Ipsen has reported positive Phase II results for its internally developed botulinum toxin IPN10200 in treating glabellar lines, demonstrating both superior efficacy and extended duration compared to the established competitor Dysport. The data comes from Stage 1 of the multi-stage Phase II LANTIC trial, marking the first aesthetic indication results for the investigational treatment.
Primary Endpoint Achievement and Extended Efficacy
Patients treated with IPN10200 achieved a statistically significant improvement in response at Week 4 versus placebo, meeting the trial's primary endpoint. The treatment demonstrated notably extended duration of effect, with a substantial majority of patients achieving a clinically significant response at Week 24 compared with both placebo and Dysport. This response was defined as achieving a score of "none" or "mild" on line severity assessments.
The superior performance continued through Week 36, where IPN10200 maintained its advantage over Dysport in line severity response. Throughout the trial, Dysport performed consistently with its established clinical profile, providing a reliable comparator for the investigational treatment.
Development Timeline and Therapeutic Expansion
Ipsen has already initiated Phase III start-up activities for IPN10200 in aesthetic applications, indicating confidence in the Phase II results. The company plans to present comprehensive data from the Phase II LANTIC trial at an upcoming scientific conference scheduled for the first half of 2026.
Beyond aesthetic applications, Ipsen is advancing Phase II development of IPN10200 for multiple therapeutic indications, including adult upper limb spasticity, migraine, and cervical dystonia. This broad development strategy positions the compound as a potential multi-indication botulinum toxin therapy.
Clinical Significance
The extended duration of efficacy observed with IPN10200 represents a potential advancement in aesthetic botulinum toxin treatments, where longer-lasting effects could reduce treatment frequency and improve patient convenience. The head-to-head comparison with Dysport provides direct evidence of competitive positioning in the established aesthetic market.
