PrabotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Adult Males With Moderate to Severe Glabellar Lines: Post-hoc Analyses of the Phase III Clinical Study Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite a growing interest among men in cosmetic procedures such as botulinum toxin, comparator clinical trial data in this population are limited. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the efficacy and safety of prabotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of males with moderate to severe glabellar lines. METHODS: Post-hoc analyses were performed on the subpopulation of male patients treated with either a single dose of 20 U prabotulinumtoxinA (n = 25) or 20 U onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 31) in the EVB-003 Phase III glabellar line clinical study. One key efficacy endpoint was the proportion of responders with a ≥1-point improvement from baseline at maximum frown on the 4-point Glabellar Line Scale. RESULTS: Compared with onabotulinumtoxinA-treated males, the percentages of responders who had a ≥1-point improvement on the Glabellar Line Scale at maximum frown were higher at all postbaseline time points for prabotulinumtoxinA-treated males (P > 0.05 at all visits) by an absolute overall mean difference of 10.1% across all visits. Similar trends were observed for efficacy endpoints based on global aesthetic improvement and subject satisfaction. PrabotulinumtoxinA-treated males had a higher incidence of treatment-related headache and eyelid ptosis. CONCLUSIONS: The percentages of patients who met the definition of a responder were higher at almost all time points examined for prabotulinumtoxinA-treated males. Despite the high level of consistency across all measures, differences between the 2 treatment groups did not reach statistical significance. Further study is warranted to establish if these post-hoc analyses observations are reproducible in a larger male patient population.
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 | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".