de Boulle Koen
Aalst Dermatology Group, Aalst, Belgium.
J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2008 Jun;10(2):87-92. doi: 10.1080/14764170701854679.
The clinical characteristics of botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA) depend on the formulation used.
To evaluate whether switching BoNTA formulations affects patient satisfaction.
Forty patients enrolled and all were satisfied or extremely satisfied with Allergan BoNTA (BoNTA-Allergan) treatment in the glabellar+/-crow's feet+/-forehead area(s) in the preceding 6 months. Once improvement from this previous treatment had started to diminish, treatment was replicated using Ipsen BoNTA (BoNTA-Ipsen) at a 1:2.5 dose ratio.
The incidence of patients rating treatment as effective or very effective in making them look younger, look rested, and look less stressed was significantly higher with BoNTA-Allergan than BoNTA-Ipsen--83% versus 36%, 90% versus 39%, and 83% versus 33%, respectively--even though evaluations were performed a mean of 20 weeks after BoNTA-Allergan treatment and only 16 weeks after BoNTA-Ipsen treatment. The incidence of patients who were satisfied or extremely satisfied was 100% (BoNTA-Allergan) versus 31% (BoNTA-Ipsen). BoNTA-Allergan was preferred by 69% of patients.
Efficacy, satisfaction, and product preference ratings strongly favor the use of BoNTA-Allergan over BoNTA-Ipsen in the treatment of upper facial lines. Many patients who are satisfied with BoNTA-Allergan treatment become less satisfied if they are switched to BoNTA-Ipsen.
A型肉毒毒素（BoNTA）的临床特征取决于所使用的制剂。
评估更换BoNTA制剂是否会影响患者满意度。
招募了40名患者，所有患者在前6个月内在眉间 +/- 鱼尾纹 +/- 额头区域接受了艾尔建BoNTA（BoNTA-艾尔建）治疗，并且对该治疗感到满意或极其满意。一旦先前治疗的改善开始减弱，便以1:2.5的剂量比使用益普生BoNTA（BoNTA-益普生）重复进行治疗。
在使患者看起来更年轻、看起来休息良好以及看起来压力较小方面，将治疗评为有效或非常有效的患者比例，BoNTA-艾尔建显著高于BoNTA-益普生，分别为83%对36%、90%对39%、83%对33%，尽管在BoNTA-艾尔建治疗后平均20周进行评估，而在BoNTA-益普生治疗后仅16周进行评估。感到满意或极其满意的患者比例为100%（BoNTA-艾尔建）对31%（BoNTA-益普生）。69%的患者更喜欢BoNTA-艾尔建。
在治疗面部上半部分皱纹方面，疗效、满意度和产品偏好评分强烈支持使用BoNTA-艾尔建而非BoNTA-益普生。许多对BoNTA-艾尔建治疗感到满意的患者如果改用BoNTA-益普生，满意度会降低。
