In a head-to-head trial of Xeomin (incobotulinumtoxinA) versus BOTOX® Cosmetic (onabotulinumtoxinA), both toxins performed equally well at eradicating glabellar lines, according to a study in the November 2015 issue of Dermatologic Surgery.
“I can offer Xeomin to patients, especially the millennial generation, at a lower price point than the other botulinum toxin A preparations currently on the market.” —Cheryl Burgess, MD
The blinded, non-inferiority trial included 250 patients who received 20 units of incobotulinumtoxinA or onabotulinumtoxinA to the glabellar lines. At the primary efficacy end point (1 month after treatment), incobotulinumtoxinA was equivalent to onabotulinumtoxinA and efficacy remained similar between treatment groups through 4 months after treatment. What’s more, patient satisfaction ratings were similar between groups and favorable (>90%) throughout. Both treatments were well tolerated.
So if both toxins are equal, what does this mean for doctors and patients?
Washington, DC-based dermatologist Cheryl Burgess, MD, was one of the trial investigators. “I found that neither I nor the naive patients or non-naive subjects could not determine which botulinum toxin A they received at the 1 month or 3 month end points,” she says. “As a practicing cosmetic dermatologist, cost of procedures can prohibit one’s decision to undergo a cosmetic procedure. I can offer Xeomin to patients, especially the millennial generation, at a lower price point than the other botulinum toxin A preparations currently on the market.”
Other potential advantages include the fact that Xeomin does not need to be refrigerated. “It allows for convenient storage,” she says.
Xeomin is “naked,” meaning that there are no additives, just botulinum toxin type A. This may mean that there is less risk of developing antibodies against Xeomin than other available neurotoxins.
“The absence of complexing proteins may be a future beneficial in long-term use of botulinum toxin A,” she says.
Xeomin manufacturer Merz sponsored the new study.