Dataset Information

A double-blind, randomised, crossover trial of two botulinum toxin type a in patients with spasticity.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Botulinum toxin type A (btxA) is one of the main treatment choices for patients with spasticity. Prosigne® a new released botulinum toxin serotype A may have the same effectiveness as Botox® in focal dystonia. However, there are no randomized clinical trials comparing these formulations in spasticity treatment. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and safety of Prosigne® with Botox® in the treatment of spasticity.

Methodology/principal findings

We performed a double-blind, randomized, crossover study consisting of 57 patients with clinically meaningful spasticity. The patients were assessed at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks after Prosigne® or Botox® administration. The main outcomes were changes in the patients' Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) scores and adverse effects related to the botulinum toxin. Both of the toxins were significantly effective in relieving the level of spasticity in adults and children. There were no significant differences found between the Prosigne® and Botox® treatments regarding their MAS, FIM and PEDI scores. Likewise, the incidence of adverse effects was similar between the two groups.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that Prosigne® and Botox® are both efficient and comparable with respect to their efficacy and safety for the three month treatment of spasticity.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00819065.

SUBMITTER: Guarany FC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3585303 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A double-blind, randomised, crossover trial of two botulinum toxin type a in patients with spasticity.

Guarany Fábio Coelho FC Picon Paulo Dornelles PD Guarany Nicole Ruas NR dos Santos Antonio Cardoso AC Chiella Bianca Paula Mentz BP Barone Carolina Rocha CR Fendt Lúcia Costa Cabral LC Schestatsky Pedro P

PloS one 20130228 2

<h4>Background</h4>Botulinum toxin type A (btxA) is one of the main treatment choices for patients with spasticity. Prosigne® a new released botulinum toxin serotype A may have the same effectiveness as Botox® in focal dystonia. However, there are no randomized clinical trials comparing these formulations in spasticity treatment. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and safety of Prosigne® with Botox® in the treatment of spasticity.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>We performed ...[more]

PMID: 23468866

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe therapeutic effects of botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) are well documented in upper limb spasticity. However, several factors may influence treatment efficacy, including targeting of neuromuscular junctions (NMJs). We examined whether NMJ-targeted BoNT injections were non-inferior, in terms of efficacy, to current injection practices.DesignOpen-label prospective evaluator-blinded study.SettingConducted across 20 medical centres in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden (24 September 2012 to 11 March 2015).ParticipantsAged ˃18 years with upper limb spasticity (Modified Ashworth Scale [MAS] score of 2 or 3) following stroke or traumatic brain injury, had received ≥2 consecutive BoNT-A treatment cycles (the latest of which was abobotulinumtoxinA [aboBoNT-A]) and needed BoNT-A retreatment (same modality as previous cycle). Patients requiring aboBoNT-A doses >800units were excluded. In total, 88 patients were randomised (intention-to-treat [ITT] population), most were male (n=58/88, 65.9%) and 54/88 (61.4%) completed the study (per protocol [PP] population).InterventionsRandomisation (1:1) to receive a single dose of aboBoNT-A (≤800 U) according to either current clinical practice (300 U/mL) or as an NMJ-targeted injection (100 U/mL).Primary outcome measureProportion of patients with a ≥1 level reduction from baseline in MAS score at week 4 post-injection (responders).ResultsIn the ITT population, the proportion of responders at elbow flexors was 72.7% in the current practice group and 56.8% in the NMJ-targeted group (adjusted difference -0.1673 [95% CIs: -0.3630 to 0.0284]; p=0.0986). Similar results were observed in the PP population (69.0% vs 68.0%, respectively, adjusted difference 0.0707 [-0.1948 to 0.3362]; p=0.6052).ConclusionsOwing to the limited number of participants, non-inferiority of NMJ-targeted injections could not be determined. However, there was no statistical difference between groups. Larger studies are needed confirm whether the two techniques offer comparable efficacy.Trial registration numberNCT01682148.

Project description:BackgroundAspartame is a commonly used intense artificial sweetener, being approximately 200 times sweeter than sucrose. There have been concerns over aspartame since approval in the 1980s including a large anecdotal database reporting severe symptoms. The objective of this study was to compare the acute symptom effects of aspartame to a control preparation.MethodsThis was a double-blind randomized cross over study conducted in a clinical research unit in United Kingdom. Forty-eight individual who has self reported sensitivity to aspartame were compared to 48 age and gender matched aspartame non-sensitive individuals. They were given aspartame (100mg)-containing or control snack bars randomly at least 7 days apart. The main outcome measures were acute effects of aspartame measured using repeated ratings of 14 symptoms, biochemistry and metabonomics.ResultsAspartame sensitive and non-sensitive participants differed psychologically at baseline in handling feelings and perceived stress. Sensitive participants had higher triglycerides (2.05 ± 1.44 vs. 1.26 ± 0.84mmol/L; p value 0.008) and lower HDL-C (1.16 ± 0.34 vs. 1.35 ± 0.54 mmol/L; p value 0.04), reflected in 1H NMR serum analysis that showed differences in the baseline lipid content between the two groups. Urine metabonomic studies showed no significant differences. None of the rated symptoms differed between aspartame and control bars, or between sensitive and control participants. However, aspartame sensitive participants rated more symptoms particularly in the first test session, whether this was placebo or control. Aspartame and control bars affected GLP-1, GIP, tyrosine and phenylalanine levels equally in both aspartame sensitive and non-sensitive subjects.ConclusionUsing a comprehensive battery of psychological tests, biochemistry and state of the art metabonomics there was no evidence of any acute adverse responses to aspartame. This independent study gives reassurance to both regulatory bodies and the public that acute ingestion of aspartame does not have any detectable psychological or metabolic effects in humans.Trial registrationISRCTN Registry ISRCTN39650237.

Dataset Information

A double-blind, randomised, crossover trial of two botulinum toxin type a in patients with spasticity.

Background

Methodology/principal findings

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

A double-blind, randomised, crossover trial of two botulinum toxin type a in patients with spasticity.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets