BACKGROUND: Elston and Russell discovered a difference in the biological potency of the English formulation of botulinum toxin type A or BTX-A (Dysport) and the American formulation (Botox). Potency of both is expressed in LD50 mouse units, but because of assay differences, these units are not equivalent. Since the first warning by Quinn and Hallet on the clinical importance of this issue, it has been impossible to reach a consensus on the conversion factor for the potency of these formulations. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the conversion factor for the clinical potency of Dysport to Botox is approximately 4:1. DYSBOT is an acronym that results from adding "DYS" from Dysport with "BOT" from Botox. DESIGN: A single-blind, randomized, parallel comparison. A total of 91 patients with blepharospasm or hemifacial spasm were randomized to treatment with Dysport or Botox using a fixed potency ratio of 4:1. Clinical evaluations: The patients were evaluated at baseline (day of the treatment). 1 month after treatment, and whenever the effect was judged to be fading. Objective and functional rating scales were used as quantitative measures of the change in clinical status. Adverse reactions were collected using a systematic questionnaire. RESULTS: Using this ratio between products, both Dysport and Botox groups produced similar clinical efficacy and tolerability. For patients showing a positive response without the need of a booster, the duration of effect was 13.3 +/- 5.9 weeks for the Dysport group and 11.2 +/- 5.8 weeks for the Botox group. Of 48 patients, 11 (23%) needed booster treatment in the Dysport group compared with five (12%) of 43 in Botox group. Adverse events were noted in 24 (50%) of 48 patients in the Dysport group and 20 (47%) of 43 of the Botox-treated group. CONCLUSIONS: Using a 4:1 conversion ratio for Dysport and Botox, similar results were obtained for the two treatments in an appropriately powered study, suggesting that this conversion factor is a good estimate of their comparative clinical potencies.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Elston and Russell discovered a difference in the biological potency of the English formulation of botulinum toxin type A or BTX-A (Dysport) and the American formulation (Botox). Potency of both is expressed in LD50 mouse units, but because of assay differences, these units are not equivalent. Since the first warning by Quinn and Hallet on the clinical importance of this issue, it has been impossible to reach a consensus on the conversion factor for the potency of these formulations. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that the conversion factor for the clinical potency of Dysport to Botox is approximately 4:1. DYSBOT is an acronym that results from adding "DYS" from Dysport with "BOT" from Botox. DESIGN: A single-blind, randomized, parallel comparison. A total of 91 patients with blepharospasm or hemifacial spasm were randomized to treatment with Dysport or Botox using a fixed potency ratio of 4:1. Clinical evaluations: The patients were evaluated at baseline (day of the treatment). 1 month after treatment, and whenever the effect was judged to be fading. Objective and functional rating scales were used as quantitative measures of the change in clinical status. Adverse reactions were collected using a systematic questionnaire. RESULTS: Using this ratio between products, both Dysport and Botox groups produced similar clinical efficacy and tolerability. For patients showing a positive response without the need of a booster, the duration of effect was 13.3 +/- 5.9 weeks for the Dysport group and 11.2 +/- 5.8 weeks for the Botox group. Of 48 patients, 11 (23%) needed booster treatment in the Dysport group compared with five (12%) of 43 in Botox group. Adverse events were noted in 24 (50%) of 48 patients in the Dysport group and 20 (47%) of 43 of the Botox-treated group. CONCLUSIONS: Using a 4:1 conversion ratio for Dysport and Botox, similar results were obtained for the two treatments in an appropriately powered study, suggesting that this conversion factor is a good estimate of their comparative clinical potencies.
Authors: Mark Topazian; Michael Camilleri; Jose De La Mora-Levy; Felicity B Enders; Amy E Foxx-Orenstein; Michael J Levy; Vandana Nehra; Nicholas J Talley Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2008-02-20 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: K Wohlfarth; I Schwandt; F Wegner; T Jürgens; G Gelbrich; A Wagner; U Bogdahn; W Schulte-Mattler Journal: J Neurol Date: 2008-10-07 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: D M Simpson; A Blitzer; A Brashear; C Comella; R Dubinsky; M Hallett; J Jankovic; B Karp; C L Ludlow; J M Miyasaki; M Naumann; Y So Journal: Neurology Date: 2008-05-06 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Gonçalo S Duarte; Filipe B Rodrigues; Raquel E Marques; Mafalda Castelão; Joaquim Ferreira; Cristina Sampaio; Austen P Moore; João Costa Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-11-19