Skip to content

Efficacy And Safety Of Dysport In The Treatment Of Upper Limb Spasticity In Children

A Phase III, Multicentre, Double Blind, Prospective, Randomised, Controlled, Multiple Treatment Study Assessing Efficacy And Safety Of DYSPORT® Used In The Treatment Of Upper Limb Spasticity In Children

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02106351
Acronym
PUL
Enrollment
212
Registered
2014-04-08
Start date
2014-04-30
Completion date
2018-09-04
Last updated
2022-09-28

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Upper Limb Spasticity (Altered Skeletal Muscle Performance) in Children

Brief summary

The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy and safety of multiple doses of Dysport used in the treatment of upper limb spasticity (altered skeletal muscle performance) in children with cerebral palsy (CP).

Interventions

BIOLOGICALBotulinum toxin type A

Subjects randomised to receive Dysport 2 U/kg, 8 U/kg or 16 U/kg administered intramuscularly in the study limb.

Sponsors

Ipsen
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Investigator)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
2 Years to 17 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Upper limb spasticity due to cerebral palsy * Body weight 10 kg or over * MAS score of 2 or more in affected elbow or wrist flexors

Exclusion criteria

* Fixed myocontracture * Previous phenol or alcohol injection within 1 year * Severe athetoid or dystonic movements * Previous or planned surgery for spasticity in elbow or wrist flexors * Neuromuscular disorders * Previous Rhizotomy within 6 months * Intrathecal baclofen within 30 days

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Mean Change From Baseline to TC 1, Week 6 in MAS Score in the TC 1 PTMGBaseline (TC 1, Day 1) and TC 1, Week 6.The MAS was used to assess muscle tone in the upper limb PTMG and consists of 6 grades: 0 (no increase in muscle tone), 1 (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch and release or by minimal resistance at the end of the ROM) when the affected part is moved in flexion or extension, 1+ (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch, followed by minimal resistance throughout the remainder (less than half) of the ROM), 2 (more marked increase in muscle tone), 3 (considerable increase in muscle tone) or 4 (affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension). The original score '+1' was given a derived numeric score of '2' and the higher numeric scores were incremented by 1 so that the MAS score range was from 0 to 5 with higher scores indicating greater muscle tone. A negative change from baseline indicates a decrease in muscle tone.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Mean Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at TC 1, Week 6TC 1, Week 6.The PGA of treatment response was assessed by asking the investigator the following question: 'How would you rate the response to treatment in the subject's upper limb since the start of the study?'. Answers were on a 9-point rating scale (-4: markedly worse, -3: much worse, -2: worse, -1: slightly worse, 0: no change, +1: slightly improved, +2: improved, +3: much improved and +4: markedly improved). The mean scores for each treatment group at TC 1, Week 6 are presented.
Mean Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) Total Score at TC 1, Week 6TC 1, Week 6.The GAS is a functional 5-point scale used to measure progress towards individual therapy goals. At start of each TC, 1 to 3 individual goals were defined for each subject by investigator and child's parents/guardians/caregivers prior to treatment. Outcome to reach each goal was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from -2 to +2 (-2: much less than expected outcome, -1: somewhat less than expected outcome, 0: expected outcome, +1: somewhat more than expected outcome, +2: much more than expected outcome). Higher score indicates a better outcome. A GAS T-score was calculated as: 50+(10∑\_(i=1)\^n wi xi)/√(0.7∑\_(i=1)\^n wi\^2 +0.3(∑\_(i=1)\^n wi)\^2) where, xi = rating of ith goal post-baseline; wi = weight of ith goal, calculated as importance \* difficulty as defined at baseline; n = number of goals assessed at baseline and post-baseline. A GAS T-score of 50 indicates goals achieved as expected. Scores below 50 reflect under attainment of goals and scores above 50 reflect over attainment of goals.

Other

MeasureTime frameDescription
Mean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Finger Flexors of the Study LimbBaseline (TC 1, Day 1) and TC 1, Weeks 6 and 16.The MAS was used to assess muscle tone in the upper limb PTMG and consists of 6 grades: 0 (no increase in muscle tone), 1 (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch and release or by minimal resistance at the end of the ROM) when the affected part is moved in flexion or extension, 1+ (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch, followed by minimal resistance throughout the remainder (less than half) of the ROM), 2 (more marked increase in muscle tone), 3 (considerable increase in muscle tone) or 4 (affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension). The original score '+1' was given a derived numeric score of '2' and the higher numeric scores were incremented by 1 so that the MAS score range was from 0 to 5 with higher scores indicating greater muscle tone. A negative change from baseline indicates a decrease in muscle tone. Data is presented for subjects injected in the finger flexors.
Mean PGA Score at TC 1 Week 16Baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and TC 1, Week 16.The PGA of treatment response was assessed by asking the investigator the following question: 'How would you rate the response to treatment in the subject's upper limb since the start of the study?'. Answers were on a 9-point rating scale (-4: markedly worse, -3: much worse, -2: worse, -1: slightly worse, 0: no change, +1: slightly improved, +2: improved, +3: much improved and +4: markedly improved). The mean scores for each treatment group at TC 1 Week 16 are presented.
Mean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Week 16 in MAS Score in the TC 1 PTMGBaseline (TC 1, Day 1) and TC 1, Week 16.The MAS was used to assess muscle tone in the upper limb PTMG and consists of 6 grades: 0 (no increase in muscle tone), 1 (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch and release or by minimal resistance at the end of the ROM) when the affected part is moved in flexion or extension, 1+ (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch, followed by minimal resistance throughout the remainder (less than half) of the ROM), 2 (more marked increase in muscle tone), 3 (considerable increase in muscle tone) or 4 (affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension). The original score '+1' was given a derived numeric score of '2' and the higher numeric scores were incremented by 1 so that the MAS score range was from 0 to 5 with higher scores indicating greater muscle tone. A negative change from baseline indicates a decrease in muscle tone.
Mean Change From Baseline to TC 1, Week 16 in the Paediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL) ScoresBaseline (TC 1, Day 1) and TC 1, Week 16.Parents/guardians completed questionnaires on their child's quality of life. The PedsQL parent inventory measured healthcare concepts for children/adolescents aged 2-18 years. The Generic Core Scales include physical, emotional, social and school aspects. The CP module was also completed. Scores were transformed on a scale from 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating a better quality of life. Mean changes from baseline to TC 1, Week 16 are presented for the General Core Scale and for the CP module. A positive change from baseline indicates an improvement in quality of life.
Mean GAS Total Score at TC 1, Week 16Baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and TC 1, Week 16.The GAS is a functional 5-point scale used to measure progress towards individual therapy goals. At start of each TC, 1 to 3 individual goals were defined for each subject by investigator and child's parents/guardians/caregivers prior to treatment. Outcome to reach each goal was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from -2 to +2 (-2: much less than expected outcome, -1: somewhat less than expected outcome, 0: expected outcome, +1: somewhat more than expected outcome, +2: much more than expected outcome). Higher score indicates a better outcome. A GAS T-score was calculated as: 50+(10∑\_(i=1)\^n wi xi)/√(0.7∑\_(i=1)\^n wi\^2 +0.3(∑\_(i=1)\^n wi)\^2) where, xi = rating of ith goal post-baseline; wi = weight of ith goal, calculated as importance \* difficulty as defined at baseline; n = number of goals assessed at baseline and post-baseline. A GAS T-score of 50 indicates goals achieved as expected. Scores below 50 reflect under attainment of goals and scores above 50 reflect over attainment of goals.
Mean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Elbow Flexors of the Study LimbBaseline (TC 1, Day 1) and TC 1, Weeks 6 and 16.The MAS was used to assess muscle tone in the upper limb PTMG and consists of 6 grades: 0 (no increase in muscle tone), 1 (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch and release or by minimal resistance at the end of the ROM) when the affected part is moved in flexion or extension, 1+ (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch, followed by minimal resistance throughout the remainder (less than half) of the ROM), 2 (more marked increase in muscle tone), 3 (considerable increase in muscle tone) or 4 (affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension). The original score '+1' was given a derived numeric score of '2' and the higher numeric scores were incremented by 1 so that the MAS score range was from 0 to 5 with higher scores indicating greater muscle tone. A negative change from baseline indicates a decrease in muscle tone. Data is presented for subjects injected in the elbow flexors.
Mean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Wrist Flexors of the Study LimbBaseline (TC 1, Day 1) and TC 1, Weeks 6 and 16.The MAS was used to assess muscle tone in the upper limb PTMG and consists of 6 grades: 0 (no increase in muscle tone), 1 (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch and release or by minimal resistance at the end of the ROM) when the affected part is moved in flexion or extension, 1+ (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch, followed by minimal resistance throughout the remainder (less than half) of the ROM), 2 (more marked increase in muscle tone), 3 (considerable increase in muscle tone) or 4 (affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension). The original score '+1' was given a derived numeric score of '2' and the higher numeric scores were incremented by 1 so that the MAS score range was from 0 to 5 with higher scores indicating greater muscle tone. A negative change from baseline indicates a decrease in muscle tone. Data is presented for subjects injected in the wrist flexors.

Countries

Belgium, Czechia, Israel, Mexico, Poland, Spain, Turkey (Türkiye), United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Male and female subjects aged between 2 and 17 years with upper limb spasticity due to cerebral palsy (CP) were recruited from April 2014 and the study completed in September 2018. Subjects could receive a maximum of 4 treatment cycles (TC) over a minimum of 1 year and maximum of 1 year and 9 months, with at least 16 weeks between each TC.

Pre-assignment details

Subjects had a body weight ≥10 kilograms (kg), increased muscle tone/spasticity in at least 1 upper limb, a modified Ashworth scale (MAS) score ≥2 in the upper limb primary targeted muscle group (PTMG) of the study limb at baseline. Subjects were stratified according to age (2-9 and 10-17 years) and Botulinum Toxin (BTX) naïve or non-naïve status.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Dysport 2 U/kg
Subjects were randomised to receive Dysport 2 U/kg by IM injection into the study upper limb in TC 1 and Dysport 8 U/kg or 16 U/kg in subsequent TCs (2, 3 and 4).
70
Dysport 8 U/kg
Subjects were randomised to receive Dysport 8 U/kg by IM injection into the study upper limb in TC 1 and all subsequent TCs (2, 3 and 4), up to a maximum of 320 U.
70
Dysport 16 U/kg
Subjects were randomised to receive Dysport 16 U/kg by IM injection into the study upper limb in TC 1 and all subsequent TCs (2, 3 and 4), up to a maximum of 640 U.
70
Total210

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001FG002
Treatment Cycle 1Adverse Event200
Treatment Cycle 1Consent withdrawn102
Treatment Cycle 1Lost to Follow-up100
Treatment Cycle 1Other031
Treatment Cycle 1Randomised but not treated101
Treatment Cycle 2Adverse Event020
Treatment Cycle 2Consent withdrawn011
Treatment Cycle 2Other022
Treatment Cycle 3Adverse Event010
Treatment Cycle 3Consent withdrawn002
Treatment Cycle 3Lost to Follow-up010
Treatment Cycle 3Other023
Treatment Cycle 4Consent withdrawn002
Treatment Cycle 4Other010

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicDysport 2 U/kgDysport 8 U/kgDysport 16 U/kgTotal
Age, Continuous8.91 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.55
8.97 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.27
9.17 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.3
9.02 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.36
Age, Customized
10 - 17 Years
30 Participants30 Participants30 Participants90 Participants
Age, Customized
2 - 9 Years
40 Participants40 Participants40 Participants120 Participants
Baseline MAS Score in the PTMG3.1 score on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.3
3.1 score on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.3
3.1 score on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.5
3.1 score on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.4
BTX Status
BTX naïve
25 Participants23 Participants24 Participants72 Participants
BTX Status
BTX non-naïve
45 Participants47 Participants46 Participants138 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Asian
2 Participants1 Participants0 Participants3 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Black or African American
7 Participants6 Participants3 Participants16 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Multiple
12 Participants8 Participants13 Participants33 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White
49 Participants54 Participants54 Participants157 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Hispanic or Latino
16 Participants13 Participants15 Participants44 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Not Hispanic or Latino
54 Participants57 Participants55 Participants166 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
32 Participants24 Participants28 Participants84 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
38 Participants46 Participants42 Participants126 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
EG003
affected / at risk
EG004
affected / at risk
EG005
affected / at risk
EG006
affected / at risk
EG007
affected / at risk
EG008
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 700 / 700 / 700 / 880 / 900 / 490 / 580 / 220 / 33
other
Total, other adverse events
15 / 7023 / 7019 / 7018 / 8817 / 9014 / 4910 / 5814 / 225 / 33
serious
Total, serious adverse events
4 / 702 / 702 / 706 / 881 / 903 / 492 / 582 / 221 / 33

Outcome results

Primary

Mean Change From Baseline to TC 1, Week 6 in MAS Score in the TC 1 PTMG

The MAS was used to assess muscle tone in the upper limb PTMG and consists of 6 grades: 0 (no increase in muscle tone), 1 (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch and release or by minimal resistance at the end of the ROM) when the affected part is moved in flexion or extension, 1+ (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch, followed by minimal resistance throughout the remainder (less than half) of the ROM), 2 (more marked increase in muscle tone), 3 (considerable increase in muscle tone) or 4 (affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension). The original score '+1' was given a derived numeric score of '2' and the higher numeric scores were incremented by 1 so that the MAS score range was from 0 to 5 with higher scores indicating greater muscle tone. A negative change from baseline indicates a decrease in muscle tone.

Time frame: Baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and TC 1, Week 6.

Population: The mITT population consisted of all randomised subjects who received at least 1 injection of the study treatment and had a MAS score in the PTMG assessed at both baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and at TC 1, Week 6.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Dysport 2 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1, Week 6 in MAS Score in the TC 1 PTMG-1.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Dysport 8 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1, Week 6 in MAS Score in the TC 1 PTMG-1.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
Dysport 16 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1, Week 6 in MAS Score in the TC 1 PTMG-2.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
Comparison: The treatment difference between Dysport 8 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on the ranked changes from baseline. The model included treatment group, the baseline value, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the pooled centre as fixed effects. The derived least squares (LS) means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.p-value: 0.0118ANCOVA
Comparison: The treatment difference between Dysport 16 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an ANCOVA on the ranked changes from baseline. The model included treatment group, the baseline value, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the pooled centre as fixed effects. The derived LS means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.p-value: <0.0001ANCOVA
Secondary

Mean Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) Total Score at TC 1, Week 6

The GAS is a functional 5-point scale used to measure progress towards individual therapy goals. At start of each TC, 1 to 3 individual goals were defined for each subject by investigator and child's parents/guardians/caregivers prior to treatment. Outcome to reach each goal was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from -2 to +2 (-2: much less than expected outcome, -1: somewhat less than expected outcome, 0: expected outcome, +1: somewhat more than expected outcome, +2: much more than expected outcome). Higher score indicates a better outcome. A GAS T-score was calculated as: 50+(10∑\_(i=1)\^n wi xi)/√(0.7∑\_(i=1)\^n wi\^2 +0.3(∑\_(i=1)\^n wi)\^2) where, xi = rating of ith goal post-baseline; wi = weight of ith goal, calculated as importance \* difficulty as defined at baseline; n = number of goals assessed at baseline and post-baseline. A GAS T-score of 50 indicates goals achieved as expected. Scores below 50 reflect under attainment of goals and scores above 50 reflect over attainment of goals.

Time frame: TC 1, Week 6.

Population: The mITT population consisted of all randomised subjects who received at least 1 injection of the study treatment and had a MAS score in the PTMG assessed at both baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and at TC 1, Week 6. Subjects with data available are presented.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Dysport 2 U/kgMean Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) Total Score at TC 1, Week 651.3 T-scoreStandard Deviation 9.9
Dysport 8 U/kgMean Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) Total Score at TC 1, Week 652.6 T-scoreStandard Deviation 10.1
Dysport 16 U/kgMean Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) Total Score at TC 1, Week 652.0 T-scoreStandard Deviation 9.6
Comparison: The treatment difference between Dysport 8 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using ANOVA on the GAS Total score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects.p-value: 0.764895% CI: [-2.7, 3.7]ANOVA
Comparison: The treatment difference between Dysport 16 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using ANOVA on the GAS Total score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects.p-value: 0.742995% CI: [-2.6, 3.7]ANOVA
Secondary

Mean Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at TC 1, Week 6

The PGA of treatment response was assessed by asking the investigator the following question: 'How would you rate the response to treatment in the subject's upper limb since the start of the study?'. Answers were on a 9-point rating scale (-4: markedly worse, -3: much worse, -2: worse, -1: slightly worse, 0: no change, +1: slightly improved, +2: improved, +3: much improved and +4: markedly improved). The mean scores for each treatment group at TC 1, Week 6 are presented.

Time frame: TC 1, Week 6.

Population: The mITT population consisted of all randomised subjects who received at least 1 injection of the study treatment and had a MAS score in the PTMG assessed at both baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and at TC 1, Week 6. Subjects with data available are presented.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Dysport 2 U/kgMean Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at TC 1, Week 61.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
Dysport 8 U/kgMean Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at TC 1, Week 62.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
Dysport 16 U/kgMean Physician's Global Assessment (PGA) Score at TC 1, Week 62.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
Comparison: The treatment difference between Dysport 8 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the rank of the PGA score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects. The derived LS means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.p-value: 0.2043ANOVA
Comparison: The treatment difference between Dysport 16 U/kg and Dysport 2 U/kg was analysed using an ANOVA on the rank of the PGA score at TC 1, Week 6. The model included treatment group, the 2 stratification factors (age range and BTX status at baseline) and the centre as fixed effects. The derived LS means were back transformed to the original scale and the treatment difference determined.p-value: 0.188ANOVA
Other Pre-specified

Mean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Week 16 in MAS Score in the TC 1 PTMG

The MAS was used to assess muscle tone in the upper limb PTMG and consists of 6 grades: 0 (no increase in muscle tone), 1 (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch and release or by minimal resistance at the end of the ROM) when the affected part is moved in flexion or extension, 1+ (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch, followed by minimal resistance throughout the remainder (less than half) of the ROM), 2 (more marked increase in muscle tone), 3 (considerable increase in muscle tone) or 4 (affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension). The original score '+1' was given a derived numeric score of '2' and the higher numeric scores were incremented by 1 so that the MAS score range was from 0 to 5 with higher scores indicating greater muscle tone. A negative change from baseline indicates a decrease in muscle tone.

Time frame: Baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and TC 1, Week 16.

Population: The mITT population consisted of all randomised subjects who received at least 1 injection of the study treatment and had a MAS score in the PTMG assessed at both baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and at TC 1, Week 6. Subjects with data available at the timepoint analysed are presented.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Dysport 2 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Week 16 in MAS Score in the TC 1 PTMG-1.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
Dysport 8 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Week 16 in MAS Score in the TC 1 PTMG-1.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Dysport 16 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Week 16 in MAS Score in the TC 1 PTMG-1.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
Other Pre-specified

Mean Change From Baseline to TC 1, Week 16 in the Paediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL) Scores

Parents/guardians completed questionnaires on their child's quality of life. The PedsQL parent inventory measured healthcare concepts for children/adolescents aged 2-18 years. The Generic Core Scales include physical, emotional, social and school aspects. The CP module was also completed. Scores were transformed on a scale from 0 to 100 with higher scores indicating a better quality of life. Mean changes from baseline to TC 1, Week 16 are presented for the General Core Scale and for the CP module. A positive change from baseline indicates an improvement in quality of life.

Time frame: Baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and TC 1, Week 16.

Population: The mITT population consisted of all randomised subjects who received at least 1 injection of the study treatment and had a MAS score in the PTMG assessed at both baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and at TC 1, Week 6. Subjects who were assessed at each timepoint are presented.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Dysport 2 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1, Week 16 in the Paediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL) ScoresGeneric Core Scale3.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.7
Dysport 2 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1, Week 16 in the Paediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL) ScoresCP Module4.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.8
Dysport 8 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1, Week 16 in the Paediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL) ScoresGeneric Core Scale3.4 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.1
Dysport 8 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1, Week 16 in the Paediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL) ScoresCP Module2.1 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 14.9
Dysport 16 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1, Week 16 in the Paediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL) ScoresGeneric Core Scale2.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 12
Dysport 16 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1, Week 16 in the Paediatric Quality of Life (PedsQL) ScoresCP Module2.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.2
Other Pre-specified

Mean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Elbow Flexors of the Study Limb

The MAS was used to assess muscle tone in the upper limb PTMG and consists of 6 grades: 0 (no increase in muscle tone), 1 (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch and release or by minimal resistance at the end of the ROM) when the affected part is moved in flexion or extension, 1+ (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch, followed by minimal resistance throughout the remainder (less than half) of the ROM), 2 (more marked increase in muscle tone), 3 (considerable increase in muscle tone) or 4 (affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension). The original score '+1' was given a derived numeric score of '2' and the higher numeric scores were incremented by 1 so that the MAS score range was from 0 to 5 with higher scores indicating greater muscle tone. A negative change from baseline indicates a decrease in muscle tone. Data is presented for subjects injected in the elbow flexors.

Time frame: Baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and TC 1, Weeks 6 and 16.

Population: The mITT population consisted of all randomised subjects who received at least 1 injection of the study treatment and had a MAS score in the PTMG assessed at both baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and at TC 1, Week 6. Subjects with data available at each timepoint and who were injected in the elbow flexors are presented.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Dysport 2 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Elbow Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 6-1.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Dysport 2 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Elbow Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 16-0.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
Dysport 8 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Elbow Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 6-1.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Dysport 8 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Elbow Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 16-1.2 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
Dysport 16 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Elbow Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 6-1.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
Dysport 16 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Elbow Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 16-1.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.4
Other Pre-specified

Mean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Finger Flexors of the Study Limb

The MAS was used to assess muscle tone in the upper limb PTMG and consists of 6 grades: 0 (no increase in muscle tone), 1 (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch and release or by minimal resistance at the end of the ROM) when the affected part is moved in flexion or extension, 1+ (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch, followed by minimal resistance throughout the remainder (less than half) of the ROM), 2 (more marked increase in muscle tone), 3 (considerable increase in muscle tone) or 4 (affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension). The original score '+1' was given a derived numeric score of '2' and the higher numeric scores were incremented by 1 so that the MAS score range was from 0 to 5 with higher scores indicating greater muscle tone. A negative change from baseline indicates a decrease in muscle tone. Data is presented for subjects injected in the finger flexors.

Time frame: Baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and TC 1, Weeks 6 and 16.

Population: The mITT population consisted of all randomised subjects who received at least 1 injection of the study treatment and had a MAS score in the PTMG assessed at both baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and at TC 1, Week 6. Subjects with data available at each timepoint and who were injected in the finger flexors are presented.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Dysport 2 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Finger Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 6-0.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
Dysport 2 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Finger Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 16-0.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.3
Dysport 8 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Finger Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 6-1.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Dysport 8 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Finger Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 16-1.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
Dysport 16 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Finger Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 6-1.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
Dysport 16 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Finger Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 16-1.8 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
Other Pre-specified

Mean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Wrist Flexors of the Study Limb

The MAS was used to assess muscle tone in the upper limb PTMG and consists of 6 grades: 0 (no increase in muscle tone), 1 (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch and release or by minimal resistance at the end of the ROM) when the affected part is moved in flexion or extension, 1+ (slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch, followed by minimal resistance throughout the remainder (less than half) of the ROM), 2 (more marked increase in muscle tone), 3 (considerable increase in muscle tone) or 4 (affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension). The original score '+1' was given a derived numeric score of '2' and the higher numeric scores were incremented by 1 so that the MAS score range was from 0 to 5 with higher scores indicating greater muscle tone. A negative change from baseline indicates a decrease in muscle tone. Data is presented for subjects injected in the wrist flexors.

Time frame: Baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and TC 1, Weeks 6 and 16.

Population: The mITT population consisted of all randomised subjects who received at least 1 injection of the study treatment and had a MAS score in the PTMG assessed at both baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and at TC 1, Week 6. Subjects with data available at each timepoint and who were injected in the wrist flexors are presented.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Dysport 2 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Wrist Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 6-1.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Dysport 2 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Wrist Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 16-0.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
Dysport 8 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Wrist Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 6-1.5 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
Dysport 8 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Wrist Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 16-1.0 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
Dysport 16 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Wrist Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 6-1.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.3
Dysport 16 U/kgMean Change From Baseline to TC 1 Weeks 6 and 16 in MAS Score in the Wrist Flexors of the Study LimbWeek 16-1.3 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2
Other Pre-specified

Mean GAS Total Score at TC 1, Week 16

The GAS is a functional 5-point scale used to measure progress towards individual therapy goals. At start of each TC, 1 to 3 individual goals were defined for each subject by investigator and child's parents/guardians/caregivers prior to treatment. Outcome to reach each goal was rated on a 5-point scale ranging from -2 to +2 (-2: much less than expected outcome, -1: somewhat less than expected outcome, 0: expected outcome, +1: somewhat more than expected outcome, +2: much more than expected outcome). Higher score indicates a better outcome. A GAS T-score was calculated as: 50+(10∑\_(i=1)\^n wi xi)/√(0.7∑\_(i=1)\^n wi\^2 +0.3(∑\_(i=1)\^n wi)\^2) where, xi = rating of ith goal post-baseline; wi = weight of ith goal, calculated as importance \* difficulty as defined at baseline; n = number of goals assessed at baseline and post-baseline. A GAS T-score of 50 indicates goals achieved as expected. Scores below 50 reflect under attainment of goals and scores above 50 reflect over attainment of goals.

Time frame: Baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and TC 1, Week 16.

Population: The mITT population consisted of all randomised subjects who received at least 1 injection of the study treatment and had a MAS score in the PTMG assessed at both baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and at TC 1, Week 6. Subjects with available data at the timepoint analysed are presented.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Dysport 2 U/kgMean GAS Total Score at TC 1, Week 1654.7 T-scoreStandard Deviation 9.8
Dysport 8 U/kgMean GAS Total Score at TC 1, Week 1654.2 T-scoreStandard Deviation 9.7
Dysport 16 U/kgMean GAS Total Score at TC 1, Week 1655.1 T-scoreStandard Deviation 10.1
Other Pre-specified

Mean PGA Score at TC 1 Week 16

The PGA of treatment response was assessed by asking the investigator the following question: 'How would you rate the response to treatment in the subject's upper limb since the start of the study?'. Answers were on a 9-point rating scale (-4: markedly worse, -3: much worse, -2: worse, -1: slightly worse, 0: no change, +1: slightly improved, +2: improved, +3: much improved and +4: markedly improved). The mean scores for each treatment group at TC 1 Week 16 are presented.

Time frame: Baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and TC 1, Week 16.

Population: The mITT population consisted of all randomised subjects who received at least 1 injection of the study treatment and had a MAS score in the PTMG assessed at both baseline (TC 1, Day 1) and at TC 1, Week 6. Subjects with available data at the timepoint analysed are presented.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Dysport 2 U/kgMean PGA Score at TC 1 Week 161.7 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
Dysport 8 U/kgMean PGA Score at TC 1 Week 161.6 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.1
Dysport 16 U/kgMean PGA Score at TC 1 Week 161.9 score on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.2

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Mar 9, 2026