A 12-Week Prospective, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Randomized Study Comparing 100 Units of Abobotulinum Toxin Type A (Dysport<sup>®</sup>) and 33.33 Units of Neubotulinum Toxin Type A (Neuronox<sup>®</sup>) for the Treatment of Hemifacial Spasm

A 12-Week Prospective, Double-Blind, Multicenter, Randomized Study Comparing 100 Units of Abobotulinum Toxin Type A (Dysport<sup>®</sup>) and 33.33 Units of Neubotulinum Toxin Type A (Neuronox<sup>®</sup>) for the Treatment of Hemifacial Spasm

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,...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Subsai Kongsaengdao, Arkhom Arayawichanont, Kanoksri Samintharapanya, Pichai Rojanapitayakorn, Benchalak Maneeton, Narong Maneeton
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2025-04-01
Series:Toxins
Subjects:
hemifacial spasm
botulinum Toxin A
quality of life
sleep quality
depression
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/17/4/173
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary: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 (<i>p</i> = 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, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and improving sleep duration (1.37 ± 0.01 vs. 1.06 ± 0.01 h/day, <i>p</i> < 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, <i>p</i> < 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.
ISSN:2072-6651

Similar Items