Efficacy and Safety of IncobotulinumtoxinA in Subjects Previously Treated with Botulinum Toxin Versus Toxin-Naïve Subjects with Cervical Dystonia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<strong>Background:</strong> To determine whether botulinum toxin treatment history affected the outcomes of a study comparing the safety and efficacy of incobotulinumtoxinA with placebo in subjects with cervical dystonia (CD). <strong>Methods:</strong> This was a prospective, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial in botulinum toxin-treated or toxin-naïve CD subjects. Subjects received a fixed dose of either 120 U or 240 U of incobotulinumtoxinA or placebo. The primary outcome measure was change from baseline to Week 4 in the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) total score. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were also evaluated. This report represents a subgroup analysis of botulinum toxin-treated or toxin-naïve subjects. <strong>Results:</strong> Participants (N=233; 38.6% toxin-naïve) had a mean age of 52.8 years. IncobotulinumtoxinA significantly improved TWSTRS total scores from baseline to Week 4 in both dose groups versus placebo, and the improvement persisted through the end of the study (≤20 weeks). Both the previously toxin-treated and toxin-naïve subjects demonstrated significant improvements in TWSTRS total scores at Week 4 compared to baseline. The most frequent TEAEs in the incobotulinumtoxinA groups were dysphagia, neck pain, and muscular weakness, which were generally mild. TEAEs were more common in the 240 U group and toxin-naïve subjects. <strong>Discussion:</strong> Overall, incobotulinumtoxinA was safe and effective in CD, regardless of toxin therapy history. A lower starting dose may be better tolerated among toxin-naïve subjects without sacrificing efficacy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".