MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Botulinum toxin type B for cervical dystonia

2004· review· en· W4233968854 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
João Costa, Cláudia C Espírito-Santo, Joaquim J. Ferreira, Miguel Coelho, Peter Moore, Cristina Sampaio

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervical dystoniaMedicineBotulinum toxinDystoniaClinical trialRandomized controlled trialPlaceboPhysical therapyInternal medicineSurgeryPsychiatryPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cervical dystonia is the most common form of focal dystonia. It is characterized by involuntary posturing of the head and frequently is associated with neck pain. Disability and social withdrawal are common. Most cases of cervical dystonia are idiopathic and generally it is a life-long disorder. In recent years, Botulinum toxin type A (BtA) has become the first line therapy. However, some patients become resistant to it. This problem led to the study of another Botulinum toxin (Bt) serotype, Bt type B (BtB) to address the issues of clinical efficacy, effect size, and safety of BtB in the treatment of cervical dystonia. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether botulinum toxin (BtB) is an effective and safe treatment for cervical dystonia. SEARCH STRATEGY: We identified studies for inclusion in the review using the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE; and by handsearching the Movement Disorders Journal and abstracts of international congresses on movement disorders and botulinum toxin, by communication with other researchers in the field, by searching reference lists of papers found using the above search strategies, and by contacting authors and drug manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered studies eligible for inclusion in the review if they evaluated the efficacy of BtB for the treatment of cervical dystonia in randomized, placebo-controlled trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a paper pro forma to collect data from the included studies with double extraction by two independent reviewers. Both reviewers assessed each trial for internal validity and settled differences by discussion. The outcome measures used included adverse events, improvement in symptomatic rating scales, subjective evaluation by patients and clinicians, changes in pain scores, changes in quality of life assessments. MAIN RESULTS: Studies were short term (16 weeks) employing a single BtB injection session. All were multicentre and conducted in the US. All patients included had previously received BtA. The trials differed with respect to whether or not the patients were still responding to BtA but other entry criteria were similar. All studies used a dose of 10,000 Units of BtB in one group and the technique of administration was the same. Meta-analysis of three trials enrolling 308 participants showed statistically and clinically significant improvements in the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) total score at week four with a Peto odds ratio (OR) for the number of patients who had at least a 20% improvement of 4.69 (95% CI 2.06 to 10.69) and a weighted mean difference of -5.92 (95% CI -9.61 to -2.23). Subjective rating scales (Patient Global Assessment of Change, Investigator Global Assessment of Change, and Patient Analog Pain Assessment) also improved. Adverse events clearly associated with the mechanism of action of BtB included dysphagia and dry mouth and the number of patients with any adverse event were more frequent in BtB treatment groups. Subgroup analyses showed a clear dose-response relationship for subjective and objective benefit, for frequency and severity of adverse events, and a greater benefit for BtA resistant patients than BtA responders in the primary outcome. The duration of effect was about 16 weeks. We found three eligible studies enrolling 308 participants. Studies were short term (16 weeks) employing a single BtB injection session. All were multicentre and conducted in the US. All patients included had previously received BtA. The trials differed with respect to whether or not the patients were still responding to BtA but other entry criteria were similar. Patient groups were appropriately selected and well matched. From the methodological point of view these trials were probably not subjected to important selection, performance or attrition bias and all studies used an intention-to-treat analysis.The dose varied significantly between studies although all used 10,000 Units of BtB in one group and the technique of administration was the same. The primary outcome in all trials was change in TWSTRS total score at week four and other efficacy outcomes were similar between studies. The number of dropouts was small and balanced in all trials. Reasons for withdrawals were given. One randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study was excluded because data couldn't be extracted for the outcomes. Meta-analysis showed statistically and clinically significant improvements with a Peto odds ratio (OR) of 20% in TWSTRS total score at week four (OR 4.69; 95% CI 2.06 to 10.69) and a weighted mean difference of -5.92 (95% CI -9.61 to -2.23). Subjective rating scales (Patient Global Assessment of Change, Investigator Global Assessment of Change, and Patient Analog Pain Assessment) also improved. The weighted mean difference for changes in these subjective scales varied between -13% to -21%. However, for many of the outcomes, we could not combine data from all studies. Only adverse events clearly associated with the mechanism of action of BtB were more frequent in the treatment group. These included dysphagia and dry mouth. The number of patients with any adverse event was more frequent with BtB. Subgroup analyses showed a clear dose-response relationship for subjective and objective benefit and for frequency and severity of adverse events. Subgroup analyses showed a greater benefit for the BtA resistant patients than BtA responders in the primary outcome. The duration of effect was about 16 weeks. These trials did not measure quality of life nor did they establish the long term duration of effect or immunogenicity AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A single injection of BtB was effective and safe for treating cervical dystonia. Long-term uncontrolled studies suggested that further injection cycles continue to work for most patients. Future research should explore technical factors such as the optimum treatment intervals and use of image or electromyographic guidance for administration. Other issues include service delivery, quality of life, long-term efficacy and safety, and the relative indications for BtA, BtB and other treatments such as deep brain stimulation.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0250.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.022

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.249 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations48
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207