A型肉毒毒素免疫原性在临床研究中的系统分析

Sebastien Lacroix-Desmazes , Stephane Mouly , Michel-Robert Popoff , Carlo Colosimo
{"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 ,&nbsp;Stephane Mouly ,&nbsp;Michel-Robert Popoff ,&nbsp;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 ,&nbsp;Stephane Mouly ,&nbsp;Michel-Robert Popoff ,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 15

摘要

关于A型肉毒杆菌神经毒素(BoNT-A)的免疫原性存在争议。方法对文献(1968-2013)进行系统回顾,包括FDA的资料回顾。计算总体BoNT-A和每种市售BoNT-A(肉毒杆菌毒素ina、肉毒杆菌毒素ina、肉毒杆菌毒素ina)的中和抗体率,并使用卡方检验进行比较。在规定的时间范围内确定了两种不同的肉毒杆菌毒素产品,并将其分类为“旧”和“新”版本。结果31项研究共纳入5811名受试者,符合纳入标准。治疗指征包括:颈肌张力障碍、眼睑痉挛、痉挛、眉间线、逼尿肌/括约肌功能障碍。BoNT-A中和抗体的总体发展率为2.1%。肉毒杆菌毒素a的个体发生率为1.4%,肉毒杆菌毒素a的个体发生率为0.8 - 1.1%,旧肉毒杆菌毒素a的个体发生率为7.2%,新肉毒杆菌毒素a的个体发生率为3.6%。abobotulinumtoxinA与incobotulinumtoxinA发生率无显著差异(OR 1.82 [95%CI] [0.96-3.43], p = 0.066;OR为1.30 [0.69-2.46],p = 0.415)。与肉毒杆菌毒素a制剂相比,肉毒杆菌毒素a和肉毒杆菌毒素a的中和抗体率显著降低。结论BoNT-A的总中和抗体率较低(≤2.1%)。产生中和抗体的比例在肉毒杆菌毒素和肉毒杆菌毒素之间是相似的,两者都明显低于肉毒杆菌毒素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信