ReviewToxins2024
Continuous Treatment with IncobotulinumtoxinA Despite Presence of BoNT/A Neutralizing Antibodies: Immunological Hypothesis and a Case Report.
Review in Toxins, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Botulinum Neurotoxin A (BoNT/A) is a bacterial protein that has proven to be a valuable pharmaceutical in therapeutic indications and aesthetic medicine. One major concern is the formation of neutralizing antibodies (nAbs) to the core BoNT/A protein. These can interfere with the therapy, resulting in partial or complete antibody (Ab)-mediated secondary non-response (SNR) or immunoresistance. If titers of nAbs reach a level high enough that all injected BoNT/A molecules are neutralized, immunoresistance occurs. Studies have shown that continuation of treatment of neurology patients who had developed Ab-mediated partial SNR against complexing protein-containing (CPC-) BoNT/A was in some cases successful if patients were switched to complexing protein-free (CPF-) incobotulinumtoxinA (INCO). This seems to contradict the layperson's basic immunological understanding that repeated injection with the same antigen BoNT/A should lead to an increase in antigen-specific antibody titers. As such, we strive to explain how immunological memory works in general, and based on this, we propose a working hypothesis for this paradoxical phenomenon observed in some, but not all, neurology patients with immunoresistance. A critical factor is the presence of potentially immune-stimulatory components in CPC-BoNT/A products that can act as immunologic adjuvants and activate not only naïve, but also memory B lymphocyte responses. Furthermore, we propose that continuous injection of a BoN/TA formulation with low immunogenicity, e.g., INCO, may be a viable option for aesthetic patients with existing nAbs. These concepts are supported by a real-world case example of a patient with immunoresistance whose nAb levels declined with corresponding resumption of clinical response despite regular INCO injections.
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.