Content of Botulinum Neurotoxin in Botox®/Vistabel®, Dysport®/Azzalure®, and Xeomin®/Bocouture®

Frevert, Jürgen

doi:10.1007/bf03259776

Cited by 37 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A/Inco is the only BoNT/A preparation that is claimed to be free of complexing proteins and should contain only the active 150 kDa neurotoxin [4], while A/Ona and A/Abo additionally contain a 500-900 kDa protein complex [2,5].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The specific potency was calculated, whereby it was reported that A/Inco exhibited the highest and A/Ona the lowest specific neurotoxic activity followed by A/Abo [4]. However, one restriction of this study is that the specific neurotoxic activities were calculated from the specified MU on the BoNT/A vials.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Further limitations of most clinical studies are that they are not able to evaluate exactly the time point of onset or the duration of paresis because they measure only at widely spaced, specific time points. 4 Comparing the potency of the different BoNT/A products is additionally hindered by the fact that the magnitude of the induced effect also depends on the injected volume, i.e. the dilution of BoNT.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These BoNT/A preparations are produced by different methods and vary in the amount of total protein and complexing proteins [3][4] resulting in differences in the effect strength and, possibly, in effect duration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

In-vivo comparison of the neurotoxic potencies of incobotulinumtoxinA, onabotulinumtoxinA, and abobotulinumtoxinA

Kutschenko¹,

Manig²,

Reinert³

et al. 2016

Neuroscience Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

In-vivo comparison of the neurotoxic potencies of incobotulinumtoxinA, onabotulinumtoxinA, and abobotulinumtoxinA

Kutschenko¹,

Manig²,

Reinert³

et al. 2016

Neuroscience Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin ® , Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany; also known as NT 201), a purified botulinum toxin type A formulation free from complexing (or accessory) proteins [4], has been shown to be effective and well tolerated in pivotal Phase III clinical studies in blepharospasm [5,6] and CD [7,8]. In the CD study, subgroup analyses confirmed that incobotulinumtoxinA efficacy and tolerability were similar for patients who were naïve to botulinum toxin treatment and those who had previously received treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox ® , Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA, USA) [9].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®) injected for blepharospasm or cervical dystonia according to patient needs is well tolerated

Evidente¹,

Truong

Jankovic

et al. 2014

Journal of the Neurological Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Typically, botulinum toxin injections for blepharospasm or cervical dystonia (CD) are administered at approximately 3-month intervals, reflecting concerns that shorter intervals might increase the risk of adverse events (AEs) and development of neutralizing antibodies. These post-hoc analyses investigated flexible incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin ® ) injection intervals (6-20 weeks) in patients with blepharospasm or CD. Patients received up to 6 injections at intervals ≥6 weeks, as determined by physician assessment upon patient request. The blepharospasm study permitted flexible doses (≤50 U/eye). The CD study employed fixed dosing using incobotulinumtoxinA 120 U, 240 U, or placebo for the first treatment followed by subsequent randomization to 120 U or 240 U for the extension period. Standard safety assessments were performed. Intervals b 12 weeks were employed in 207 of 461 (44.9%) treatment cycles for blepharospasm and in 369 of 821 (44.9%) treatment cycles for CD. The most frequent AEs were eyelid ptosis and dry eyes in patients treated for blepharospasm, and dysphagia and neck pain in patients with CD. AE frequency and severity were similar for intervals b 12 weeks and ≥12 weeks in both studies. In conclusion, repeated incobotulinumtoxinA injections employing flexible intervals (6-20 weeks) per patients' needs were well tolerated. No additional safety concerns were observed with b12-week intervals compared with ≥12-week intervals.

show abstract

Incobotulinum toxin A: A shelf‐stable, low‐molecular‐weight formulation

Eells

Grunebaum

Howard

2022

Dermatological Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its development in 2005, incobotulinum toxin A (INCO) has become one of the most widely used neurotoxins worldwide for aesthetic and therapeutic indications. It was initially designed as a formulation free of complex proteins for reduced immunogenicity with an equal action and strength profile to the original and widespread onabotulinum toxin A (ONA). Multiple trials have demonstrated equivalent efficacy. Several studies have suggested a slight decrease in the time of visible treatment onset with INCO and a subsequent lack of difference in duration of effects when compared with ONA. Particularly appreciable with therapeutic doses, utilization of INCO led to significant cost savings over ONA or abobotulinum toxin A. Karschney et al. found that for the treatment of cervical dystonia and chronic migraine the cost to patients was reduced by 32.2% compared to ONA. Additionally, the ONA formulation allows for long-term storage at room temperature along with an increased stability time once reconstituted. Limitations of INCO include a similar side effect profile to other neurotoxin formulations, more likely at therapeutic dosing. Indications approved by the Federal Drug Administration in the United States and other regulatory agencies are currently more limited than those of ONA, though this may be in direct relation to the length of time on the market. INCO has overall been demonstrated to be a safe, efficacious alternative to other common neurotoxin formulations.

show abstract

Content of Botulinum Neurotoxin in Botox®/Vistabel®, Dysport®/Azzalure®, and Xeomin®/Bocouture®

Cited by 37 publications

References 18 publications

In-vivo comparison of the neurotoxic potencies of incobotulinumtoxinA, onabotulinumtoxinA, and abobotulinumtoxinA

In-vivo comparison of the neurotoxic potencies of incobotulinumtoxinA, onabotulinumtoxinA, and abobotulinumtoxinA

IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®) injected for blepharospasm or cervical dystonia according to patient needs is well tolerated

Incobotulinum toxin A: A shelf‐stable, low‐molecular‐weight formulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About