Comparing Injectable DaxibotulinumtoxinA and OnabotulinumtoxinA in Moderate and Severe Glabellar Lines: Additional Analyses From a Phase 2, Randomized, Dose-Ranging, Double-Blind, Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Injectable daxibotulinumtoxinA (RT002) is an investigational botulinum toxin Type A. Published Phase 2 data show that, compared with 20U onabotulinumtoxinA, 40U daxibotulinumtoxinA is associated with a significantly greater response rate and significantly longer duration of response (median 24 weeks), and appears generally safe and well tolerated (www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT02303002). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether these efficacy and safety findings are influenced by baseline glabellar line severity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the Phase 2, randomized, dose-ranging, parallel-group, double-blind, multicenter study, subjects with moderate or severe glabellar lines at maximum frown were randomly assigned to 20U, 40U, or 60U daxibotulinumtoxinA, 20U onabotulinumtoxinA, or placebo. Efficacy was evaluated by investigators for ≥24 weeks. RESULTS: Data from the per protocol population (n = 191) stratified by baseline glabellar line severity (125 moderate, 66 severe) suggest that the clinical advantage of 40U daxibotulinumtoxinA over 20U onabotulinumtoxinA is maintained for a range of efficacy outcomes regardless of whether glabellar lines are moderate or severe at baseline. Statistical evaluations were not completed due to the limited size of each subgroup. CONCLUSION: 40U daxibotulinumtoxinA appears to offer a clinical efficacy advantage over 20U onabotulinumtoxinA in both moderate and severe glabellar lines-with a greater advantage observed in severe glabellar lines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".