Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial details imported from ClinicalTrials.gov
For full trial details, please see the original record at
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00528541
Registration number
NCT00528541
Ethics application status
Date submitted
10/09/2007
Date registered
12/09/2007
Date last updated
16/12/2011
Titles & IDs
Public title
Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Two Different Types of Botulinum Toxin Type A in Moderate to Severe Cervical Dystonia
Query!
Scientific title
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
0
0
MedAff-BTX-0616
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Spasmodic Torticollis
0
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Musculoskeletal
0
0
0
0
Query!
Other muscular and skeletal disorders
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Treatment: Other - botulinum toxin type A
Treatment: Other - botulinum toxin type A
Active comparator: BOTOX® - botulinum toxin type A (BOTOX®)
Active comparator: Dysport® - botulinum toxin type A (Dysport®)
Treatment: Other: botulinum toxin type A
200 Units at Visit 1 (Day 1)
Treatment: Other: botulinum toxin type A
750 Units at Visit 1 (Day 1)
Query!
Intervention code [1]
0
0
Treatment: Other
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Query!
Control group
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
0
0
Dysphagia Incidence Over 10 Weeks
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
10 weeks
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
0
0
Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) Total Score at Week 4
Query!
Assessment method [1]
0
0
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.
Query!
Timepoint [1]
0
0
Baseline, Week 4
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
0
0
Physician Assessment of Cervical Dystonia Severity at Week 4
Query!
Assessment method [2]
0
0
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.'
Query!
Timepoint [2]
0
0
Baseline, Week 4
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
0
0
Global Assessment of Benefit by Physician at Week 4
Query!
Assessment method [3]
0
0
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).'
Query!
Timepoint [3]
0
0
Week 4
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
0
0
Global Assessment of Benefit by Patient at Week 4
Query!
Assessment method [4]
0
0
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).'
Query!
Timepoint [4]
0
0
Week 4
Query!
Secondary outcome [5]
0
0
Patient Assessment of Need for Retreatment at Week 4
Query!
Assessment method [5]
0
0
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'.
Query!
Timepoint [5]
0
0
Baseline, Week 4
Query!
Secondary outcome [6]
0
0
Patient Visual Analog Assessment of Pain at Week 4
Query!
Assessment method [6]
0
0
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'.
Query!
Timepoint [6]
0
0
Baseline, Week 4
Query!
Secondary outcome [7]
0
0
Physician Comparison of Benefit to Previous Injections at Week 10
Query!
Assessment method [7]
0
0
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'.
Query!
Timepoint [7]
0
0
Week 10
Query!
Secondary outcome [8]
0
0
Patient Comparison of Benefit to Previous Injections at Week 10
Query!
Assessment method [8]
0
0
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'.
Query!
Timepoint [8]
0
0
Week 10
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
* Diagnosed with cervical dystonia/spasmodic torticollis for at least 18 months
* Successfully treated previously with botulinum toxin type A
Query!
Minimum age
18
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
No limit
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key 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
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Treatment
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Query!
Masking / blinding
Blinded (masking used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
The people receiving the treatment/s
The people assessing the outcomes
The people analysing the results/data
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Parallel
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Phase 4
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Query!
Data analysis
Query!
Reason for early stopping/withdrawal
Query!
Other reasons
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
1/09/2007
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
1/09/2009
Query!
Sample size
Target
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
145
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
SA
Query!
Recruitment hospital [1]
0
0
- Adelaide
Query!
Recruitment postcode(s) [1]
0
0
- Adelaide
Query!
Recruitment outside Australia
Country [1]
0
0
Croatia
Query!
State/province [1]
0
0
Zagreb
Query!
Country [2]
0
0
Italy
Query!
State/province [2]
0
0
Rome
Query!
Country [3]
0
0
Poland
Query!
State/province [3]
0
0
Krakow
Query!
Country [4]
0
0
Turkey
Query!
State/province [4]
0
0
Istanbul
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Primary sponsor type
Commercial sector/industry
Query!
Name
Allergan
Query!
Address
Query!
Country
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to compare two types of botulinum toxin type A to treat the involuntary muscle contractions in the neck
Query!
Trial website
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00528541
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
0
0
Medical Director
Query!
Address
0
0
Allergan
Query!
Country
0
0
Query!
Phone
0
0
Query!
Fax
0
0
Query!
Email
0
0
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
0
0
Query!
Address
0
0
Query!
Country
0
0
Query!
Phone
0
0
Query!
Fax
0
0
Query!
Email
0
0
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
No information has been provided regarding IPD availability
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Results publications and other study-related documents
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Results are available at
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT00528541
Download to PDF