Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Two Different Types of Botulinum Toxin Type A in Moderate to Severe Cervical Dystonia

November 14, 2011 updated by: Allergan
The purpose of this study is to compare two types of botulinum toxin type A to treat the involuntary muscle contractions in the neck

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
145

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Phase 4

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Diagnosed with cervical dystonia/spasmodic torticollis for at least 18 months
  • Successfully treated previously with botulinum toxin type A

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Breast feeding, pregnant or could become pregnant
  • Surgery or spinal cord stimulation for cervical dystonia
  • Previous injections of phenol, alcohol for cervical dystonia

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: Triple

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Active Comparator: BOTOX®
botulinum toxin type A (BOTOX®)
Biological: botulinum toxin type A
200 Units at Visit 1 (Day 1)
Other Names:
  • BOTOX®
Biological: botulinum toxin type A
750 Units at Visit 1 (Day 1)
Other Names:
  • Dysport®
Active Comparator: Dysport®
botulinum toxin type A (Dysport®)
Biological: botulinum toxin type A
200 Units at Visit 1 (Day 1)
Other Names:
  • BOTOX®
Biological: botulinum toxin type A
750 Units at Visit 1 (Day 1)
Other Names:
  • Dysport®

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Dysphagia Incidence Over 10 Weeks
Time Frame: 10 weeks
Dysphagia Incidence (difficulty swallowing) was defined as the number of patients reporting at least 1 treatment-emergent dysphagia event at any point in the study. Occurrences of dysphagia were captured as spontaneous events or were assessed during study visits using the Structured Symptom Interview (SSI) and the Dystonia Study Group Dysphagia Interview (DSGDI) for symptoms of difficulty swallowing; coughing while eating and drinking; choking while eating or drinking; or difficulty swallowing solids or liquids.
10 weeks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) Total Score at Week 4
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 4
The TWSTRS assessments were conducted at each study visit. The TWSTRS is an assessment scale used to measure the impact of cervical dystonia on patients. It is comprised of 3 subscales: Severity, Disability, and Pain, each of which is scored independently. The total of these 3 comprises the TWSTRS total score which is scored from 0 (least symptoms) to 85 (worst symptoms). Higher scores indicate a greater degree of symptom severity.
Baseline, Week 4
Physician Assessment of Cervical Dystonia Severity at Week 4
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 4
Physician assessment of cervical dystonia severity. The rating was assessed on a scale of 0 to 10, with higher scores denoting greater severity: 0 represented 'No evidence of dystonia' and 10 represented 'Worst cervical dystonia ever.'
Baseline, Week 4
Global Assessment of Benefit by Physician at Week 4
Time Frame: Week 4
Physician evaluation of benefit from botulinum toxin type A treatment for cervical dystonia. Ratings were on a scale of +4 to -4, with higher scores denoting improvement in cervical dystonia: +4 was 'Complete abolishment of signs and symptoms (about 100% improvement)', 0 represented 'Unchanged', and -4 represented 'Very marked worsening (about 100% worse or greater).'
Week 4
Global Assessment of Benefit by Patient at Week 4
Time Frame: Week 4
Patient evaluation of benefit from botulinum toxin type A treatment for cervical dystonia. Ratings were on a scale of +4 to -4, with higher scores denoting improvement in cervical dystonia: +4 was 'Complete abolishment of signs and symptoms (about 100% improvement)', 0 represented 'Unchanged', and -4 represented 'Very marked worsening (about 100% worse or greater).'
Week 4
Patient Assessment of Need for Retreatment at Week 4
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 4
Patients were queried regarding their need for another injection of botulinum toxin type A for cervical dystonia. Patients were required to answer "How would you rate your need for another injection of botulinum toxin type A for cervical dystonia using the following scale?". The response options included 'absolutely requires injection', 'very much requires injection', 'somewhat requires injection' and 'does not require injection'.
Baseline, Week 4
Patient Visual Analog Assessment of Pain at Week 4
Time Frame: Baseline, Week 4
Patients were required to assess their pain using a Visual Analog Scale in reference to their current perception of pain at that visit. This scale consisted of a line measuring 100 mm, and patients were instructed to put a mark on the line at the point that best described 'How much pain you are having right now'. Higher scores denoted higher pain intensity: 0 indicated 'No pain' and 100 indicated 'Worst possible pain'.
Baseline, Week 4
Physician Comparison of Benefit to Previous Injections at Week 10
Time Frame: Week 10
Physicians assessed the improvement in cervical dystonia after the study treatment compared to previous treatment(s) for each patient. Physicians were required to answer "How would you rate the benefit of the current treatment of cervical dystonia with botulinum toxin type A compared to the previous treatment using the following scale?". The response options were 'much worse', 'worse', 'somewhat worse', 'same as previous', 'somewhat better', 'better', and 'much better'.
Week 10
Patient Comparison of Benefit to Previous Injections at Week 10
Time Frame: Week 10
Patients assessed the improvement in cervical dystonia after receiving the study treatment compared to previous treatment(s). Patients were required to answer "How would you rate the benefit of the current treatment of cervical dystonia with botulinum toxin type A compared to the previous treatment using the following scale?". The response options were 'much worse', 'worse', 'somewhat worse', 'same as previous', 'somewhat better', 'better', and 'much better'.
Week 10

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Allergan

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
September 1, 2007

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
September 1, 2009

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
September 1, 2009

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
September 10, 2007

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
September 10, 2007

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
September 12, 2007

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
December 16, 2011

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
November 14, 2011

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
November 1, 2011

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • MedAff-BTX-0616

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Clinical Trials on Spasmodic Torticollis

Clinical Trials on botulinum toxin type A

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings