Aim:Incobotulinumtoxin A(xeomin)has been proposed as an alternative to abobotulinumtoxin A(dysport)and onabotulinumtoxin A(Botox)in the treatment of glabellar frown lines.A recent study is comparing abobotulinumtoxin ...Aim:Incobotulinumtoxin A(xeomin)has been proposed as an alternative to abobotulinumtoxin A(dysport)and onabotulinumtoxin A(Botox)in the treatment of glabellar frown lines.A recent study is comparing abobotulinumtoxin A and onabotulinumtoxin A revealed equivalent efficacy with a dose conversion ratio of 2.5:1.We sought to establish effectiveness and dosing equivalency of incobotulinumtoxin A vs.abobotulinumtoxin A.Methods:Inclusion criteria for this pilot study included patients of a single surgeon(LAC)who had previously received a constant dose of abobotulinumtoxin A over at least four consecutive treatment sessions for the previous 12 months to achieve an 85-90%elimination of dynamic glabellar frown lines.The primary outcome sought dose comparison between established maintenance abobotulinumtoxin A dosing and incobotulinumtoxin A first-time dosing.A 2:1 conversion(abobotulinumtoxin A:incobotulinumtoxin A)was chosen in most patients.Secondary outcomes were patient-reported onset of effect,physician-assessed effect at 10-12 weeks,pain associated with administration,and patient perceived need for re-treatment at 2 weeks.Results:A total of 32 subjects were included.The mean dose of incobotulinumtoxin A was 17.1 units(±6.1,the median dose 20 units).The mean dose of abobotulinumtoxin A was 27.6(±11.7,the median dose 27.5 units).The mean difference in treatment units was 10.5(95%confidence interval,P<0.001).Among 30 patients who reported effect onset,the median was 8.5 days,with a range of 1-14.At 10-12 weeks,muscle paralysis was assessed to be 69.2%(±27.3),vs.90.3%(±1.8)with abobotulinumtoxin A(P<0.001).The majority of patients rated pain of administration as equal or greater to that of abobotulinumtoxin A(63%and 22%,respectively).Three patients(9%)required re-treatment at 2 weeks with abobotulinumtoxin A due to lack of effective treatment with incobotulinumtoxin A.Abobotulinumtoxin A re-treatment was chosen by the patient.Conclusion:We found incobotulinumtoxin A at 17.1(±6.1)units to be less effective than abobotulinumtoxin A at 27.6(±11.7)units in the treatment of glabellar frown lines at 10-12 weeks postadministration.Dosing was less predictable than dosing associated with abobotulinumtoxin A treatment.Larger,randomized controlled trials are indicated to further delineate these differences and to clarify whether this difference from previously published incobotulinumtoxin A dosing may have been due to the small sample size.展开更多
Based on a learner corpus Chinese Learner English Corpus(CLEC)and a native speaker corpus Freiburg Brown Corpus of American English(FROWN),this research investigates the differences between Chinese learners of English...Based on a learner corpus Chinese Learner English Corpus(CLEC)and a native speaker corpus Freiburg Brown Corpus of American English(FROWN),this research investigates the differences between Chinese learners of English and English native speakers in their knowledge of the metonymic senses of human body word“hand”.Two research questions are raised:(1)What are the features that distinguish Chinese English learners from English native speakers?(2)What are the rules in learners’learning of English metonymic senses?In order to answer these two questions,this paper has investigated the frequencies of the identified senses in two corpora of FROWN and CLEC,and the sequence of learning metonymic senses.The results show that Chinese learner’s knowledge of metonymic senses of“hand”is restricted to fixed phrases,especially verb phrases.It is also found that in the process of English learning,learners do have some preferences for basic sense,and then they learn peripheral senses by reciting some fixed phrases.展开更多
文摘Aim:Incobotulinumtoxin A(xeomin)has been proposed as an alternative to abobotulinumtoxin A(dysport)and onabotulinumtoxin A(Botox)in the treatment of glabellar frown lines.A recent study is comparing abobotulinumtoxin A and onabotulinumtoxin A revealed equivalent efficacy with a dose conversion ratio of 2.5:1.We sought to establish effectiveness and dosing equivalency of incobotulinumtoxin A vs.abobotulinumtoxin A.Methods:Inclusion criteria for this pilot study included patients of a single surgeon(LAC)who had previously received a constant dose of abobotulinumtoxin A over at least four consecutive treatment sessions for the previous 12 months to achieve an 85-90%elimination of dynamic glabellar frown lines.The primary outcome sought dose comparison between established maintenance abobotulinumtoxin A dosing and incobotulinumtoxin A first-time dosing.A 2:1 conversion(abobotulinumtoxin A:incobotulinumtoxin A)was chosen in most patients.Secondary outcomes were patient-reported onset of effect,physician-assessed effect at 10-12 weeks,pain associated with administration,and patient perceived need for re-treatment at 2 weeks.Results:A total of 32 subjects were included.The mean dose of incobotulinumtoxin A was 17.1 units(±6.1,the median dose 20 units).The mean dose of abobotulinumtoxin A was 27.6(±11.7,the median dose 27.5 units).The mean difference in treatment units was 10.5(95%confidence interval,P<0.001).Among 30 patients who reported effect onset,the median was 8.5 days,with a range of 1-14.At 10-12 weeks,muscle paralysis was assessed to be 69.2%(±27.3),vs.90.3%(±1.8)with abobotulinumtoxin A(P<0.001).The majority of patients rated pain of administration as equal or greater to that of abobotulinumtoxin A(63%and 22%,respectively).Three patients(9%)required re-treatment at 2 weeks with abobotulinumtoxin A due to lack of effective treatment with incobotulinumtoxin A.Abobotulinumtoxin A re-treatment was chosen by the patient.Conclusion:We found incobotulinumtoxin A at 17.1(±6.1)units to be less effective than abobotulinumtoxin A at 27.6(±11.7)units in the treatment of glabellar frown lines at 10-12 weeks postadministration.Dosing was less predictable than dosing associated with abobotulinumtoxin A treatment.Larger,randomized controlled trials are indicated to further delineate these differences and to clarify whether this difference from previously published incobotulinumtoxin A dosing may have been due to the small sample size.
文摘Based on a learner corpus Chinese Learner English Corpus(CLEC)and a native speaker corpus Freiburg Brown Corpus of American English(FROWN),this research investigates the differences between Chinese learners of English and English native speakers in their knowledge of the metonymic senses of human body word“hand”.Two research questions are raised:(1)What are the features that distinguish Chinese English learners from English native speakers?(2)What are the rules in learners’learning of English metonymic senses?In order to answer these two questions,this paper has investigated the frequencies of the identified senses in two corpora of FROWN and CLEC,and the sequence of learning metonymic senses.The results show that Chinese learner’s knowledge of metonymic senses of“hand”is restricted to fixed phrases,especially verb phrases.It is also found that in the process of English learning,learners do have some preferences for basic sense,and then they learn peripheral senses by reciting some fixed phrases.
