A randomized, double-blind study of repeated incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin(®)) in cervical dystonia.

IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin(®), NT 201), a preparation without accessory (complexing) proteins, has shown comparable efficacy and safety to onabotulinumtoxinA in treating cervical dystonia (CD). This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of repeated incobotulinumtoxinA injections in subjects with CD. Following a ≤20-week placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blind, single-dose main period, subjects could enter a ≤68-week prospective, randomized, double-blind, repeated-dose, flexible-interval (minimum 6 weeks) extension period with 240 U or 120 U of incobotulinumtoxinA (≤5 injections). Outcome measures included the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) and adverse events (AEs). Of 219 subjects completing the main period, 214 were randomized in the extension period to receive incobotulinumtoxinA 240 U (n = 111) or 120 U (n = 103); 169 subjects completed the extension period, with 90 receiving five injection sessions. Both doses of incobotulinumtoxinA provided statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in mean TWSTRS-Total, -Severity, -Disability, and -Pain scores, from each injection session to respective 4-week follow-up visits. The most frequently reported AE was dysphagia (240 U: 23.4 %; 120 U: 12.6 %), which did not result in any study withdrawals. There was no impact of injection interval on the incidence of AEs (post hoc analysis). A major limitation of this study was the fixed dose design requested by regulatory authorities, which does not reflect clinical practice. However, repeated incobotulinumtoxinA injections (240 or 120 U; flexible intervals) provided sustained efficacy and were well tolerated, with no unexpected safety risks following repeated injections. The incidence of AEs was similar in subjects requiring repeated injections at shorter intervals (≤12 weeks) compared with those treated using longer intervals (>12 weeks).

Efficacy and safety of incobotulinumtoxinA (NT 201, Xeomin) in the treatment of blepharospasm-a randomized trial.

IncobotulinumtoxinA (NT 201, Xeomin) is a highly purified botulinum neurotoxin type A formulation, free from complexing proteins. A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of efficacy and safety compared incobotulinumtoxinA (up to 50 U per eye) to placebo administered in a single treatment session to patients with blepharospasm. All patients had documented satisfactory response to 2 previous treatments with botulinum neurotoxin type A other than incobotulinumtoxinA and had Jankovic Rating Scale severity subscores ≥ 2. Patients (n = 109) were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to incobotulinumtoxinA or placebo and followed up to 20 weeks; 94% completed the study. A significant difference was observed in the primary efficacy variable (change in Jankovic Rating Scale severity subscore rated by an independent rater 6 weeks following treatment), favoring incobotulinumtoxinA by 1.0 point (95% CI [0.5-1.4]; P < .001). Functional impairment, as measured by the Blepharospasm Disability Index, improved by 0.5 points (95% CI [0.2-0.7]; P = .002) compared with placebo. There was a strong correlation between the 2 scale scores. In addition, all secondary outcome measures favored incobotulinumtoxinA. Patients rated the mean therapeutic effect of incobotulinumtoxinA significantly better than placebo (P < .001). Adverse events were reported in 70.3% of incobotulinumtoxinA patients and 58.8% of placebo patients. Eyelid ptosis (18.9% vs 5.9%), dry eye (18.9% vs 11.8%), and dry mouth (14.9% vs 2.9%) occurred most frequently. Tolerability was rated good/very good by 91.9% of incobotulinumtoxinA versus in 85.2% of placebo patients. In conclusion, incobotulinumtoxinA was well tolerated and was associated with statistically significant and clinically relevant reductions in blepharospasm severity and functional impairment.

Relationship between various clinical outcome assessments in patients with blepharospasm.

The objective was to analyze the metric properties of the Jankovic Rating Scale (JRS) and a self-rating patient response outcome scale, the Blepharospasm Disability Index (BSDI), in blepharospasm patients. Data from a randomized, double-blind, active-control clinical trial in 300 patients with blepharospasm treated with either botulinum toxin type A (Botox) or NT201 (Xeomin) were used to evaluate the metric properties of the JRS and the BSDI compared with the Patient Evaluation of Global Response (PEGR) and Global Assessment Scale (GAS). The internal consistency of the BSDI was high, Cronbach's Alpha = 0.88, and the retest reliability of the BSDI single items was adequate, Spearman's rank coefficient = 0.453 < r < 0.595. The correlation between JRS sum score and BSDI weighted mean score was r = 0.487 (baseline) and r = 0.737 (control visit), respectively. Using the GAS and PEGR, the results suggest that a change of 2 points in the JRS and of 0.7 points in the BSDI are clinically meaningful. JRS and BSDI are objective indicators of clinical efficacy as suggested by their good validity when compared with physicians' and patients' rating scales. Both, JRS and BSDI, can be used to reliably assess blepharospasm in treatment trials.

Botulinum neurotoxin type A free of complexing proteins (XEOMIN) in focal dystonia.

Botulinum neurotoxin type A (BTX-A) weakens voluntary muscle strength and is an effective therapy for focal dystonia, including cervical dystonia (CD) and benign essential blepharospasm (BEB). It is also known to relieve hemifacial spasm and focal spasticity in children and adults. In addition, BTX-A has been shown to be effective in a wide range of other indications, such as gastrointestinal disorders, hyperhidrosis and cosmetic wrinkle correction (e.g. glabellar frown lines). A new formulation of BTX-A, NT 201 (XEOMIN((R))) has been developed. NT 201 is a formulation of pure BTX-A free of complexing proteins and, therefore, may have a reduced immunogenic potential compared with other BTX-A preparations. The pre-clinical and clinical development of NT 201 is reviewed in this article.A total of five clinical trials were completed in Europe and Israel. Two studies were conducted in 46 healthy volunteers. A further three studies in 816 patients were conducted to provide data on the safety and efficacy of NT 201 in the treatment of CD and BEB. NT 201 was found to provide non-inferior efficacy and safety profiles in the treatment of CD and BEB compared with a BTX-A preparation containing complexing proteins (BOT [BOTOX((R))]). The clinical development programme of NT 201 showed a 1 : 1 NT 201 to BOT dose ratio. The pre-clinical studies conducted with NT 201 showed an acceptable safety profile and support the use of NT 201 in an intramuscular administration regimen for patients with CD and BEB. NT 201 was effective, well tolerated and non-inferior to BOT in the treatment of both CD and BEB. In addition, there were no differences between the two therapies in terms of onset of action, duration and waning of effect. Further research is required to determine the long-term efficacy and safety profile of NT 201.

Neurophysiological double-blind trial of a botulinum neurotoxin type a free of complexing proteins.

OBJECTIVE: Safety and efficacy of botulinum neurotoxin type A preparation NT 201 (Xeomin, Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) were investigated over 52 weeks in a double-blind, randomized trial with 32 male volunteers. METHODS: Electroneurographic assessments with surface electrodes were performed after single injections of NT 201 (2, 4, 16, or 32 units) into the extensor digitorum brevis (EDB) muscle and the same dose (Botox; Allergan Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd. Westport, Ireland) into the contralateral EDB. RESULTS: All NT 201 and BTXCo doses achieved a statistically significant reduction of the compound muscle action potential M-wave amplitude in the EDB muscle. At week 4, the highest dose was statistically significantly more effective than the lowest dose (NT 201, P = 0.019; 95% confidence interval, 0.195-1.370; and BTXCo, P = 0.002; 95% confidence interval, 0.309-1.167). Duration of effect was dose dependent. The mean values of compound muscle action potential M-wave amplitudes in the adjacent muscles (abductor digiti quinti and abductor hallucis) were above the predefined threshold of effect, indicating that there was no relevant diffusion-induced reduction of muscle activity. NT 201 and BTXCo were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: NT 201 is effective and safe in inducing the desired paretic effect.

IncobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®) injected for blepharospasm or cervical dystonia according to patient needs is well tolerated.

Typically, botulinum toxin injections for blepharospasm or cervical dystonia (CD) are administered at approximately 3-month intervals, reflecting concerns that shorter intervals might increase the risk of adverse events (AEs) and development of neutralizing antibodies. These post-hoc analyses investigated flexible incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®) injection intervals (6-20 weeks) in patients with blepharospasm or CD. Patients received up to 6 injections at intervals ≥ 6 weeks, as determined by physician assessment upon patient request. The blepharospasm study permitted flexible doses (≤ 50 U/eye). The CD study employed fixed dosing using incobotulinumtoxinA 120 U, 240 U, or placebo for the first treatment followed by subsequent randomization to 120 U or 240 U for the extension period. Standard safety assessments were performed. Intervals <12 weeks were employed in 207 of 461 (44.9%) treatment cycles for blepharospasm and in 369 of 821 (44.9%) treatment cycles for CD. The most frequent AEs were eyelid ptosis and dry eyes in patients treated for blepharospasm, and dysphagia and neck pain in patients with CD. AE frequency and severity were similar for intervals <12 weeks and ≥ 12 weeks in both studies. In conclusion, repeated incobotulinumtoxinA injections employing flexible intervals (6-20 weeks) per patients' needs were well tolerated. No additional safety concerns were observed with <12-week intervals compared with ≥ 12-week intervals.

Efficacy and safety of incobotulinumtoxinA (NT 201, XEOMIN®, botulinum neurotoxin type A, without accessory proteins) in patients with cervical dystonia.

OBJECTIVE: IncobotulinumtoxinA differs from available formulations in that it does not have accessory proteins. IncobotulinumtoxinA has previously shown non-inferiority to onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of CD with a 1:1 dosing regimen. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of incobotulinumtoxinA (120 U, 240 U; Merz Pharmaceuticals) to placebo in subjects with cervical dystonia (CD). METHODS: This was a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial in botulinum toxin-treated or toxin-naïve CD patients. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline to Week 4 on the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) Total score. Adverse events (AEs) also were evaluated. RESULTS: Participants (N=233) were mostly women (66%), a mean of 52.8 years old, who had CD for a mean of 51.9 months. Of those, 39% were toxin-naïve. IncobotulinumtoxinA significantly improved TWSTRS-Total scores from baseline to Week 4 compared to placebo (placebo=-2.2; 120 U=-9.9, and 240 U=-10.9; 240 U vs. placebo p<0.001 and 120 U vs. placebo p<0.001). This effect persisted through to the end of the study. The most frequently reported AEs in the incobotulinumtoxinA groups were dysphagia, neck pain, and muscular weakness which were generally mild. INTERPRETATION: IncobotulinumtoxinA (at doses of 120 U or 240 U) is a safe and effective treatment for CD in previously-treated as well as toxin-naïve subjects.

Efficacy and safety of treatment with incobotulinum toxin A (botulinum neurotoxin type A free from complexing proteins; NT 201) in post-stroke upper limb spasticity.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of repeated treatment with incobotulinum toxin A (botulinum neurotoxin type A free from complexing proteins; NT 201) in post-stroke upper limb spasticity. PATIENTS AND DESIGN: After completing a double-blind, placebo- controlled, multicentre study (up to 20 weeks), 145 patients received up to 5 additional sets of NT 201 injections for an open-label extension period of up to 69 weeks. METHODS: Upper limb muscle groups were treated as clinically indicated; injection intervals were ≥ 12 weeks. Outcome was assessed 4 weeks after each injection session and at the end of the study. RESULTS: Muscle tone (flexors of wrist, elbow, finger, and thumb, and forearm pronators) improved throughout the study (response rate: up to 80.6%, p < 0.0001, Ashworth Scale). Continuous and significant improvements were also observed in disability (p < 0.05, Disability Assessment Scale). The majority of investigators, patients and caregivers rated NT 201 efficacy as very good or good (56-84%). Adverse events considered treatment-related occurred in 11% of patients. Formation of neutralizing antibodies was not observed in any patient after repeated treatments. CONCLUSION: Treatment with NT 201 showed sustained improvements in muscle tone and functionality (median dose 400 units) over a study duration of up to 89 weeks, and was well tolerated during repeated treatments for post-stroke upper limb spasticity.

Efficacy and safety of botulinum neurotoxin NT 201 in poststroke upper limb spasticity.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of the new botulinum neurotoxin type A preparation NT 201 (Xeomin; Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Frankfurt, Germany) on muscle tone, functional disability, and caregiver burden in patients with poststroke upper limb spasticity in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study. METHODS: One hundred forty-eight patients with an Ashworth Scale score of 2 or higher for wrist and finger flexors and at least moderate disability in their principal therapeutic target of the Disability Assessment Scale were treated either with NT 201 (median, 320 U) or placebo and followed up for up to 20 weeks. Treatment of the wrist and finger muscles was mandatory. RESULTS: A significantly higher proportion of patients treated with NT 201 were responders (improvement of > or =1 point in the Ashworth Scale score), as observed in comparison to placebo 4 weeks after treatment in wrist flexors (odds ratio, 3.97; 95% confidence interval, 1.9-8.3; P < 0.001, intent to treat). For all treated flexor muscle groups, statistically significant odds ratios in favor of NT 201 were observed at week 4 (P < or = 0.009). Statistically significant results in favor of NT 201 were observed at all postinjection visits until week 12 in the principal therapeutic target (P < or = 0.005), in the global assessment of efficacy (P < 0.001), and in some tasks of the Carer Burden Scale (P < 0.05). Similar numbers of patients in each group experienced at least 1 adverse event (NT 201, n = 21; placebo, n = 20). Importantly, none of the patients developed neutralizing antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: NT 201 led to statistically significant improvements in muscle tone and disability and was well tolerated in patients with poststroke upper limb spasticity.

Assessment of low-grade hepatic encephalopathy: a critical analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The value of paper-pencil tests and West-Haven-criteria for assessment of low-grade hepatic encephalopathy under conditions of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial was evaluated in a cohort of 217 cirrhotics. METHODS: Patients were graded at least twice clinically for severity of hepatic encephalopathy and tested concomitantly with a recommended psychometric test battery. RESULTS: Re-evaluation of the study documentation showed that at study entry 33% and during the study even 50% of the patients were wrongly allocated to minimal or overt hepatic encephalopathy. Despite the participating physicians' training, 31% of the number-connection-tests-A, 20% of the number-connection-tests-B and 28% of the line-tracing-test were in retrospect considered invalid by an independent psychologist. Neither the Portosystemic-Encephalopathy-Syndrome (PSE) test nor the Psychometric-Hepatic-Encephalopathy-Sum (PHES)-score reliably picked up clinical improvement in the individual patient. Although these test scores could statistically differentiate between patients with minimal and overt hepatic encephalopathy, the clinical classification of individual patients into one of the groups will have a high rate of error. The PHES-Score was less balanced than the score derived from the PSE-Syndrome-Test. CONCLUSIONS: Inaccuracies in conducting paper-pencil tests together with the subjectivity and incorrectness of clinical HE-grading question the usefulness of West-Haven-criteria and paper-pencil tests including related scores for quantification of low-grade HE at least in multicenter approaches.