The three different botulinum toxin type A (BoNT/A) preparations being licensed in Europe and the U.S. differ in protein content, which seems to be a major factor influencing the antigenicity of BoNT/A. In the present study, several arguments out of our research pool were collected to demonstrate that the clinical response and antigenicity were different for the three BoNT/A preparations: some results of (1) a cross-sectional study on clinical outcome and antibody formation of 212 patients with cervical dystonia (CD) being treated between 2 and 22 years; 2) another cross-sectional study on the clinical aspects and neutralizing antibody (NAB) induction of 63 patients having developed partial secondary treatment under abobotulinum (aboBoNT/A) onabotulinumtoxin (onaBoNT/A) who were switched to incobotulinumtoxin (incoBoNT/A) in comparison to 32 patients being exclusively treated with incoBoNT/A. These results imply that (1) the presence of NAB cannot be concluded from the course of treatment, that (2) an increase in the dose and variability of outcome with treatment duration indicates the ongoing induction of NABs over time, that (3) the higher protein load of BoNT/A goes along with a higher incidence and prevalence of NAB induction and that (4) the best response to a BoNT/A is also dependent on the protein load of the preparation.
Keywords: cervical dystonia; complex proteins: botulinum toxin type A; incobotulinum toxin; low antigenicity; neutralizing antibodies; secondary treatment failure.