| Literature DB >> 28068857 |
Ann Tilton1, Barry Russman2, Resa Aydin3, Umit Dincer4, Raul G Escobar5, Sehim Kutlay6, Zbigniew Lipczyk7, Juan Carlos Velez8, Anne-Sophie Grandoulier9, Anissa Tse9, Philippe Picaut9, Mauricio R Delgado10.
Abstract
This secondary analysis of a large (n = 241), randomized, double-blind study evaluated the efficacy of 2 doses of abobotulinumtoxinA + standard of care (SOC) versus placebo + SOC in enabling children with dynamic equinus due to cerebral palsy to achieve their functional goals using Goal Attainment Scaling. Most parents/caregivers selected goals targeting aspects of gait improvement as most relevant. Mean (95% confidence interval) Goal Attainment Scaling T scores at week 4 were higher for both abobotulinumtoxinA groups versus placebo (treatment difference vs placebo: 10 U/kg/leg: 5.32 [2.31, 8.32], P = .0006, and 15 U/kg/leg 4.65 [1.59, 7.71], P = .0031). Superiority of both abobotulinumtoxinA doses versus placebo was maintained at week 12. Best goal attainment T scores were higher in the abobotulinumtoxinA groups versus placebo for the common goals of improved walking pattern, decreased falling, decreased tripping, and improved endurance. These findings demonstrate that single injections of abobotulinumtoxinA (10 and 15 U/kg/leg) significantly improved the ability of pediatric cerebral palsy patients to achieve their functional goals.Entities:
Keywords: Dysport; abobotulinumtoxinA; cerebral palsy; equinus foot; goal attainment scaling
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28068857 PMCID: PMC5405835 DOI: 10.1177/0883073816686910
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Child Neurol ISSN: 0883-0738 Impact factor: 1.987
Frequency of Goal Choice at Baseline in Rank Order of Parent Preference.
| Goals chosen at baselinea | Placebo group (n = 77), n (%) | AbobotulinumtoxinA 10 U/kg/leg group (n = 79), n (%) | AbobotulinumtoxinA 15 U/kg/leg group (n = 79), n (%) | All patients (n = 235), n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Improved walking pattern | 54 (70) | 48 (61) | 63 (80) | 165 (70) |
| Improved balance | 19 (25) | 31 (40) | 26 (33) | 76 (32) |
| Decreased frequency of falling | 25 (33) | 22 (28) | 26 (33) | 73 (31) |
| Decreased frequency of tripping | 13 (17) | 16 (20) | 17 (22) | 46 (20) |
| Improved endurance | 11 (14) | 18 (23) | 11 (14) | 40 (17) |
| Decreased foot pain | 10 (13) | 6 (8) | 5 (6) | 21 (9) |
| Improved walking speed | 3 (4) | 6 (8) | 9 (11) | 18 (8) |
| Improved tolerance of ankle foot orthosis | 5 (7) | 7 (9) | 4 (5) | 16 (7) |
| Improved cosmesis (looks better) | 7 (9) | 2 (3) | 5 (6) | 14 (6) |
| Increased duration of shoe wear | 1 (1) | 1 (1) | 2 (3) | 4 (2) |
| Improved ease of putting on ankle foot orthosis | 2 (3) | 0 (0) | 1 (1) | 3 (1) |
| Otherb | 18 (23) | 10 (13) | 12 (15) | 40 (17) |
aParents (and/or patients) could choose between 1 and 3 goals at baseline.
bIf “other” was chosen, the goal had to be specified.
Figure 1.GAS T scores at weeks 4 and 12. Columns represent adjusted mean (95% confidence interval) GAS T scores. Adjusted LS Means were obtained from an analysis of covariance on the change from baseline with treatment, baseline score, age range at baseline, botulinum toxin status at baseline, and center as covariates. ABO, abobotulinumtoxinA; GAS, Goal Attainment Scaling; TE, adjusted LS mean (95% confidence interval) treatment effect versus placebo.
Responder Analyses for Achievement of Primary Goal and for the Five Most Commonly Chosen Individual Goals.a
| Placebo group (n = 77) | AbobotulinumtoxinA 10 U/kg group (n = 79) | AbobotulinumtoxinA 15 U/kg group (n = 79) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary goal achievement (at any time during study), n (%) | 47/76 (62) | 62/79 (79) | 60/79 (76) |
| Individual goal analysis | |||
| Improved walking pattern | |||
| Best goal attainment T score, mean (SD) | 45.4 (8.8) | 54.2 (9.6) | 52.7 (10.0) |
| Responder rate at week 4, n (%) | 21/53 (40) | 38/48 (79) | 38/63 (60) |
| Responder rate at week 12, n (%) | 19/49 (39) | 31/43 (72) | 38/60 (63) |
| Improved balance | |||
| Best goal attainment T score, mean (SD) | 47.9 (7.9) | 51.3 (9.2) | 48.5 (10.8) |
| Responder rate at week 4, n (%) | 10/19 (53) | 18/29 (62) | 10/26 (39) |
| Responder rate at week 12, n (%) | 9/16 (56) | 16/26 (62) | 14/25 (56) |
| Decreased frequency of falling | |||
| Best goal attainment T score, mean (SD) | 50.4 (10.6) | 59.1 (11.5) | 56.5 (10.6) |
| Responder rate at week 4, n (%) | 14/25 (56) | 18/22 (82) | 18/26 (69) |
| Responder rate at week 12, n (%) | 8/19 (42) | 18/20 (90) | 17/24 (71) |
| Decreased frequency of tripping | |||
| Best goal attainment T score, mean (SD) | 51.5 (12.8) | 52.5 (10.6) | 57.1 (9.9) |
| Responder rate at week 4, n (%) | 6/13 (46) | 9/16 (56) | 13/17 (77) |
| Responder rate at week 12, n (%) | 8/13 (62) | 9/14 (64) | 14/16 (88) |
| Improved endurance | |||
| Best goal attainment T score, mean (SD) | 50.0 (8.9) | 56.1 (7.8) | 58.2 (10.8) |
| Responder rate at week 4, n (%) | 6/11 (55) | 13/18 (72) | 7/11 (64) |
| Responder rate at week 12, n (%) | 5/11 (46) | 14/16 (88) | 10/11 (91) |
Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.
aBest goal attainment total score for each patient was assessed using the best score attained for each goal at any time during the study. Patients who completed the study or withdrew are counted as missing at subsequent visits.