DaxibotulinumtoxinA for Injection has a prolonged duration of response in the treatment of glabellar lines: Pooled data from two multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies (SAKURA 1 and SAKURA 2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: DaxibotulinumtoxinA for Injection (DAXI) is a novel botulinum toxin type A in clinical development. Phase 2 data have shown it offers a more prolonged duration of response than onabotulinumtoxinA. OBJECTIVE: To further evaluate the efficacy, duration of response, and safety of 40 U DAXI compared with placebo in the treatment of glabellar lines. METHODS: Two identical, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 studies were performed (NCT03014622 and NCT03014635 on www.clinicaltrials.gov). Participants with moderate or severe glabellar lines were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive 40 U DAXI or placebo into the corrugator/procerus muscles. Glabellar line severity was assessed by investigators and participants for up to 36 weeks (≥24 weeks). RESULTS: Among 609 participants enrolled (405 DAXI, 204 placebo), 92% completed. DAXI was significantly more effective than placebo in reducing glabellar line severity and maintained none or mild glabellar line severity for a median of 24.0 weeks. It was also generally well tolerated-treatment-related adverse effects were most commonly headache (6.4% vs 2.0%) and injection site pain (3.7% vs 3.9%). LIMITATIONS: The study population was predominantly female and white and received only a single treatment. CONCLUSIONS: DAXI offers a prolonged duration of response for glabellar line reduction and is well tolerated.
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 | 0.024 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".