A study published in Skin Health and Disease has revealed that of 655 respondents who were patients who recently received botulinum toxin treatment, 79% reported some form of adverse event.
The survey, carried out by researchers from University College London (UCL), found that 69% of respondents reported long-lasting side effects. A further 68.4% of respondents reported not having recovered physically from their complications, 63.5% stated they had not recovered emotionally and 61.7% said there was a lasting psychological impact.
The research, which collated side effects reported at a variety of different timeframes following treatment, found ‘anxiety’ to be the most commonly reported side effect (n=85), followed by pain (n=85), headache/migraine (n=75), panic attacks (n=46), dizziness (n=33), brain fog (n=33) and tinnitus (n=31).
Following treatment, 92% of respondents stated their injector (39.2% doctors, 36.5% nurses, 13.8% beauticians, 4.6% dentists, 5.9% other) did not inform them about the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) Yellow Card Reporting Scheme for complications.
In the most recent report, just 188 adverse effects post-toxin injections were logged with the MHRA between 1991 and 2020.
Research and professor of plastic surgery at UCL Professor Ash Mosahebi commented, “Botulinum toxins have revolutionised many aesthetic and medical treatments. However, the range of physical, psychological, emotional and financial costs is significant and more should be done to help protect and safeguard patients. Fundamentally, the two key issues are consent and competence. Patients should be fully aware of the potential risk, but also ensure they have their treatments performed by a practitioner who is competent and qualified.”
However, some controversy has arisen around the study’s methodology and findings, with aesthetic practitioner Dr Patrick Treacy commenting, “I find this paper difficult to believe. I have done at least five toxin per day since 1999 – over 45,000 procedures. I have never witnessed one patient with long-lasting adverse effects, none not having recovered physically, none not recovered emotionally and not one having not recovered psychologically. Papers like this need to be openly challenged.”