| Download Abstract: | 0129-Fink-Klaus-20251031-rev_djs.docx |
|---|---|
| Abstract Title | In vitro and in vivo Comparison of the Complexprotein-free Botulinum Toxin Type A Formulations DaxibotulinumtoxinA, IncobotulinumtoxinA and RelabotulinumtoxinA |
| First Author | Mrs. Stefanie Honndorf |
| Status | Approved |
| Comments to Author | In the introduction: please reconsider whether Xeomin should be described as a new product. In, the same sentence, I suggest to rephrase the second half for clarity to: ...are commercialized with claims of various duration-of-effect, potency, or spread. However, dose unit equivalency has not been established. Before Relabotulinumtoxin, change comma to period. Methods: Since a subjective assay was used to determine bio-activity, please include information on whether the injector and observer were blinded. For the volumetrical determination of spread in porcine muscle, please describe what exactly was measured. Results: For relative bioactivity, please include SD or SEM if available, and specify statistical significance Please clarify the meaning of equivalent bioanalytically determined dose for the assay that injected 20U/kg of INCO vs DAXI (i.e. were label units used or were units based on the DAS assay? What mass of each was injected?) Please confirm the statement that INCO lasted in a 10-day longer duration in mice. The total paralysis after IM injection in mice is 2-3 weeks only, so 10 days seems like a huge difference.
|
| Comments from Author | thank you for the committee’s comments and suggestions to abstract 0129 which we have incorporated in the revised version attached. Changes in the abstract are in track changes mode and the line numbers provided underneath in this email refer to the track changes version. As we agree with all comments the responses in red here are fyi only. Introduction:
Methods:
Results:
Please let me know if there are further concerns. Best regards Klaus
|
| Reviewer | Pellett |