MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3127079984 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0245827

Sustained functional benefits after a single set of injections with abobotulinumtoxinA using a 2-mL injection volume in adults with cervical dystonia: 12-week results from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3b study

2021· article· en· W3127079984 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Atul T. Patel, Mark Lew, Khashayar Dashtipour, Stuart Isaacson, Robert A. Hauser, William G. Ondo, Pascal Maisonobe, Stefan Wietek, Bruce Rubin, Allison Brashear

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIpsenIpsen Biopharmaceuticals
KeywordsPlaceboMedicineCervical dystoniaSpasmodic TorticollisBotulinum toxinRandomized controlled trialPopulationPhysical therapyPlacebo-controlled studyAnesthesiaInternal medicineSurgeryDouble blindTorticollis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cervical dystonia (CD) is primarily treated with botulinum toxin, at intervals of ≥ 12 weeks. We present efficacy, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and safety in adults with CD at the last available visit after a single set of abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) injections versus placebo using 500 U in a 2-mL injection volume. In this 12-week, randomized, double-blind trial, patients were ≥ 18 years of age with primary idiopathic CD, had a Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) total score ≥ 20, and TWSTRS-Severity subscale score > 10 at baseline. Patients (N = 134) were randomized (2:1) to aboBoNT-A (n = 89) or placebo (n = 45), with aboBoNT-A patients treated with 500 units (U) if toxin-naïve, and 250 to 500 U based on previous onabotulinumtoxinA dose if non-naïve. Endpoints included total TWSTRS, Pain Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-Pain; 24-hour), Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication, and other PROs for pain, depression, and global health. Results are for the intent-to-treat population, with "Week 12" (Wk12) comprising the last available post-baseline assessment (end-of-study or early withdrawal). Mean TWSTRS total scores improved from 42.5 at baseline to 35.4 at Wk12 with aboBoNT-A and 42.4 to 40.4 with placebo (treatment difference: -4.8; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -8.5, -1.1; p = 0.011). At Wk12, mean (95% CI) change from baseline in NRS-Pain was -1.0 (-1.59, -0.45) for aboBoNT-A and -0.2 (-0.96, 0.65) for placebo. AboBoNT-A demonstrated numeric improvements in other PROs. More aboBoNT-A-treated patients than patients receiving placebo reported being at least "somewhat satisfied" with treatment (60.4% vs 42.2%, respectively), symptom relief (57.0% vs 40.0%), and time for treatment to work (55.8% vs 33.3%). No new adverse events were reported. Results indicate that in patients with CD, treatment with aboBoNT-A using a 2-mL injection provided sustained improvement in the TWSTRS total score and patient-perceived benefits up to 12 weeks. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identified: NCT01753310.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207