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

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.