A new botulinum toxin potentially bioequivalent to onabotulinumtoxinA: are there any differences at all?

The efficacy and safety of neubotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of forehead horizontal lines in Asians - A clinical, prospective, interventional, split-face study

BACKGROUND

Botulinum toxin injections are widely sought after in the field of medical aesthetics, offering consumers a variety of brand choices. Two commonly available botulinum toxin products, onabotulinumtoxinA and neubotulinumtoxinA, are featured in numerous clinics, leading many to question whether there are discernible differences in results, given their varying price ranges.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of neubotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of forehead horizontal lines.

METHODS

A 12-week prospective, single-centre, interventional split-face study was conducted, including 30 subjects. These enrolled subjects received a single treatment session, with neubotulinumtoxinA applied to the left side of the forehead and onabotulinumtoxinA to the right side. A superficial injection was performed in all individuals, where the product was injected subdermally in the frontalis muscle. Evaluation was conducted at baseline, 7 days, 14, days and 4, 8, and 12 weeks after treatment, both when the eyebrows were at maximum lift and in a resting position. Treatment efficacy was assessed by two physicians and self-assessed by the patients, using the Fitzpatrick Wrinkle Classification system. Adverse events were documented to evaluate safety.

RESULTS

The study found no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of neubotulinum and onabotulinum for treating forehead wrinkles, as indicated by p-values above 0.05 for both static and dynamic conditions. No safety and adverse events were observed in both formulations.

CONCLUSION

This study has demonstrated that neither formulation is inferior to each other in the treatment of forehead horizontal lines.

Low-Dose Neubotulinum Toxin A versus Low-Dose Abobotulinum Toxin A Injection for the Treatment of Cervical Dystonia: A Multicenter, 48-Week, Prospective, Double-Blinded, Randomized Crossover Design Study

Various types of botulinum toxin (BoNT) have been studied to treat cervical dystonia (CD). Although high-dose BoNT has proven efficacy, it increases the risk of adverse events. For this reason, this study was planned to identify the non-inferiority efficacy, tolerability, and safety of low-dose neubotulinum toxin A (Neu-BoNT-A) versus low-dose abobotulinum toxin A (Abo-BoNT-A) in CD treatment. The 48-week, prospective, randomized, controlled crossover design study of CD treatment, with 50-unit Neu-BoNT-A and 250-unit Abo-BoNT-A injections at 12-week intervals, was conducted over a 24-week treatment period. This study used the following standardized rating scales to assess the efficacy of BoNT: the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS); health-related quality of life (HRQoL); the Cervical Dystonia Impact Profile (CDIP-58); the Short Form 36 health survey questionnaire (SF-36); and, for the depressive symptoms of CD patients, the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale (CES-D) and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Fifty-two CD patients were enrolled from October 2019 to January 2021. The mean scores of the TWSTRS total at the post-treatments in both Neu-BoNT-A and Abo-BoNT-A had a significant reduction from baseline (p = 0.008 and 0.002, respectively). However, the mean changes of the TWSTRS total at the 12- and 24-week treatments between the two treatment groups were not significantly different (p = 0.284 and 0.129, respectively). The mean scores of the HRQoL questionnaires (the CIDP-58 and the SF-36) and the depressive symptoms (the CES-D and the PHQ-9) in both treated groups at the post-treatments did not significantly decrease from baseline and were comparable. Two patients treated with Abo-BoNT-A (250 units) reported cervical tension and benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV). There were no serious adverse events reported. Though both low-dose BoNT-As were effective at improving clinical symptoms without significant side effects, both treatments did not predict change in quality of life and depression. With the non-inferiority criteria, low-dose Neu-BoNT-A has a similar efficacy, safety, and tolerability to Abo-BoNT-A.

Neurotoxin Impurities: A Review of Threats to Efficacy

Recently launched esthetic botulinum toxin serotype A (BoNT/A) products include Nabota/Jeuveau, Meditoxin/Neuronox, and Botulax, which contain nontoxic accessory proteins and excipients. Clinical evidence supporting these formulations, including their purity and potential immunogenicity or their link to treatment failures, is limited. Any nonhuman protein, including nontoxin accessory proteins, can initiate immune reactions, especially if administered repeatedly, yet the issue of BoNT/A-induced immunogenicity is widely contested. However, there have been multiple reports of treatment failures and observations of BoNT/A-induced neutralizing antibodies. Compared with the purified formulation in Xeomin, these recently launched toxins contain higher total neurotoxin quantities, much of which is inactive and exposes patients to potentially immunogenic nontoxin proteins or inactive neurotoxins that increase their risk of developing treatment failure. Well-established products [especially abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport), onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) and Xeomin] are accompanied by comprehensive and long-ranging clinical evidence on safety and efficacy in esthetic facial indications, which still remains undisclosed for many of the recently introduced toxins. Clinicians need this information as patients will require repeated BoNT treatments and may be unnecessarily but cumulatively exposed to potential immunogens. To underscore the need for caution and further evidence, we review some of the issues surrounding BoNT/A-induced immunogenicity and antibody-induced treatment failures and argue that using highly purified toxins that do not negatively impact patient outcomes is a prudent clinical decision.

Comparison of botulinum neurotoxin type A formulations in Asia

Results

All protein-based therapeutics, such as botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNT/A), are potentially immunogenic and can lead to anaphylaxis, autoimmunity, or diminished or complete absence of therapeutic efficacy, especially if administered repeatedly. Therefore, the protein quantity in BoNT/A products is an important consideration when selecting products for treatment. However, essential formulation data are not always publicly accessible.

Materials and methods

The neurotoxin protein content of products newly introduced in Asia, such as (listed alphabetically) Botulax^®, Meditoxin^®, Nabota^®, and Relatox^®, was measured by sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay with antisera directed against BoNT/A compared to Xeomin^®.

Results

Compared to Xeomin with no inactive neurotoxin, although Botulax and Nabota contained 844 and 754 pg of neurotoxin protein, respectively, the percentage of inactive neurotoxin was calculated to be 103 and 81, respectively, while the potency per pg of neurotoxin was 0.118 and 0.133 U, respectively. Meditoxin and Relatox had 575 and 578 pg of neurotoxins, respectively, marginally higher than that of Xeomin, while the percentage of inactive neurotoxins was 38 and 33, respectively, and the potency per pg of neurotoxin was 0.174 and 0.173 U, respectively. However, Xeomin, which has 416 pg/vial of purified neurotoxin and 0.240 U of efficacy per pg of neurotoxin, has the lowest neurotoxin protein content and consequently the highest specific potency compared to the four Asian BoNT/A preparations in this study.

Conclusion

Although Botulax and Nabota had more neurotoxin than Xeomin in an equivalent volume, they contained greater amounts of inactive neurotoxin. In addition, although Meditoxin and Relatox had slightly more neurotoxin than Xeomin, both contained greater amounts of inactive neurotoxin.

Botulinum Toxin Type A Injection for Cervical Dystonia in Adults with Dyskinetic Cerebral Palsy

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of injecting botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) into the neck muscles to treat cervical dystonia (CD) in patients with dyskinetic cerebral palsy (CP). This was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial with cross-over design. We prospectively enrolled adults with dyskinetic CP who were over 20 years old and had been clinically diagnosed with CD for more than one year. The primary outcome measure was the change in Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) at four weeks from the baseline TWSTRS. Seventeen patients were initially enrolled, but one patient was excluded after the final evaluation because of a violation of the study protocol. At four weeks, the BoNT-A injections showed significant improvement in TWSTRS total scores compared to the saline injections (p = 0.0286 for ANCOVA). At 12 weeks, the BoNT-A injections resulted in greater improvements in TWSTRS total scores than the saline injections without statistical significance (p = 0.0783 for ANCOVA). Dysphagia occurred in three out of 16 patients: two after BoNT-A and one after saline. The dysphagia was transient and improved naturally within two weeks without any special treatment. BoNT-A injection for CD in adults with dyskinetic CP is relatively safe and improves pain and disability.

Neuronox versus BOTOX in the Treatment of Post-Stroke Upper Limb Spasticity: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Botulinum toxin type A is widely used for treating spasticity. Neuronox (Neu-BoNT/A), a newly manufactured botulinum toxin a, has not yet been investigated for its efficacy and safety in the treatment of post-stroke upper limb spasticity.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the efficacy and safety of Neuronox (Neu-BoNT/A) compared with BOTOX (onabotulinum toxin A) for treating post-stroke upper limb spasticity.

METHODS

In total, 196 stroke patients with moderate to severe upper limb spasticity were randomly assigned to either Neuronox or BOTOX intervention. The wrist flexors were mandatory and elbow, finger, and thumb flexors were optional muscles to be injected. Assessments were performed at baseline and 4, 8, and 12 weeks after the intervention. The primary outcome measure was the change from baseline of the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) at the wrist flexors at week 4. Secondary outcome measures included the change of MAS at each visit, response rate, Disability Assessment Scale (DAS), Carer Burden Scale, and Global Assessment of treatment benefit.

RESULTS

Primary outcome measures were -1.39±0.79 and -1.56±0.81 in the Neuronox and BOTOX groups, respectively. The difference was within the noninferiority margin of 0.45 (95% upper limit=0.40). There were no significant differences between the groups in the secondary outcome and safety measures, except the change of the MAS at the elbow flexors at week 12 (-0.88±0.75 in the Neuronox group, -0.65±0.74 in the BOTOX group; P=0.0429). Both groups showed significant improvements in the MAS, DAS, and Carer Burden Scale at weeks 4, 8, and 12.

CONCLUSION

Neuronox showed equivalent efficacy and safety compared with BOTOX for treating post-stroke upper limb spasticity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01313767.