Essential Voice Tremor: A Study of Botulinum Toxin Treatment and Injection Augmentation

January 9, 2018 updated by: Weill Medical College of Cornell University

Essential Voice Tremor: An Unblinded Crossover Study of Botulinum Toxin Treatment and Injection Augmentation

Botulinum toxin is the common treatment of choice for patients with Essential Voice Tremor (EVT), but results are not universally beneficial to all patients. Inconsistent results are noted in the literature and are consistent with the PI's clinical experience. Injection augmentation, a well-established treatment for glottic insufficiency, which is a prominent factor in the clinical presentation of Essential Voice Tremor (EVT), has not been studied. By treating patients at separate times with botulinum toxin and injection augmentation in an unblinded prospective crossover treatment study, we can assess functional outcomes of these two treatments with the population of patients with Essential Voice Tremor (EVT).

Study Overview

Status

Completed

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Detailed Description

The purpose of this study is to compare treatment with botulinum toxin to treatment with injection augmentation in patients diagnosed with essential voice tremor.

Botulinum toxin treatment is the injection of botulinum toxin into the muscles of the vocal cords through the skin of the neck. This is identical to the injections you may have received in the past for your disorder.

Injection augmentation is the injection of a filler material into the vocal cords through the skin of the neck, guided by the view from a flexible laryngoscope inserted through the nostril. The flexible laryngoscopy is identical to the procedure that the doctor has used to examine your vocal cords in the past. It is the routine diagnostic evaluation technique of voice disorders.

Periodic injections with botulinum toxin (Botox) is the current standard of care for patients diagnosed with essential voice tremor, but studies show only about 60% of patients benefit substantially enough to continue treatment. Poor vocal fold closure, a common characteristic of essential voice tremor, is treated in other situations (such as vocal fold paralysis or paresis) with injection augmentation; thus there is reason to think that it may be helpful to patients with essential voice tremor, perhaps even to a greater extent than botulinum toxin.

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

8

Phase

  • Not Applicable

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

  • United States
    • New York
      • New York, New York, United States, 10065
        • Weill Cornell Medicine

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

Ages Eligible for Study

16 years to 98 years (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Male and female patients ages 18-100 who have been diagnosed with essential tremor of the voice (EVT) Diagnosis Code 478.75 Laryngeal Spasm.

Exclusion Criteria:

  • WCMC subjects under age 18
  • Pregnant patients
  • Patients with laryngeal pathology besides tremor, including but not limited to polyps and other benign lesions, precancerous or cancerous changes, vocal fold paralysis, or other laryngeal disorders of mobility

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: Non-Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Crossover Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: RenuGel
Injection augmentation is the injection of a filler material (Brand: RenuGel; generic: Carboxymethylcellulose) into the vocal cords through the skin of the neck, guided by the view from a flexible laryngoscope inserted through the nostril. The flexible laryngoscopy is identical to the procedure that the doctor has used to examine your vocal cords in the past. It is the routine diagnostic evaluation technique of voice disorders.
Drug: RenuGel
Injection augmentation is the injection of a filler material (Brand: RenuGel; generic: Carboxymethylcellulose) into the vocal cords through the skin of the neck, guided by the view from a flexible laryngoscope inserted through the nostril. The flexible laryngoscopy is identical to the procedure that the doctor has used to examine your vocal cords in the past. It is the routine diagnostic evaluation technique of voice disorders.
Other Names:
  • generic: Carboxymethylcellulose
Active Comparator: Botulinum toxin
Botulinum toxin treatment is the injection of botulinum toxin into the muscles of the vocal cords through the skin of the neck. This is identical to the injections you may have received in the past for your disorder.
Drug: Botulinum Toxin
Botulinum toxin treatment is the injection of botulinum toxin into the muscles of the vocal cords through the skin of the neck. This is identical to the injections you may have received in the past for your disorder.
Other Names:
  • Botox

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)
Time Frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention
The Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) was developed to standardize the evaluation and scaling of vocal tremor. Tremor at a specific site was scored according to severity by the laryngologist. It can be rated as: none (0), mild/intermittent (1), moderate (2), severe (3). Six different regions were evaluated in this study: base of tongue, larynx, palate, pharyngeal walls, supraglottis, and true vocal folds. The scale range for each region was 0-3. The total score was a summation of all six regions, with a scalar range of 0-18.
Baseline and 30 days after intervention

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Acoustic Analysis- Frequencies
Time Frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention

For acoustic assessment, subjects produced a sustained /a/ sound at their habitual speaking pitch and loudness and read assessment sentences from the Consensus Audio-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)protocol. Tasks were recorded and analyzed using the Analysis of Dysphonia in Speech and Voice (ADSV) and Multi-Dimensional Voice Profile (MDVP) software. A handheld microphone 3 inches from the subjects' mouths was used for all recordings.

The Sustained Vowel and All-Voiced Sentence protocols of the ADSV were used to obtain cepstral peak prominence fundamental frequency (CPP F0), The MDVP was used to obtain amplitude tremor frequency (Fatr), and fundamental frequency tremor frequency (Fftr).
Baseline and 30 days after intervention
Aerodynamic Data- Airflow
Time Frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention
Aerodynamic data were collected using the Phonatory Aerodynamic System (PAS) 6600 (Pentax). Subjects held a facemask coupled to a pneumotachometer with a pressure-sensor tube firmly over the nose and mouth, and rested the pressure-sensor tube in the oral cavity above the tongue. They produced sustained /a/ and "We were away a year ago," from which mean airflow wasanalyzed via the Maximum Sustained Phonation and Running Speech protocols.
Baseline and 30 days after intervention
Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)
Time Frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention

The Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) is used to describe the severity of auditory-perceptual attributes of a voice problem. It indicates salient perceptual vocal attributes: (a) Overall Severity; (b) Roughness; (c) Breathiness; (d) Strain; (e) Pitch; and (f) Loudness. The CAPE-V displays each attribute accompanied by a 100- millimeter line forming a visual analog scale (VAS). The clinician indicates the degree of perceived deviance from normal for each parameter on this scale, using a tic mark. For each dimension, scalar extremes are unlabeled.

The scale range is from 0mm to 100mm. Results can indicate distance in mm to describe the degree of deviancy, so the higher the score the more deviancy from the norm there is.
Baseline and 30 days after intervention
Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10)
Time Frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention
The Voice Handicap Index-10 consists of 10 questions (statements about voice), where patients rate their the frequency of their problems as: never (0), almost never (1), sometimes (2), almost always (3), and always (4). The scores from each answer are added, and can range from 0-40. The higher the score, the worse the patient's perception of their voice handicap.
Baseline and 30 days after intervention
Percent of Normal Function (PNF)
Time Frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention
The Percent of Normal Function (PNF) is a scale for patients to rate their recurrent functions in increments of five, from no function (0%) to normal function (100%). The higher the percentage, the more normal the function as experienced by the patient.
Baseline and 30 days after intervention
Aerodynamic Data- Peak Air Pressure
Time Frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention
Aerodynamic data were collected using the Phonatory Aerodynamic System (PAS) 6600 (Pentax). Subjects held a facemask coupled to a pneumotachometer with a pressure-sensor tube firmly over the nose and mouth, and rested the pressure-sensor tube in the oral cavity above the tongue. A string of five consonant-vowel syllables (/pa/) at a comfortable pitch and loudness were analyzed through the Voicing Efficiency protocol to determine mean peak air pressure.
Baseline and 30 days after intervention
Aerodynamic Data- Loudness
Time Frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention
Aerodynamic data were collected using the Phonatory Aerodynamic System (PAS) 6600 (Pentax). Subjects held a facemask coupled to a pneumotachometer with a pressure-sensor tube firmly over the nose and mouth, and rested the pressure-sensor tube in the oral cavity above the tongue. They produced sustained /a/ and "We were away a year ago," from which loudness was analyzed via the Maximum Sustained Phonation and Running Speech protocols.
Baseline and 30 days after intervention
Aerodynamic Data- Maximum Phonation Time
Time Frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention
Aerodynamic data were collected using the Phonatory Aerodynamic System (PAS) 6600 (Pentax). Subjects held a facemask coupled to a pneumotachometer with a pressure-sensor tube firmly over the nose and mouth, and rested the pressure-sensor tube in the oral cavity above the tongue. They produced sustained /a/ from which Maximum Sustained Phonation time was recorded.
Baseline and 30 days after intervention

Collaborators and Investigators

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

Sponsor

Weill Medical College of Cornell University

Investigators

  • Principal Investigator: Lucian Sulica, MD, Weill Medical College of Cornell University

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

December 15, 2015

Primary Completion (Actual)

September 29, 2016

Study Completion (Actual)

September 29, 2016

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

February 24, 2016

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

March 16, 2016

First Posted (Estimate)

March 17, 2016

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

February 5, 2018

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

January 9, 2018

Last Verified

January 1, 2018

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • 1505016165

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?

No

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 Essential Tremor

Search Similar Trials

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

CROs by country

CROs in Philippines

Conditions

Rare Diseases

Drug Interventions

Dietary Supplements

Sponsor/Collaborators

Locations

3
Subscribe