{"title":"A型肉毒毒素免疫原性在临床研究中的系统分析","authors":"Sebastien Lacroix-Desmazes , Stephane Mouly , Michel-Robert Popoff , Carlo Colosimo","doi":"10.1016/j.baga.2017.06.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Controversy exists around the immunogenicity of the various formulations of botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNT-A).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic review of the literature (1968–2013) was performed, including review of materials from the FDA. Neutralizing antibody rates were calculated for overall BoNT-A and for each commercially available BoNT-A (abobotulinumtoxinA, incobotulinumtoxinA, onabotulinumtoxinA), and were compared by using the Chi-squared test. Two different onabotulinumtoxinA products were identified during the specified time-frame and classed as ‘old’ and ‘new’ versions.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 31 studies involving 5811 subjects met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Therapeutic indications included: cervical dystonia, blepharospasm, spasticity, glabellar lines, hyperactive detrusor/sphincter dysfunction. The overall rate of development for neutralizing antibodies to BoNT-A was 2.1%. Individual rates were 1.4% for abobotulinumtoxinA, 0.8 to 1.1% for incobotulinumtoxinA, 7.2% for old onabotulinumtoxinA and 3.6% for new onabotulinumtoxinA. No significant differences were found between abobotulinumtoxinA and incobotulinumtoxinA rates (OR 1.82 [95%CI] [0.96–3.43], p<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.066; OR 1.30 [0.69–2.46], p<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.415). Rates of neutralizing antibodies were significantly lower with abobotulinumtoxinA and incobotulinumtoxinA versus either onabotulinumtoxinA formulations.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The overall neutralizing antibody rate for BoNT-A was low (≤2.1%). The rate of developing neutralizing antibodies was similar between abobotulinumtoxinA and incobotulinumtoxinA, both significantly lower when compared with onabotulinumtoxinA.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":89327,"journal":{"name":"Basal ganglia","volume":"9 ","pages":"Pages 12-17"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.baga.2017.06.001","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic analysis of botulinum neurotoxin type A immunogenicity in clinical studies\",\"authors\":\"Sebastien Lacroix-Desmazes , Stephane Mouly , Michel-Robert Popoff , Carlo Colosimo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.baga.2017.06.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Controversy exists around the immunogenicity of the various formulations of botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNT-A).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic review of the literature (1968–2013) was performed, including review of materials from the FDA. Neutralizing antibody rates were calculated for overall BoNT-A and for each commercially available BoNT-A (abobotulinumtoxinA, incobotulinumtoxinA, onabotulinumtoxinA), and were compared by using the Chi-squared test. Two different onabotulinumtoxinA products were identified during the specified time-frame and classed as ‘old’ and ‘new’ versions.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 31 studies involving 5811 subjects met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Therapeutic indications included: cervical dystonia, blepharospasm, spasticity, glabellar lines, hyperactive detrusor/sphincter dysfunction. The overall rate of development for neutralizing antibodies to BoNT-A was 2.1%. Individual rates were 1.4% for abobotulinumtoxinA, 0.8 to 1.1% for incobotulinumtoxinA, 7.2% for old onabotulinumtoxinA and 3.6% for new onabotulinumtoxinA. No significant differences were found between abobotulinumtoxinA and incobotulinumtoxinA rates (OR 1.82 [95%CI] [0.96–3.43], p<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.066; OR 1.30 [0.69–2.46], p<!--> <!-->=<!--> <!-->0.415). Rates of neutralizing antibodies were significantly lower with abobotulinumtoxinA and incobotulinumtoxinA versus either onabotulinumtoxinA formulations.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The overall neutralizing antibody rate for BoNT-A was low (≤2.1%). The rate of developing neutralizing antibodies was similar between abobotulinumtoxinA and incobotulinumtoxinA, both significantly lower when compared with onabotulinumtoxinA.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":89327,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Basal ganglia\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 12-17\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.baga.2017.06.001\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Basal ganglia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221053361730076X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Basal ganglia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221053361730076X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Systematic analysis of botulinum neurotoxin type A immunogenicity in clinical studies
Introduction
Controversy exists around the immunogenicity of the various formulations of botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNT-A).
Methods
A systematic review of the literature (1968–2013) was performed, including review of materials from the FDA. Neutralizing antibody rates were calculated for overall BoNT-A and for each commercially available BoNT-A (abobotulinumtoxinA, incobotulinumtoxinA, onabotulinumtoxinA), and were compared by using the Chi-squared test. Two different onabotulinumtoxinA products were identified during the specified time-frame and classed as ‘old’ and ‘new’ versions.
Results
A total of 31 studies involving 5811 subjects met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Therapeutic indications included: cervical dystonia, blepharospasm, spasticity, glabellar lines, hyperactive detrusor/sphincter dysfunction. The overall rate of development for neutralizing antibodies to BoNT-A was 2.1%. Individual rates were 1.4% for abobotulinumtoxinA, 0.8 to 1.1% for incobotulinumtoxinA, 7.2% for old onabotulinumtoxinA and 3.6% for new onabotulinumtoxinA. No significant differences were found between abobotulinumtoxinA and incobotulinumtoxinA rates (OR 1.82 [95%CI] [0.96–3.43], p = 0.066; OR 1.30 [0.69–2.46], p = 0.415). Rates of neutralizing antibodies were significantly lower with abobotulinumtoxinA and incobotulinumtoxinA versus either onabotulinumtoxinA formulations.
Conclusions
The overall neutralizing antibody rate for BoNT-A was low (≤2.1%). The rate of developing neutralizing antibodies was similar between abobotulinumtoxinA and incobotulinumtoxinA, both significantly lower when compared with onabotulinumtoxinA.