ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2023
A Preclinical Study Comparing the Activity and Potency of OnabotulinumtoxinA and PrabotulinumtoxinA.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cosmetic Botulinum Toxin A Injections to the Upper Face: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Pooled it
- Botulinum Toxin A Myths, Evidence, and Global Media Narratives.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Decades of Scientific Data and Global Media Reporting on Complications in Non-surgical Aesthetic Treatments for a Transparent Safety Profile: Kissing Snow White Awake.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Article
- Tailored Indications for Different Neurotoxins.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The goal of this study was to compare the unit-to-unit biological activity of the vacuum-dried formulation of prabotulinumtoxinA (prabotA) and onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) in preclinical assays. Methods: Reconstituted 100 U vials of prabotA and onabotA were tested in 3 distinct assays: plate-capture light chain activity (PC-LCA), measuringlight chain enzymatic activity after recovery of toxin from reconstituted product using a proprietary toxin capture step; cell-based potency assay (CBPA), measuring the intoxication steps of binding, translocation, and light chain activity (synaptosomal-associated protein 25 [SNAP25] cleavage); and mouse Digit Abduction Score (DAS), evaluating muscle paresis. Each assay tested 3 separate prabotA and onabotA lots on several independent test dates. Results: Multiple orthogonal assays established that when assessed on a unit-to-unit basis, the biological activity of prabotA is lower than that of onabotA. In the PC-LCA and CBPA assays, onabotA displayed 1.51 ± 0.14-fold higher (mean ± SD) and 1.33 ± 0.07-fold higher (mean of pooled lots ± SEM) activity than prabotA, respectively. Similarly, the mouse DAS data showed that onabotA had 1.4 ± 0.1-fold higher (mean ± SEM) potency than prabotA. Results of all 3 assays demonstrated differences in potency, efficacy, and duration of action between onabotA and prabotA on a unit-to-unit basis. Conclusion: Preclinical assays established differences in the biological activity of onabotA and prabotA, supporting that the units of biological activity are not interchangeable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.