A Validation of the Equivalence of the Cell-Based Potency Assay Method with a Mouse LD50 Bioassay for the Potency Testing of OnabotulinumtoxinA

Yingchao Yang,Huajie Zhang,Liyong Yuan,Shuo Wang,Xiao Ma
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/toxins16060279
IF: 5.075
2024-06-19
Toxins
Abstract:(1) Background: At present, the only potency assay approved in China for the in-country testing of botulinum toxin type A for injection products is the mouse bioassay (MBA). The Chinese market for neurotoxin products is rapidly expanding, but MBAs are subject to high variability due to individual variations in mice, as well as variations in injection sites, in addition to the limited number of batches tested for one MBA. Compared with the mLD50 method, the cell-based potency assay (CBPA) developed for the potency testing of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX) by AbbVie not only does not use any experimental animals but also allows for significant time and cost savings. Due to the significant benefits conferred by the replacement of the mLD50 assay with CBPA in China, the CBPA method has been transferred, validated, and cross-validated to demonstrate the equivalence of the two potency methods. (2) Methods: The differentiated SiMa cells were treated with both BOTOX samples and the reference standard, and the cleaved SNAP25197 in the cell lysates was quantified using Chemi-ECL ELISA. A 4-PL model was used for the data fit and sample relative potency calculation. The method accuracy, linearity, repeatability, and intermediate precision were determined within the range of 50% to 200% of the labeled claim. A statistical equivalence of the two potency methods (CBPA and mLD50) was initially demonstrated by comparing the AbbVie CBPA data with NIFDC mLD50 data on a total of 167 commercial BOTOX lots (85 50U lots and 82 100U lots). In addition, six lots of onabotulinumtoxinA (three 50U and three 100U) were re-tested as cross-validation by these two methods for equivalence. (3) Results: The overall assay's accuracy and intermediate precision were determined as 104% and 9.2%, and the slope, R-square, and Y-intercept for linearity were determined as 1.071, 0.998, and 0.036, respectively. The repeatability was determined as 6.9%. The range with the acceptable criteria of accuracy, linearity, and precision was demonstrated as 50% to 200% of the labeled claim. The 95% equivalence statistic test using margins [80%, 125%] indicates that CBPA and mLD50 methods are equivalent for both BOTOX strengths (i.e., 50U and 100U). The relative potency data from cross-validation were within the range of ≥80% to ≤120%. (4) Conclusions: The CBPA meets all acceptance criteria and is equivalent to mLD50. The replacement of mLD50 with CBPA is well justified in terms of ensuring safety and efficacy, as well as for animal benefits.
toxicology,food science & technology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
### The Problem the Paper Attempts to Solve This paper aims to verify the equivalence of the Cell-Based Potency Assay (CBPA) and the Mouse LD 50 Bioassay (mLD 50) in detecting the potency of OnabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX) for injection. ### Background Currently, the only approved method in China for testing the potency of A-type botulinum toxin injection products is the Mouse LD 50 Bioassay (mLD 50). However, the mLD 50 method has high variability, mainly due to individual differences among test animals, variations in injection sites and angles, and the limited number of sample batches that can be tested at one time. In contrast, the Cell-Based Potency Assay (CBPA) not only avoids the use of test animals but also significantly saves time and costs. Therefore, to meet the rapidly growing demand for neurotoxin products in the Chinese market, there is an urgent need to find an alternative to the mLD 50 method. ### Methods 1. **Accuracy**: Evaluate the accuracy of CBPA through tests at five target potency levels (50%, 70%, 100%, 130%, 200%). 2. **Intermediate Precision**: Evaluate the intermediate precision of CBPA by calculating the relative standard deviation (RSD) between different target potency levels, different analysts, and different test dates. 3. **Linearity**: Evaluate the linearity of CBPA using data from accuracy and intermediate precision tests. 4. **Repeatability**: Evaluate the repeatability of CBPA by testing CBPA results multiple times in a single test. 5. **Equivalence Testing**: Compare the results of CBPA and mLD 50 methods through statistical equivalence testing to determine the equivalence of the two methods at different potency levels. ### Results 1. **Accuracy**: The accuracy results at each level were within the range of 80% to 115% of the nominal value, with an overall method accuracy of 104%. 2. **Intermediate Precision**: The overall intermediate precision relative standard deviation was 9.2%, meeting the acceptance criteria. 3. **Linearity**: The slope of the linear relationship was 1.071, with an R² value of 0.998, both meeting the preset acceptance criteria. 4. **Repeatability**: The repeatability relative standard deviation was 6.9%, meeting the acceptance criteria. 5. **Equivalence Testing**: Statistical equivalence testing of 167 commercial batches of BOTOX samples showed that CBPA and mLD 50 methods were equivalent at 50U and 100U potency levels. Cross-validation also confirmed this conclusion. ### Conclusion The CBPA method meets all acceptance criteria and is equivalent to the mLD 50 method. Replacing the mLD 50 method with CBPA helps ensure safety and efficacy while also reducing the use of test animals.