Efficacy and patient satisfaction with incobotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of glabellar frown lines

4Citations
Citations of this article
37Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION This study describes the physician experience relating to the effectiveness of incobotulinumtoxinA and patient satisfaction with its use for the treatment of glabellar frown lines (GFLs). METHODS A total of 17 patients from six dermatological clinics, aged > 18 years and with mild to very severe GFLs at maximum frown, were included. Patients were excluded if they had treatment with resorbable fillers and botulinum toxins in the preceding six months, or non-resorbable fillers or surgery in the treatment area. Injection sites (range 3–5) were chosen depending on their severity (dose range 12–20 U), covering corrugators and procerus muscles. Physicians assessed improvements to GFLs using the Merz scale on Days 4 and 14 after treatment. Patients completed a self-reported questionnaire on their facial wrinkles on Days 2 and 4 after treatment. RESULTS Most (76.5%) patients were women. The mean age of the patients was 46.9 ± 10.0 years. Mean severities (on the Merz scale) for at-rest and dynamic (with expression) GFLs at baseline were 1.3 ± 1.10 and 3.4 ± 0.38, respectively, and decreased on Day 14 (p < 0.05). Treatment response rates (> 1-point improvement) for at-rest and dynamic (with expression) GFLs on Day 4 were 40% and 100%, respectively. All patients reported being satisfied or very satisfied, and 64.3%–71.4% indicated that their facial wrinkles had improved on Day 2. CONCLUSION IncobotulinumtoxinA was fast acting with visible improvements by Day 4 and all patients expressed satisfaction with their treatment after two days. GFLs saw the most improvement among the facial characteristics measured.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lim, J. T. E., Loh, D. K. T., Soh, K., & Sunga, O. (2017). Efficacy and patient satisfaction with incobotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of glabellar frown lines. Singapore Medical Journal, 58(10), 606–609. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2016112

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free