Dysport received FDA approval this past April. Botox was the only treatment available, previous to Dysport’s approval, that gave the immediate, simple and affordable wrinkle and frown line treatments that have become so everyday that common people can afford it. No longer was expensive plastic surgery necessary, that only the movie stars and wealthy heiresses could afford, with the discovery of Botox. Now, Dysport has become formidable competition for Botox and there are similarities, yet differences between the two treatment options.
Dysport and Botox come from the same active ingredient: botlulinum toxin A. Both cause muscles to stop contracting. This can cause facial muscles to stop causing wrinkles and frown lines. Both can be used to treat both wrinkles and excessive underarm sweating. And both Botox and Dysport must be injected directly into the facial muscles.
It seems then at first glance that Botox and Dysport are the same. However, there are some exciting differences. And these differences are in a variety of different areas from price, to results, to side effects.
Many doctors are discovering what many patients are about to find out-Dysport is considerably cheaper than Botox. Doctors that are offering Dysport treatments have passed the savings on to the patients, since they have found it gives them a clear advantage over the doctors that don’t offer a Botox alternative.
A single injection of Dysport affects a wider muscle area of the face or underarm than Botox injections do. The Dysport treatments require fewer injections than similar doses of Botox, so that savings is even more significant. Larger areas such as the forehead and underarm sometimes require more injections with Botox, but that is not the case with Dysport. In addition, the treatments have been described as nearly painless with Dysport when compared to similar Botox treatments. The major downside of spreading to larger areas is that you could experience contraction problems with muscles that were not intended to be affected, in the case of Dysport.
Fewer allergic reactions have been reported with Dysport because fewer antibodies react to the toxins, when compared to equal treatments of Botox. This benefit coupled with the reduced price, could give Dysport a clear advantage over Botox treatments. The allergic reactions were something that had to be tolerated with the more expensive Botox treatments.
The result of this very similar but crucially different treatment option may mean that Botox itself becomes much more affordable. Now that it now longer has a monopoly it may be that the only way Botox can compete is to become much more affordable. In the very near future patients might be able to call different clinics to get varying estimates on treatment.
In the end the addition of another treatment option seems to be good news to everyone except maybe shareholders in the company that markets Botox. For everyone else, doctors and patients alike, the arrival of the newcomer means added options and greater monetary savings.

