- ICH GCP
- US Clinical Trials Registry
- Clinical Trial NCT02369068
Onabotulinumtoxin A Versus Kenalog for Chronic Pelvic Pain
A Double-Blind, Randomized Study to Compare Onabotulinumtoxin A Versus Kenalog for Intravaginal Trigger Point Injections in the Treatment of Chronic Pelvic Pain
Study Overview
Status
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Locations
-
-
Michigan
-
Royal Oak, Michigan, United States, 48073
- Beaumont Hospitals
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Genders Eligible for Study
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Provide informed consent
- Healthy women > age 18 regardless of menopausal status
- Willing and able to fill out study questionnaires. In patients that are unable to read, the research nurse will be available to assist.
- High-tone pelvic floor dysfunction on vaginal exam
- A pelvic pain score of > 4 on screening Visual Analog Scale (VAS)
- Pain perceived to be in the pelvis that has been present for at least 3 months.
Exclusion Criteria:
- Patients that have had Botox to the bladder within the last 8 months
- Patients that have had Botox outside the bladder of > 160 u within the last 12 weeks.
- Patients that have had transvaginal trigger point injections of any form (Botox or steroid) in the last 3 months
- Pregnancy
- Concomitant use of any narcotic drug, alcohol, or any illicit drug use during the study period that could be deemed unsafe in combination with study medication as judged by the investigators.
- Any evidence of vaginitis on wet mount slide at initial visit that is untreated.
- Subject with any other vaginal epithelial disorder that could affect absorption of medication as deemed by the investigators.
- Any indication/condition/medication that the investigators identify as contraindicated in conjunction with study medication.
- Systolic blood pressure > 160 mm Hg on screening blood pressure
- Heart rate > 110 beats/minute on screening heart rate
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Treatment
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
- Masking: Double
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / Arm |
Intervention / Treatment |
---|---|
Experimental: Onabotulinumtoxin A
Intervention is a one time 30 cc intravaginal injection totaling a dose of 200u of onabotulinumtoxin A and saline injected throughout the pelvic floor at 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 o'clock sites/locations. An injection of 30 cc of ropivicaine (5cc/6 sites) will be used, followed by a mixture of 200 u of Onabotulinumtoxin A and 6 cc of saline (1cc/injection site). |
Intravaginal pelvic floor injection one series
Other Names:
|
Active Comparator: Kenalog
Intervention is a one time 30 cc intravaginal injection totaling a dose of 40mg/cc of Kenalog (triamcinolone) and ropivicaine 0.5% (29cc) injected throughout the pelvic floor at 1, 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 o'clock sites/locations. A mixture of 40mg/1 cc of triamcinolone (40 mg) and 29cc of ropivicaine 0.5% (5cc/6 sites) will be used, followed by 6 cc of saline (1cc/injection site). |
Intravaginal pelvic floor injection one series
Other Names:
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Pain Assessed by Change in Overall Pain Score Using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS).
Time Frame: Baseline and One Month
|
The visual analog scale asks subjects to rate their level of pain on a scale from 0-10, with 0 being 'No pain' and 10 being 'Worst pain imaginable', hence lower scores are better.
The baseline and follow-up visual analog scale for pain was obtained at every visit regardless if the patient received Trigger Point Injections.
The difference between visual analog scale at 1 month and the visual analog scale at baseline was calculated.
Positive numbers indicate the pain increased from baseline to 1 month and negative numbers indicates that pain decreased.
|
Baseline and One Month
|
Pain Severity Assessed by Change in Overall Pain and Other Related Scores Using Questions 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Questionnaire.
Time Frame: Baseline and One Month
|
Pain severity was constructed by averaging questions 3,4,5 and 6 of the brief pain inventory questionnaire (adding scores together and dividing by 4).
Each question is on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (pain as bad as you can imagine).
Thus, lower numbers represent a better outcome.
The difference between pain severity at 1 month and the pain severity at baseline was calculated.
Positive numbers indicate the pain severity increased from baseline to 1 month and negative numbers indicates that the severity of the pain decreased.
|
Baseline and One Month
|
Pain Interference Assessed by Change in Overall Pain and Other Related Scores Using Questions 9A Through 9G in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Questionnaire.
Time Frame: Baseline and One Month
|
The Pain Interference score was constructed by averaging the individual interference question scores from the brief pain inventory questionnaire (adding scores from questions 9A-9G and dividing by 7).
The questions assess how, during the past 24 hours, pain has interfered with general anxiety (9A), mood (9B), walking ability (9C), normal work (9D), relations with other people (9E), sleep (9F), and enjoyment of life (9G).
Each question is scored on a scale from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes).
Thus, a lower value represents a better outcome.
The difference between pain interference at 1 month and the pain interference at baseline was calculated.
Positive numbers indicate the pain severity increased from baseline to 1 month and negative numbers indicates that the severity of the pain decreased.
|
Baseline and One Month
|
Pain Assessed by Change in Overall Pain Symptom Using Question 2 of the Global Response Assessment (GRA) Questionnaire.
Time Frame: Baseline and One Month
|
The GRA questionnaire asks subjects to rate symptoms and functioning since having the research procedure, Trigger Point Injections (TPI).
Question 2 asks the subject to rate their pain symptoms since having TPI.
Scores are on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Markedly Worse) to 7 (Markedly Improved).
|
Baseline and One Month
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
---|---|---|
Pain Assessed by Change in Overall Pain Score Using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Questionnaire.
Time Frame: Baseline and Three Months
|
The visual analog scale asks subjects to rate their level of pain on a scale from 0-10, with 0 being 'No pain' and 10 being 'Worst pain imaginable', hence lower scores are better.
The baseline and follow-up visual analog scale for pain was obtained at every visit regardless if the patient received Trigger Point Injections.
The difference between visual analog scale at 3 months and the visual analog scale at baseline was calculated.
Positive numbers indicate the pain severity increased from baseline to 3 months and negative numbers indicates that the severity of the pain decreased.
|
Baseline and Three Months
|
Pain Severity Assessed by Change in Overall Pain and Other Related Scores Using Questions 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Questionnaire.
Time Frame: Baseline and Three Months
|
Pain severity was constructed by averaging questions 3,4,5 and 6 of the brief pain inventory questionnaire (adding scores and dividing by 4).
Each question is on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (pain as bad as you can imagine).
Thus, lower numbers represent a better outcome.
The difference between pain severity at 3 months and the pain severity at baseline was calculated.
Positive numbers indicate the pain severity increased from baseline to 3 months and negative numbers indicates that the severity of the pain decreased.
|
Baseline and Three Months
|
Pain Interference Assessed by Change in Overall Pain and Other Related Scores Using Questions 9A Through 9G in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Questionnaire.
Time Frame: Baseline and Three months
|
The Pain Interference score was constructed by averaging the individual interference question scores from the brief pain inventory questionnaire (adding scores together for questions 9A-9G and dividing by 7).
The questions assess how, during the past 24 hours, pain has interfered with general anxiety (9A), mood (9B), walking ability (9C), normal work (9D), relations with other people (9E), sleep (9F), and enjoyment of life (9G).
Each question is scored on a scale from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes).
Thus, a lower value represents a better outcome.
The difference between pain interference at 3 months and the pain interference at baseline was calculated.
Positive numbers indicate the pain severity increased from baseline to 3 months and negative numbers indicates that the severity of the pain decreased.
|
Baseline and Three months
|
Pain Assessed by Change in Overall Pain Symptom Using Question 2 of the Global Response Assessment (GRA) Questionnaire.
Time Frame: Baseline and Three Months
|
The GRA questionnaire asks subjects to rate symptoms and functioning since having the research procedure, Trigger Point Injections (TPI).
Question 2 asks the subject to rate their pain symptoms since having TPI.
Scores are on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Markedly Worse) to 7 (Markedly Improved).
|
Baseline and Three Months
|
Pain Assessed by Change in Overall Pain Score Using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Questionnaire.
Time Frame: Baseline and Six Months
|
The pain visual analog scale (VAS) is a tool used by the patient to describe their pain intensity.
Utilizing the VAS, the patient describes their pain at baseline, before receiving trigger point injections.
The VAS ranges from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst possible pain).
Thus, a lower value represents a better outcome.
|
Baseline and Six Months
|
Pain Severity Assessed by Change in Overall Pain and Other Related Scores Using Questions 3, 4, 5, and 6 in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Questionnaire.
Time Frame: Baseline and Six Months
|
Pain severity was constructed by averaging questions 3,4,5 and 6 of the brief pain inventory questionnaire (adding scores together and dividing by 4).
Each question is on a scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (pain as bad as you can imagine).
Thus, lower numbers represent a better outcome.
The difference between pain severity at 6 months and the pain severity at baseline was calculated.
Positive numbers indicate the pain severity increased from baseline to 6 months and negative numbers indicates that the severity of the pain decreased.
|
Baseline and Six Months
|
Pain Interference Assessed by Change in Overall Pain and Other Related Scores Using Questions 9A Through 9G in the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) Questionnaire.
Time Frame: Baseline and Six months
|
The Pain Interference score was constructed by averaging the individual interference question scores from the brief pain inventory questionnaire (adding together scores for questions 9A-9G and dividing by 7).
The questions assess how, during the past 24 hours, pain has interfered with general anxiety (9A), mood (9B), walking ability (9C), normal work (9D), relations with other people (9E), sleep (9F), and enjoyment of life (9G).
Each question is scored on a scale from 0 (does not interfere) to 10 (completely interferes).
Thus, a lower value represents a better outcome.
The difference between pain interference at 6 months and the pain interference at baseline was calculated.
Positive numbers indicate the pain severity increased from baseline to 6 months and negative numbers indicates that the severity of the pain decreased.
|
Baseline and Six months
|
Pain Assessed by Change in Overall Pain and Other Related Scores Using the Global Response Assessment (GRA) Questionnaire.
Time Frame: Baseline and Six Months
|
The GRA questionnaire asks subjects to rate symptoms and functioning since having the research procedure, Trigger Point Injections (TPI).
Scores are on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Markedly Worse) to 7 (Markedly Improved).
|
Baseline and Six Months
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Jamie Bartley, DO, Beaumont
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Estimate)
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
- Pain
- Neurologic Manifestations
- Pelvic Pain
- Physiological Effects of Drugs
- Neurotransmitter Agents
- Molecular Mechanisms of Pharmacological Action
- Peripheral Nervous System Agents
- Cholinergic Agents
- Anti-Inflammatory Agents
- Immunosuppressive Agents
- Immunologic Factors
- Glucocorticoids
- Hormones
- Hormones, Hormone Substitutes, and Hormone Antagonists
- Membrane Transport Modulators
- Acetylcholine Release Inhibitors
- Neuromuscular Agents
- Botulinum Toxins, Type A
- abobotulinumtoxinA
- Triamcinolone
- Triamcinolone Acetonide
Other Study ID Numbers
- 2015-008
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
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 Pelvic Pain
-
University of California, San FranciscoStanford University; National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health...CompletedPelvic Pain | Chronic Pelvic Pain | Recurrent Pelvic PainUnited States
-
Foundation University IslamabadActive, not recruitingPregnancy Related Pelvic Girdle PainPakistan
-
Istanbul University - Cerrahpasa (IUC)CompletedPregnancy | Genito-Pelvic Pain | Pelvic Floor Muscle ExerciseTurkey
-
Aijun SunSecond Hospital of Jilin University; Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical... and other collaboratorsUnknownChronic Pelvic PainChina
-
Assiut UniversityCompletedIntractable Pelvic Cancer PainEgypt
-
Beijing Konruns Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.CompletedChronic Pelvic PainChina
-
Helse Stavanger HFUniversity of StavangerCompletedPelvic Girdle Pain Post Partum | Low Back Pain Post PartumNorway
-
Weill Medical College of Cornell UniversitySociety of Interventional Radiology Foundation; EvideraEnrolling by invitationChronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome | Pelvic Congestive SyndromeUnited States
-
Oslo University HospitalStiftelsen Helse og RehabiliteringCompletedPelvic Pain | Pelvic Joint InstabilityNorway
-
Riphah International UniversityCompletedPelvic Girdle PainPakistan
Clinical Trials on Onabotulinumtoxin A
-
Weill Medical College of Cornell UniversityAllerganSuspendedStress Urinary IncontinenceUnited States
-
AllerganCompletedMigraine DisordersSpain, Germany, Italy, Norway, Russian Federation, Sweden, United Kingdom
-
Joseph Mathew, M.D.American Heart Association; Foundation for Anesthesia Education and ResearchCompletedAtrial FibrillationUnited States
-
Oslo University HospitalSunnaas Rehabilitation HospitalCompletedUrinary Bladder, Overactive | Spinal Cord InjuriesNorway
-
University of North Carolina, Chapel HillCompletedParkinson DiseaseUnited States
-
University of Wisconsin, MadisonCompletedSynkinesisUnited States
-
AllerganCompletedMuscle SpasticityPoland, Canada, Korea, Republic of, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, United States, Russian Federation, United Kingdom
-
Wake Forest University Health SciencesAllerganCompleted
-
Johns Hopkins UniversityAllerganCompletedScleroderma | Raynaud's SyndromeUnited States
-
Edgar LeClaire, MDCompletedOveractive Bladder | Urinary Bladder, Neurogenic | Painful Bladder Syndrome | Urinary Urge IncontinenceUnited States