Dataset Information

OnabotulinumtoxinA Dosing, Disease Severity, and Treatment Benefit in Patients With Cervical Dystonia: A Cohort Analysis From CD PROBE

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The Cervical Dystonia Patient Registry for Observation of OnabotulinumtoxinA Efficacy (CD PROBE) study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00836017), a multicenter, prospective, observational registry, was designed to identify real-world practices and outcomes for patients with cervical dystonia (CD) treated with onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA). This secondary analysis from CD PROBE aims to determine the impact of presentation subtype on onabotA utilization and CD severity.

Materials and Methods

The study cohort includes those who completed all 3 treatments, 4 office visits, and had data recorded for all assessments. Patient outcomes were assessed with the Cervical Dystonia Impact Profile (CDIP-58), Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS), and determination of CD severity. Treatment interval, dose, and adverse events (AEs) were also recorded. Data were stratified according to prior exposure to botulinum toxins (BoNTs) and analyzed with descriptive statistics.

Results

Torticollis was the most common presentation subtype in the study cohort (N = 350); the proportion of patients with torticollis was highest in those with severe disease. At each treatment, between 40.7 and 65.2% of those categorized as severe shifted to moderate or mild severity after treatment. Sustained improvements in CDIP-58 and TWSTRS were observed regardless of prior exposure to BoNTs. Dosing of onabotA generally increased from injection 1 to injection 3 and tended to be lower for patients naïve to BoNT. Median time interval between injections for the study cohort was 94.0 to 97.5 days. The most common AEs (dysphagia, muscular weakness) and injection intervals were similar between naïve vs. non-naïve patients; there were no serious treatment-related AEs.

Conclusions

This secondary cohort analysis from CD PROBE demonstrates that three repeat treatments with onabotA at intervals consistent with labeling attenuated disease severity and neck pain, resulting in sustained improvements in physician- and patient-reported outcomes. No new safety signals were identified.

SUBMITTER: Agarwal P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9281448 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Botulinum neurotoxins type A (BoNT-As) are commonly used treatments for cervical dystonia (CD). Clinical trials have demonstrated the benefits of them in these patients, but data from real-life clinical practice as well as comparative data on the cost and outcome of different BoNT-A formulations are limited. The aim of this study was to compare abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) and onabotulinumtoxinA (onaBoNT-A) on their clinical outcomes and drug costs in real-life clinical practice. Methods:This analysis included 356 adult patients with idiopathic CD treated with aboBoNT-A (n?=?253) or onaBoNT-A (n?=?103) from 38 centres across Europe and Australia (NCT00833196). The clinical outcome measures were treatment responses, changes in TWSTRS scores and changes in health utility scores from baseline to study visit 2 and 3. Health utility score was mapped from the TWSTRS total scale, using a previous publication. Costs included drug cost for France. Results:The aboBoNT-A treated group had 2.06 (95% CI: 1.15 to 3.69) times higher odds of achieving treatment response than the onaBoNT-A treated group. The adjusted mean change in TWSTRS total score from baseline to visit 3 were?-?6.42 (95% CI: -?7.52 to -?5.33) for aboBoNT-A and?-?3.94 (95% CI: -?5.68 to -?2.2) for onaBoNT-A, with a difference of -?2.48 (95% CI: -?4.57 to -?0.39). The corresponding difference in the adjusted mean change for health utility score was 0.008 (95% CI: 0.001 to 0.014). Mean treatment costs for aboBoNT-A and onaBoNT-A were 314.1 (95% CI: 299.1 to 329.0) and 346.6 (95% CI: 322.9 to 370.4) Euros, respectively. Conclusions:This comparative analysis indicated that treatment with aboBoNT-A may be less costly and lead to improved clinical outcomes when compared with onaBoNT-A, from a French healthcare system perspective. Additional comparative clinical data from larger patient cohorts, as well as more information about cost consequences of an improvement in clinical outcome would be of value to further confirm the findings.