PrabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of glabellar lines in adults, 65 years of age and older: The fourth in a series of post hoc analyses of the phase <scp>III</scp> clinical study data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the absence of Phase III clinical trial data to support their use, 3.4% of all neurotoxin treatments performed internationally for esthetic purposes in 2020 were performed in patients 65 years of age and older. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the efficacy and safety of prabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of moderate to severe glabellar lines in the subset of Phase III clinical trial participants who were 65 years of age and older. METHODS: Post hoc analyses were performed on all patients who had been treated with a single dose of 20 U prabotulinumtoxinA in the three 150-day, placebo-controlled Phase III glabellar line clinical studies. Patients were grouped by age: ≥65 years (n = 70) versus <65 years (n = 667). The endpoints of primary interest were the proportion of responders with a ≥1-point improvement from baseline at maximum frown on the 4-point Glabellar Line Scale and treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS: For the efficacy endpoint of primary interest, responder rates among patients 65 years of age and older were numerically less than those of patients less than 65 years by an absolute mean difference of just -2.7% across all visits; none of the differences at any visit were statistically significant. The most common treatment-related adverse event was headache, occurring in 5.7% of those 65 years of age and older and in 9.7% of those less than 65 years. CONCLUSIONS: 20 U prabotulinumtoxinA administered for the treatment of glabellar lines was efficacious in patients 65 years of age and older; it was also well tolerated by this cohort.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".