treatment of any type of facial wrinkles.
Search methods
We searched the following databases up to May 2020: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registers, and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
Selection criteria
We included RCTs with over 50 participants, comparing BontA versus placebo, other types of BontA, or fillers (hyaluronic acid), for treating facial wrinkles in adults.
Data collection and analysis
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were participant assessment of success and major adverse events (AEs) (eyelid ptosis, eyelid sensory disorder, strabismus). Secondary outcomes included physician assessment of success; proportion of participants with at least one AE and duration of treatment effect. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
Main results
We included 65 RCTs, involving 14,919 randomised participants. Most participants were female, aged 18 to 65 years. All participants were outpatients (private office or day clinic). Study duration was between one week and one year. No studies were assessed as low risk of bias in all domains; the overall risk of bias was unclear for most studies.
The most common comparator was placebo (36 studies). An active control was used in 19 studies. There were eight dose‐ranging studies of onabotulinumtoxinA, and a small number of studies compared against fillers. Treatment was given in one cycle (54 studies), two cycles (three studies), or three or more cycles (eight studies).
The treated regions were glabella (43 studies), crow's feet (seven studies), forehead (two studies), perioral (two studies), full face (one study), or more than two regions (nine studies). Most studies analysed moderate to severe wrinkles; mean duration of treatment was 20 weeks.
The following results summarise the main comparisons, based on studies of one treatment cycle for the glabella. AEs were collected over the duration of these studies (over four to 24 weeks).
Compared to placebo, onabotulinumtoxinA‐20 U probably has a higher success rate when assessed by participants (risk ratio (RR) 19.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 8.60 to 43.99; 575 participants; 4 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence) or physicians (RR 17.10, 95% CI 10.07 to 29.05; 1339 participants; 7 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence) at week four. Major AEs are probably higher with onabotulinumtoxinA‐20 U (Peto OR 3.62, 95% CI 1.50 to 8.74; 1390 participants; 8 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence), but there may be no difference in any AEs (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.45; 1388 participants; 8 studies; low‐certainty evidence).
Compared to placebo, abobotulinumtoxinA‐50 U has a higher participant‐assessed success rate at week four (RR 21.22, 95% CI 7.40 to 60.56; 915 participants; 6 studies; high‐certainty evidence); and probably has a higher physician‐assessed success rate (RR 14.93, 95% CI 8.09 to 27.55; 1059 participants; 7 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). There are probably more major AEs with abobotulinumtoxinA‐50 U (Peto OR 3.36, 95% CI 0.88 to 12.87; 1294 participants; 7 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). Any AE may be more common with abobotulinumtoxinA‐50 U (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.49; 1471 participants; 8 studies; low‐certainty evidence).
Compared to placebo, incobotulinumtoxinA‐20 U probably has a higher participant‐assessed success rate at week four (RR 66.57, 95% CI 13.50 to 328.28; 547 participants; 2 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence), and physician‐assessed success rate (RR 134.62, 95% CI 19.05 to 951.45; 547 participants; 2 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). Major AEs were not observed (547 participants; 2 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). There may be no difference between groups in any AEs (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.53; 547 participants; 2 studies; low‐certainty evidence).
AbobotulinumtoxinA‐50 U is no different to onabotulinumtoxinA‐20 U in participant‐assessed success rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.08, 388 participants, 1 study, high‐certainty evidence) and physician‐assessed success rate (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; 388 participants; 1 study; high‐certainty evidence) at week four. Major AEs are probably more likely in the abobotulinumtoxinA‐50 U group than the onabotulinumtoxinA‐20 U group (Peto OR 2.65, 95% CI 0.77 to 9.09; 433 participants; 1 study; moderate‐certainty evidence). There is probably no difference in any AE (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.54; 492 participants; 2 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence).
IncobotulinumtoxinA‐24 U may be no different to onabotulinumtoxinA‐24 U in physician‐assessed success rate at week four (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.05; 381 participants; 1 study; low‐certainty evidence) (participant assessment was not measured). One participant reported ptosis with onabotulinumtoxinA, but we are uncertain of the risk of AEs (Peto OR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.77; 381 participants; 1 study; very low‐certainty evidence).
Compared to placebo, daxibotulinumtoxinA‐40 U probably has a higher participant‐assessed success rate (RR 21.10, 95% CI 11.31 to 39.34; 683 participants; 2 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence) and physician‐assessed success rate (RR 23.40, 95% CI 12.56 to 43.61; 683 participants; 2 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence) at week four. Major AEs were not observed (716 participants; 2 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence). There may be an increase in any AE with daxibotulinumtoxinA compared to placebo (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.46 to 3.40; 716 participants; 2 studies; moderate‐certainty evidence).
Major AEs reported were mainly ptosis; BontA is also known to carry a risk of strabismus or eyelid sensory disorders.
Keywords
Bias, Botulinum toxins type A, Adverse effects, Therapeutic use, Skin aging, Dermal fillers
Link to Publisher Version (URL)
