DYSBOT: A single-blind, randomized parallel study to determine whether any differences can be detected in the efficacy and tolerability of two formulations of botulinum toxin type A—Dysport and Botox—assuming a ratio of 4:1
Article first published online: 4 NOV 2004
Copyright © 1997 Movement Disorder Society
Volume 12, Issue 6, pages 1013–1018, November 1997
How to Cite
Sampaio, C., Ferreira, J. J., Simões, F., Rosas, M. J., Magalhães, M., Correia, A. P., Bastos-Lima, A., Martins, R. and Castro-Caldas, A. (1997), DYSBOT: A single-blind, randomized parallel study to determine whether any differences can be detected in the efficacy and tolerability of two formulations of botulinum toxin type A—Dysport and Botox—assuming a ratio of 4:1. Mov. Disord., 12: 1013–1018. doi: 10.1002/mds.870120627
- Issue published online: 4 NOV 2004
- Article first published online: 4 NOV 2004
- Manuscript Accepted: 3 MAR 1997
- Manuscript Revised: 28 FEB 1997
- Manuscript Received: 3 JAN 1996
- Botulinum toxin type A;
- Drug potency;
- Equivalence of formulations
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.
Patients and Methods: 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.