Advertisement

Effectiveness of type A botulinum toxins for aesthetic indications and their relative economic impact

Published:January 06, 2012DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2011.12.001

      Summary

      Background

      It is accepted that the three commercially available type A botulinum toxins (BoNT-As) are different, their units of potency are not interchangeable and no fixed dose conversion ratio exists between them. To date, there is no clear evidence demonstrating the superiority of one toxin over another clinically.

      Objective

      The study aims to identify evidence confirming the equivocal efficacy of the formulations and to justify that attention can therefore be reasonably turned to their differing costs as a means of aiding choice of treatment. This is achieved via the development of the cost calculator presented herein, to enable direct economic comparisons to be made between the three commercially available BoNT-A formulations licensed for aesthetic indications in the UK.

      Methods

      An online literature search using PubMed was undertaken and the latest available information on the cost for each BoNT-A treatment was accessed via the British National Formulary (BNF). Predicated on the evidence review, a cost calculator was developed which takes into account for the glabella: the number of treatments needed per patient with each product over a year and the number of treatments available with differing dilutions of each vial of each product over a year. A range of cost prices can also be introduced allowing a direct cost-comparison to be made for treating the glabella of a set number of patients over a year between different products.

      Results

      Azzalure® (abobotulinumtoxinA) was the most cost-effective in almost all scenarios tested, whilst Vistabel® (onabotulinumtoxinA) was the least cost-effective. Of the two products with published non-inferiority with respect to each other, onabotulinumtoxinA and Bocouture® (incobotulinumtoxinA), incobotulinumtoxinA offered a lower overall cost to treat the glabella of the same number of patients when compared with Vistabel.

      Conclusion

      In most scenarios, BoNT-A treatment with abobotulinumtoxinA will result in significant annual cost savings when compared with treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA or incobotulinumtoxinA.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Aoki K.R.
        • Guyer B.
        Pharmacology and immunology of botulinum neurotoxins.
        Int Opthalmol Clin. 2005; 45: 25-37
        • Carruthers J.D.A.
        • Carruthers J.A.
        Treatment of glabellar frown lines with C. botulinum-A exotoxin.
        J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1992; 18: 17-21
        • Dimberg U.
        Facial reactions to fear-relevant and fear-irrelevant stimuli.
        Biol Psychol. 1986; 23: 153-161
        • ISAPS
        Statistics: statistics for aesthetic plastic surgery procedures from the members of the International Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery – ISAPS.
        2000 (Available at:) ([accessed 25.02.11])
        • De Boulle K.
        • Fagien S.
        • Sommer B.
        • et al.
        Treating glabellar lines with botulinum toxin type A-hemagglutinin complex: a review of the science, the clinical data, and patient satisfaction.
        Clin Int Aging. 2010; 5: 101-118
      1. Vistabel® Summary of Product Characteristics. Allergan Inc. Last updated July 2010.

      2. Azzalure® Summary of Product Characteristics. Galderma UK Ltd. Last updated August 2010.

      3. Bocouture® Summary of Product Characteristics. Merz Pharma UK Ltd. Last updated July 2010.

        • Flynn T.C.
        Botulinum toxin: examining duration of effect in facial aesthetic applications.
        Am J Clin Dermatol. 2010; 11: 183-199
        • Klein A.W.
        • Carruthers A.
        • Fagien S.
        • et al.
        Comparisons among botulinum toxins: an evidence-based review.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008; 121: 413-422
        • Karsai S.
        • Raulin C.
        Current evidence on the unit equivalence of different botulinum neurotoxin A formulations and recommendations for clinical practice in dermatology.
        Dermatol Surg. 2009; 35: 1-8
      4. British National Formulary. Available at: http://www.bnf.org.uk. Last accessed: February 2011.

        • Lowe P.
        • Patnaik R.
        • Lowe N.
        Comparison of two formulations of botulinum toxin type A for the treatment of glabellar lines: a double-blind, randomised study.
        J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006; 55: 975-980
        • Lowe P.
        • Patnaik R.
        • Lowe N.
        A comparison of two botulinum type a toxin preparations for the treatment of glabellar lines: double-blind, randomized, pilot study.
        Dermatol Surg. 2005; 31: 1651-1654
        • De Boulle K.
        Patient satisfaction with different botulinum toxin type A formulations in the treatment of moderate to severe upper facial rhytids.
        J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2008; 10: 87-92
        • Karsai S.
        • Adrian R.
        • Hammes S.
        • et al.
        A randomized double-blind study of the effect of Vistabel and Azzalure/Reloxin on forehead wrinkles and electromyographic activity.
        Arch Dermatol. 2007; 143: 1447-1449
        • Sattler G.
        • Callander M.J.
        • Grablowitz D.
        • et al.
        Noninferiority of I cobotulinumtoxin A, free from complexing proteins, compared with another botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of glabellar frown lines.
        Dermatol Surg. 2010; 36: 2146-2154
        • Prager W.
        • Wissmüller E.
        • Kollhorst B.
        • et al.
        Comparison of two botulinum toxin type A preparations for treating crow’s feet: a split-face, double-blind, proof-of-concept study.
        Dermatol Surg. 2010; 36: 2155-2160
        • Kane M.A.C.
        • Brandt F.
        • Rohrich R.J.
        • et al.
        Evaluation of variable-dose treatment with a new US botulinum toxin type A (Dysport) for correction of moderate to severe glabellar lines: results from a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009; 124: 1619-1629
        • Rzany B.
        • Ascher B.
        • Fratila A.
        • et al.
        Efficacy and safety of 3- and 5-injection patterns (30 and 50 U) of botulinum toxin A (Azzalure) for the treatment of wrinkles in the glabella and the Central forehead region.
        Arch Dermatol. 2006; 142: 320-326
        • Brandt F.
        • Swanson N.
        • Baumann L.
        • et al.
        Randomized, placebo-controlled study of a new botulinum toxin type A for treatment of glabellar lines: efficacy and safety.
        Dermatol Surg. 2009; 35: 1893-1901
        • Ascher B.
        • Zakine B.
        • Kestemont P.
        A multicentre, randomised, double blind, placebo controlled study of efficacy and safety of 3 doses of botulimum toxin A in the treatment.
        J Am Acad Dermatol. 2004; 51: 223-233
        • Moy R.
        • Maas C.
        • Monheit G.
        • et al.
        Long term safety and efficacy of a new botulinum toxin type A in treating glabellar lines.
        Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2009; 11: 77-83
        • Rubin M.G.
        • Dover J.S.
        • Glogau R.G.
        • et al.
        The efficacy and safety of a new US botulinum toxin type A in the retreatment of glabellar lines following open-label treatment.
        J Drugs Dermatol. 2009; 8: 439-444
        • Cohen J.L.
        • Schlessinger J.
        • Cox S.E.
        • et al.
        An analysis of the long-term safety data of repeat administrations of boyulimum neurotoxin type A–ABO for the treatment of glabellar lines.
        Aesthet Surg J. 2009; 29: S43-S49
        • Monheit G.
        • Cohen J.L.
        • the Reloxin Investigational Group
        Long-term safety of repeated administrations of a new formulation of botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of glabellar lines: Interim analysis from an open-label extension study.
        J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009; 61: 421-425
        • Rubin M.
        • Dover J.
        • Maas C.
        • Nester M.
        An analysis of safety data from five phase III clinical trials on the use of botulinum neurotoxin type A–ABO for the treatment of glabellar lines.
        Aesthet Surg J. 2009; 29: S50-S56
        • Carruthers J.A.
        • Lowe N.J.
        • Menter M.A.
        • et al.
        A multicenter, double-blind, randomised, placeo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of glabellar lines.
        J Am Acad Dermatol. 2002; 46: 840-849
        • Wu Y.
        • Zhao G.
        • Li H.
        • et al.
        Botulinum toxin type A for the treatment of glabellar lines in Chinese: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.
        Dermatol Surg. 2010; 36: 102-108
        • Harii K.
        • Kawashima M.
        A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-dose comparative study of botulinum toxin type A for treating glabellar lines in Japanese subjects.
        Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008; 32: 724-730
        • Fagien S.
        • Cox S.E.
        • Finn J.C.
        • et al.
        Patient-reported outcomes with botulinum toxin type A treatment of glabellar rhytids: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.
        Dermatol Surg. 2007; 33: S2-S9
        • Carruthers A.
        • Carruthers J.
        Prospective, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, dose-ranging study of botulinum toxin type A in men with glabellar rhytids.
        Dermatol Surg. 2005; 31: 1297-1303
        • Carruthers A.
        • Carruthers J.
        • Cohen J.
        A prospective, double-blind, randomised, parallel-group, dose-ranging study of botulinum toxin type A in female subjects with horizontal forehead rhytids.
        Dermatol Surg. 2003; 29: 461-467
        • Kawashima M.
        • Harii K.
        An open-label, randomized, 64-week study repeating 10- and 20-U doses of botulinum toxin toxin type A for the treatment of glabellar lines in Japanese subjects.
        Int J Derm. 2009; 48: 768-776
        • Stotland M.A.
        • Kowalski J.W.
        • Ray B.B.
        Patient-reported benefit and satisfaction with botulinum toxin type A treatment of moderate to severe glabellar rhytids: results from a prospective open-label study.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007; 120: 1386-1393
        • Blitzer A.
        • Binder W.J.
        • Aviv J.E.
        • et al.
        The management of hyperfunctional facial lines with botulinum toxin.
        Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1997; 123: 389-392
        • Brin M.F.
        • Boodhoo M.S.
        • Pogoda J.M.
        • et al.
        Safety and tolerability of onabotuilinumtoxinA in the treatment of facial lines: a meta-anlysis of individual patient data from global clinical registration studies in 1678 participants.
        J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009; 61: 961-970
        • Schleyer V.
        • Berneberg M.
        Efficacy and safety of botulinum neurotoxin type A (Xeomin®) in the treatment of facial expression frown lines.
        Kosmetische Medizin. 2008; 29: 148-151
        • Ranoux D.
        • Gary C.
        • Fondarai J.
        • et al.
        Respective potencies of Botox and Dysport: a double blind, randomised crossover study in cervical dystonia.
        J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002; 72: 459-462
        • Kranz G.
        • Paul A.
        • Voller M.
        • et al.
        Long-term efficacy and respective potencies of botulinum toxin A and B: a randomised, double-blind study.
        Br J Dermatol. 2011; 164: 176-181