Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A 12-Week Prospective, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Randomized Study Comparing 100 Units of Abobotulinum Toxin Type A (Dysport®) and 33.33 Units of Neubotulinum Toxin Type A (Neuronox®) for the Treatment of Hemifacial Spasm
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A 12-Week Prospective, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Randomized Study Comparing 100 Units of Abobotulinum Toxin Type A (Dysport®) and 33.33 Units of Neubotulinum Toxin Type A (Neuronox®) for the Treatment of Hemifacial Spasm
Do you wish to request the book?
A 12-Week Prospective, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Randomized Study Comparing 100 Units of Abobotulinum Toxin Type A (Dysport®) and 33.33 Units of Neubotulinum Toxin Type A (Neuronox®) for the Treatment of Hemifacial Spasm
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A 12-Week Prospective, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Randomized Study Comparing 100 Units of Abobotulinum Toxin Type A (Dysport®) and 33.33 Units of Neubotulinum Toxin Type A (Neuronox®) for the Treatment of Hemifacial Spasm
2025
Overview
Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating Botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) for treatment of hemifacial spasm (HFS) have primarily focused on symptom relief and quality-of-life improvement. However, head-to-head comparisons of different BoNT-A formulations, particularly in terms of onset, duration of action, and efficacy, remain limited. We conducted a 12-week prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing the efficacy and safety of 33.33 units of Neubotulinum toxin A (Neu-BoNT-A) with 100 units of Abobotulinum toxin A (Abo-BoNT-A) in the treatment of HFS. A total of 87 patients were enrolled between September and December 2024. Neu-BoNT-A and Abo-BoNT-A exhibited similar onset and duration of action [5.0 ± 0.9 vs. 6.2 ± 0.7 days, respectively (p = 0.33)]. After 12 weeks of treatment, Neu-BoNT-A demonstrated superior efficacy in reducing the daily duration of HFS (2.00 ± 0.06 vs. 1.42 ± 0.10 h/day, p < 0.001) and improving sleep duration (1.37 ± 0.01 vs. 1.06 ± 0.01 h/day, p < 0.001). However, Abo-BoNT-A was associated with significantly lower absolute daily disability time compared to Neu-BoNT-A (11.4 vs. 1.2 min/day, p < 0.001). No serious adverse events were observed. Both Neu-BoNT-A and Abo-BoNT-A were safe and effective in treating HFS. However, Neu-BoNT-A was more effective in HFS with minimal symptoms without disability and Abo-BoNT-A more effective in HFS with greater duration of disability.
Publisher
MDPI AG,MDPI
Subject
/ Aged
/ Botulinum Toxins, Type A - administration & dosage
/ Botulinum Toxins, Type A - adverse effects
/ Botulinum Toxins, Type A - therapeutic use
/ Female
/ Hemifacial Spasm - drug therapy
/ Humans
/ Male
/ Neuromuscular Agents - administration & dosage
/ Neuromuscular Agents - adverse effects
/ Neuromuscular Agents - therapeutic use
/ Patients
/ Toxins
