Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22842675›Full record

ArticleJournal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)2013

Comparative evaluation of the potency and antigenicity of two distinct BoNT/A-derived formulations.

M Brown, G Nicholson, M C Ardila, A Satorius, R S Broide, K Clarke, T Hunt, J Francis

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Comparative Pharmacodynamics Study of 3 Different Botulinum Toxin Type A Preparations in Mice.Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] · 2020
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

M BrownDepartment of Biological Sciences, Allergan Inc, 2525 Dupont Dr, Mailstop RD3-3B, Irvine, CA 92612, USA.
G Nicholson
M C Ardila
A Satorius
R S Broide
K Clarke
T Hunt
J Francis

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®) and onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX®) are unique botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNT/A)-derived drugs. IncobotulinumtoxinA utilizes the naked 150 kDa holotoxin portion of BoNT/A, whereas onabotulinumtoxinA uses the complete native 900 kDa complex as drug substance. On the basis of purportedly similar pharmacological characteristics, these formulations were evaluated for potency by LD₅₀ and mouse Digit Abduction Score (DAS) bioassays. DAS was also used to assess antigenicity. Full-range DAS dose-response profiles were achieved with four lots of each product, with similar observations between lots for a given product. Between products, however, the mean DAS potency of incobotulinumtoxinA (ED₅₀ range 7.0-10.2 U/kg) was significantly lower than that of onabotulinumtoxinA (ED₅₀ range 4.4-6.4 U/kg), consistent with lower measured potencies in the LD₅₀ assay for incobotulinumtoxinA (potency range 62-82 U). In assessments of DAS duration of effect at similar unit doses, the observed lower potency of incobotulinumtoxinA translated into decreased peak efficacy and dose effect over time (i.e. shorter duration). In contrast, at equi-efficacious doses yielding near-maximal DAS responses, both toxin formulations were uniformly inhibited in a statistically significant manner when preincubated with rabbit-derived, onabotulinumtoxinA-neutralizing antibodies, supporting the position that inhibition of 150 kDa holotoxin serves as the common basis for neutralization and, therefore, incobotulinumtoxinA would not be expected to be effective in onabotulinumtoxinA-immunoresistant subjects (and vice versa). Further, with lower lot-to-lot relative potency, incobotulinumtoxinA is not dose-equivalent or interchangeable with onabotulinumtoxinA, suggesting that various aspects of drug product formulation may influence observed pharmacology.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiological AssayBotulinum Toxins, Type ADose-Response Relationship, DrugFemaleLethal Dose 50MiceBotulinum Toxins, Type AincobotulinumtoxinA

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.