Immunogenicity of DaxibotulinumtoxinA for Injection in Glabellar Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
DaxibotulinumtoxinA-lanm for injection (DAXI), a novel botulinum toxin type A formulation, contains a purified 150-kD core neurotoxin (daxibotulinumtoxinA) and proprietary stabilizing peptide (RTP004), and is approved for glabellar line treatment. As with any biologic product, DAXI may potentially be immunogenic and elicit unwanted antibody formation, possibly resulting in partial or complete treatment failure. The immunogenicity of DAXI was assessed in 2 double-blind, placebo-controlled, single-dose studies and an open-label safety study of up to 3 repeat treatments. Of the 2737 evaluable patients, none developed neutralizing antibodies to daxibotulinumtoxinA and 0.8% developed treatment-related nonneutralizing anti-daxibotulinumtoxinA-binding antibodies. Of evaluable patients exposed to RTP004 with either DAXI or placebo, 1.3% developed treatment-related anti-RTP004-binding antibodies, which were mostly transient. No patient developed binding antibodies to both daxibotulinumtoxinA and RTP004. All patients with treatment-related binding antibodies to daxibotulinumtoxinA or RTP004 achieved a clinical response (none or mild glabellar line severity) at Week 4 following each DAXI treatment cycle. The duration of clinical response was not different between treatment cycles when antibodies were detected vs when they were absent. Although the analysis population was small compared to the number of patients likely to receive repeated treatment in clinical practice, these results suggest that DAXI administration at the approved glabellar lines dose has low immunogenic potential and that nonneutralizing antibodies to daxibotulinumtoxinA or RTP004 occur infrequently and often transiently, and have no impact on clinical efficacy, safety, or duration of action. Real-world data encompassing larger numbers of patients is needed to substantiate these results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".