Author
Listed:
- Fábio Coelho Guarany
- Paulo Dornelles Picon
- Nicole Ruas Guarany
- Antonio Cardoso dos Santos
- Bianca Paula Mentz Chiella
- Carolina Rocha Barone
- Lúcia Costa Cabral Fendt
- Pedro Schestatsky
Abstract
Background: Botulinum toxin type A (btxA) is one of the main treatment choices for patients with spasticity. Prosigne® a new released botulinum toxin serotype A may have the same effectiveness as Botox® in focal dystonia. However, there are no randomized clinical trials comparing these formulations in spasticity treatment. The aim of our study was to compare the efficacy and safety of Prosigne® with Botox® in the treatment of spasticity. Methodology/Principal Findings: We performed a double-blind, randomized, crossover study consisting of 57 patients with clinically meaningful spasticity. The patients were assessed at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks after Prosigne® or Botox® administration. The main outcomes were changes in the patients’ Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), Functional Independence Measure (FIM) and Pediatric Evaluation of Disability Inventory (PEDI) scores and adverse effects related to the botulinum toxin. Both of the toxins were significantly effective in relieving the level of spasticity in adults and children. There were no significant differences found between the Prosigne® and Botox® treatments regarding their MAS, FIM and PEDI scores. Likewise, the incidence of adverse effects was similar between the two groups. Conclusion: Our results suggest that Prosigne® and Botox® are both efficient and comparable with respect to their efficacy and safety for the three month treatment of spasticity. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00819065.
Suggested Citation
Fábio Coelho Guarany & Paulo Dornelles Picon & Nicole Ruas Guarany & Antonio Cardoso dos Santos & Bianca Paula Mentz Chiella & Carolina Rocha Barone & Lúcia Costa Cabral Fendt & Pedro Schestatsky, 2013.
"A Double-Blind, Randomised, Crossover Trial of Two Botulinum Toxin Type A in Patients with Spasticity,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(2), pages 1-6, February.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0056479
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056479
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0056479. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.