Skip to content

Essential Voice Tremor: A Study of Botulinum Toxin Treatment and Injection Augmentation

Essential Voice Tremor: An Unblinded Crossover Study of Botulinum Toxin Treatment and Injection Augmentation

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02711995
Enrollment
8
Registered
2016-03-17
Start date
2015-12-15
Completion date
2016-09-29
Last updated
2018-02-05

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

Conditions

Essential Tremor

Keywords

botulinum toxin, injection augmentation, essential voice tremor

Brief summary

Botulinum toxin is the common treatment of choice for patients with Essential Voice Tremor (EVT), but results are not universally beneficial to all patients. Inconsistent results are noted in the literature and are consistent with the PI's clinical experience. Injection augmentation, a well-established treatment for glottic insufficiency, which is a prominent factor in the clinical presentation of Essential Voice Tremor (EVT), has not been studied. By treating patients at separate times with botulinum toxin and injection augmentation in an unblinded prospective crossover treatment study, we can assess functional outcomes of these two treatments with the population of patients with Essential Voice Tremor (EVT).

Detailed description

The purpose of this study is to compare treatment with botulinum toxin to treatment with injection augmentation in patients diagnosed with essential voice tremor. Botulinum toxin treatment is the injection of botulinum toxin into the muscles of the vocal cords through the skin of the neck. This is identical to the injections you may have received in the past for your disorder. Injection augmentation is the injection of a filler material into the vocal cords through the skin of the neck, guided by the view from a flexible laryngoscope inserted through the nostril. The flexible laryngoscopy is identical to the procedure that the doctor has used to examine your vocal cords in the past. It is the routine diagnostic evaluation technique of voice disorders. Periodic injections with botulinum toxin (Botox) is the current standard of care for patients diagnosed with essential voice tremor, but studies show only about 60% of patients benefit substantially enough to continue treatment. Poor vocal fold closure, a common characteristic of essential voice tremor, is treated in other situations (such as vocal fold paralysis or paresis) with injection augmentation; thus there is reason to think that it may be helpful to patients with essential voice tremor, perhaps even to a greater extent than botulinum toxin.

Interventions

DRUGRenuGel

Injection augmentation is the injection of a filler material (Brand: RenuGel; generic: Carboxymethylcellulose) into the vocal cords through the skin of the neck, guided by the view from a flexible laryngoscope inserted through the nostril. The flexible laryngoscopy is identical to the procedure that the doctor has used to examine your vocal cords in the past. It is the routine diagnostic evaluation technique of voice disorders.

DRUGBotulinum Toxin

Botulinum toxin treatment is the injection of botulinum toxin into the muscles of the vocal cords through the skin of the neck. This is identical to the injections you may have received in the past for your disorder.

Sponsors

Weill Medical College of Cornell University
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NON_RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 100 Years
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Male and female patients ages 18-100 who have been diagnosed with essential tremor of the voice (EVT) Diagnosis Code 478.75 Laryngeal Spasm.

Exclusion criteria

* WCMC subjects under age 18 * Pregnant patients * Patients with laryngeal pathology besides tremor, including but not limited to polyps and other benign lesions, precancerous or cancerous changes, vocal fold paralysis, or other laryngeal disorders of mobility

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Baseline and 30 days after interventionThe Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) was developed to standardize the evaluation and scaling of vocal tremor. Tremor at a specific site was scored according to severity by the laryngologist. It can be rated as: none (0), mild/intermittent (1), moderate (2), severe (3). Six different regions were evaluated in this study: base of tongue, larynx, palate, pharyngeal walls, supraglottis, and true vocal folds. The scale range for each region was 0-3. The total score was a summation of all six regions, with a scalar range of 0-18.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Aerodynamic Data- AirflowBaseline and 30 days after interventionAerodynamic data were collected using the Phonatory Aerodynamic System (PAS) 6600 (Pentax). Subjects held a facemask coupled to a pneumotachometer with a pressure-sensor tube firmly over the nose and mouth, and rested the pressure-sensor tube in the oral cavity above the tongue. They produced sustained /a/ and We were away a year ago, from which mean airflow wasanalyzed via the Maximum Sustained Phonation and Running Speech protocols.
Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Baseline and 30 days after interventionThe Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) is used to describe the severity of auditory-perceptual attributes of a voice problem. It indicates salient perceptual vocal attributes: (a) Overall Severity; (b) Roughness; (c) Breathiness; (d) Strain; (e) Pitch; and (f) Loudness. The CAPE-V displays each attribute accompanied by a 100- millimeter line forming a visual analog scale (VAS). The clinician indicates the degree of perceived deviance from normal for each parameter on this scale, using a tic mark. For each dimension, scalar extremes are unlabeled. The scale range is from 0mm to 100mm. Results can indicate distance in mm to describe the degree of deviancy, so the higher the score the more deviancy from the norm there is.
Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10)Baseline and 30 days after interventionThe Voice Handicap Index-10 consists of 10 questions (statements about voice), where patients rate their the frequency of their problems as: never (0), almost never (1), sometimes (2), almost always (3), and always (4). The scores from each answer are added, and can range from 0-40. The higher the score, the worse the patient's perception of their voice handicap.
Acoustic Analysis- FrequenciesBaseline and 30 days after interventionFor acoustic assessment, subjects produced a sustained /a/ sound at their habitual speaking pitch and loudness and read assessment sentences from the Consensus Audio-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)protocol. Tasks were recorded and analyzed using the Analysis of Dysphonia in Speech and Voice (ADSV) and Multi-Dimensional Voice Profile (MDVP) software. A handheld microphone 3 inches from the subjects' mouths was used for all recordings. The Sustained Vowel and All-Voiced Sentence protocols of the ADSV were used to obtain cepstral peak prominence fundamental frequency (CPP F0), The MDVP was used to obtain amplitude tremor frequency (Fatr), and fundamental frequency tremor frequency (Fftr).
Aerodynamic Data- Peak Air PressureBaseline and 30 days after interventionAerodynamic data were collected using the Phonatory Aerodynamic System (PAS) 6600 (Pentax). Subjects held a facemask coupled to a pneumotachometer with a pressure-sensor tube firmly over the nose and mouth, and rested the pressure-sensor tube in the oral cavity above the tongue. A string of five consonant-vowel syllables (/pa/) at a comfortable pitch and loudness were analyzed through the Voicing Efficiency protocol to determine mean peak air pressure.
Aerodynamic Data- LoudnessBaseline and 30 days after interventionAerodynamic data were collected using the Phonatory Aerodynamic System (PAS) 6600 (Pentax). Subjects held a facemask coupled to a pneumotachometer with a pressure-sensor tube firmly over the nose and mouth, and rested the pressure-sensor tube in the oral cavity above the tongue. They produced sustained /a/ and We were away a year ago, from which loudness was analyzed via the Maximum Sustained Phonation and Running Speech protocols.
Aerodynamic Data- Maximum Phonation TimeBaseline and 30 days after interventionAerodynamic data were collected using the Phonatory Aerodynamic System (PAS) 6600 (Pentax). Subjects held a facemask coupled to a pneumotachometer with a pressure-sensor tube firmly over the nose and mouth, and rested the pressure-sensor tube in the oral cavity above the tongue. They produced sustained /a/ from which Maximum Sustained Phonation time was recorded.
Percent of Normal Function (PNF)Baseline and 30 days after interventionThe Percent of Normal Function (PNF) is a scale for patients to rate their recurrent functions in increments of five, from no function (0%) to normal function (100%). The higher the percentage, the more normal the function as experienced by the patient.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

Eight patients were enrolled in the study, and seven patients completed the study. The first participant enrolled on December 15, 2015 and the last patient completed the study on September 29, 2016. All patients were seen at Weill Cornell Medicine ENT located at 1305 York Avenue,5th Floor NY NY 10021

Pre-assignment details

One patient was excluded prior to the second intervention. Her neurologist started her on a medication that could have confounded our findings, therefore her participation in the study ended. She still received treatment, but was no longer considered a study subject.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Botulinum Toxin First and RenuGel After
Patients with essential voice tremor underwent botulinum toxin chemodenervation injection. After washout (90 days) , patients underwent injection augmentation. Injection augmentation is the injection of a filler material (Brand: RenuGel; generic: Carboxymethylcellulose) into the vocal cords through the skin of the neck, guided by the view from a flexible laryngoscope inserted through the nostril.
7
Total7

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000
Washout (90 Days)Conflicting medication1

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicBotulinum Toxin First and RenuGel After
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
4 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
3 Participants
Age, Continuous62 years
Region of Enrollment
United States
7 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
5 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
2 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 70 / 7
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 70 / 7
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 70 / 7

Outcome results

Primary

Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)

The Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) was developed to standardize the evaluation and scaling of vocal tremor. Tremor at a specific site was scored according to severity by the laryngologist. It can be rated as: none (0), mild/intermittent (1), moderate (2), severe (3). Six different regions were evaluated in this study: base of tongue, larynx, palate, pharyngeal walls, supraglottis, and true vocal folds. The scale range for each region was 0-3. The total score was a summation of all six regions, with a scalar range of 0-18.

Time frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Botulinum ToxinVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Base of tongue 30 days after intervention1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.29
Botulinum ToxinVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Palate at Baseline2.14 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
Botulinum ToxinVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Base of tongue at Baseline0.57 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.79
Botulinum ToxinVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Larynx at Baseline1.43 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.98
Botulinum ToxinVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Larynx 30 days after intervention1.86 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.07
Botulinum ToxinVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Palate 30 days after intervention1.71 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.95
Botulinum ToxinVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Pharyngeal walls at baseline1.86 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.35
Botulinum ToxinVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Pharyngeal walls 30 days after intervention1.86 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
Botulinum ToxinVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Supraglottis at Baseline2.14 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.69
Botulinum ToxinVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Supraglottis 30 days after intervention1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.82
Botulinum ToxinVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)True Vocal Folds at Baseline2.14 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
Botulinum ToxinVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)True Vocal Folds 30 days after intervention1.57 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.98
Botulinum ToxinVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Total at Baseline10.29 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.15
Botulinum ToxinVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Total at 30 days after intervention9 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.83
RenuGelVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)True Vocal Folds at Baseline1.71 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.95
RenuGelVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Pharyngeal walls 30 days after intervention1.14 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.07
RenuGelVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Total at Baseline8.29 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.25
RenuGelVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Base of tongue at Baseline0.57 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.53
RenuGelVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Base of tongue 30 days after intervention0.43 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.13
RenuGelVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Supraglottis at Baseline1.57 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.98
RenuGelVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Larynx at Baseline0.86 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.46
RenuGelVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)True Vocal Folds 30 days after intervention1.43 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.27
RenuGelVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Larynx 30 days after intervention1.29 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.25
RenuGelVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Palate at Baseline1.71 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.76
RenuGelVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Supraglottis 30 days after intervention1.71 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.76
RenuGelVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Palate 30 days after intervention1.86 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
RenuGelVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Total at 30 days after intervention7.86 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.98
RenuGelVocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS)Pharyngeal walls at baseline1.86 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
Secondary

Acoustic Analysis- Frequencies

For acoustic assessment, subjects produced a sustained /a/ sound at their habitual speaking pitch and loudness and read assessment sentences from the Consensus Audio-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)protocol. Tasks were recorded and analyzed using the Analysis of Dysphonia in Speech and Voice (ADSV) and Multi-Dimensional Voice Profile (MDVP) software. A handheld microphone 3 inches from the subjects' mouths was used for all recordings. The Sustained Vowel and All-Voiced Sentence protocols of the ADSV were used to obtain cepstral peak prominence fundamental frequency (CPP F0), The MDVP was used to obtain amplitude tremor frequency (Fatr), and fundamental frequency tremor frequency (Fftr).

Time frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Botulinum ToxinAcoustic Analysis- FrequenciesCPP F0 Baseline203.13 Frequency (Hz)Standard Deviation 35.7
Botulinum ToxinAcoustic Analysis- FrequenciesCPP F0 30 Days after Intervention194.11 Frequency (Hz)Standard Deviation 34.47
Botulinum ToxinAcoustic Analysis- FrequenciesFatr Baseline3.81 Frequency (Hz)Standard Deviation 2.21
Botulinum ToxinAcoustic Analysis- FrequenciesFatr 30 days after intervention3.87 Frequency (Hz)Standard Deviation 1.05
Botulinum ToxinAcoustic Analysis- FrequenciesFftr Baseline4.53 Frequency (Hz)Standard Deviation 1.28
Botulinum ToxinAcoustic Analysis- FrequenciesFftr 30 days after intervention4.11 Frequency (Hz)Standard Deviation 1.31
RenuGelAcoustic Analysis- FrequenciesFftr Baseline4.22 Frequency (Hz)Standard Deviation 1.86
RenuGelAcoustic Analysis- FrequenciesCPP F0 Baseline195.06 Frequency (Hz)Standard Deviation 36.15
RenuGelAcoustic Analysis- FrequenciesFatr 30 days after intervention4.09 Frequency (Hz)Standard Deviation 0.88
RenuGelAcoustic Analysis- FrequenciesCPP F0 30 Days after Intervention189.96 Frequency (Hz)Standard Deviation 31.27
RenuGelAcoustic Analysis- FrequenciesFftr 30 days after intervention4.20 Frequency (Hz)Standard Deviation 1.34
RenuGelAcoustic Analysis- FrequenciesFatr Baseline3.69 Frequency (Hz)Standard Deviation 1.5
Secondary

Aerodynamic Data- Airflow

Aerodynamic data were collected using the Phonatory Aerodynamic System (PAS) 6600 (Pentax). Subjects held a facemask coupled to a pneumotachometer with a pressure-sensor tube firmly over the nose and mouth, and rested the pressure-sensor tube in the oral cavity above the tongue. They produced sustained /a/ and We were away a year ago, from which mean airflow wasanalyzed via the Maximum Sustained Phonation and Running Speech protocols.

Time frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Botulinum ToxinAerodynamic Data- AirflowMean airflow during voicing Baseline0.32 Liters per second (L/s)Standard Deviation 0.47
Botulinum ToxinAerodynamic Data- AirflowMean airflow during voicing 30 days after interven0.38 Liters per second (L/s)Standard Deviation 0.6
Botulinum ToxinAerodynamic Data- AirflowMean expiratory airflow Baseline0.31 Liters per second (L/s)Standard Deviation 0.38
Botulinum ToxinAerodynamic Data- AirflowMean expiratory airflow 30 days after intervention0.42 Liters per second (L/s)Standard Deviation 0.63
RenuGelAerodynamic Data- AirflowMean expiratory airflow 30 days after intervention0.23 Liters per second (L/s)Standard Deviation 0.21
RenuGelAerodynamic Data- AirflowMean airflow during voicing Baseline0.34 Liters per second (L/s)Standard Deviation 0.41
RenuGelAerodynamic Data- AirflowMean expiratory airflow Baseline0.35 Liters per second (L/s)Standard Deviation 0.4
RenuGelAerodynamic Data- AirflowMean airflow during voicing 30 days after interven0.26 Liters per second (L/s)Standard Deviation 0.25
Secondary

Aerodynamic Data- Loudness

Aerodynamic data were collected using the Phonatory Aerodynamic System (PAS) 6600 (Pentax). Subjects held a facemask coupled to a pneumotachometer with a pressure-sensor tube firmly over the nose and mouth, and rested the pressure-sensor tube in the oral cavity above the tongue. They produced sustained /a/ and We were away a year ago, from which loudness was analyzed via the Maximum Sustained Phonation and Running Speech protocols.

Time frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Botulinum ToxinAerodynamic Data- LoudnessMean loudness Baseline82.67 Decibel of sound pressure level (dB SPL)Standard Deviation 8.26
Botulinum ToxinAerodynamic Data- LoudnessMean loudness 30 Days after Intervention81.40 Decibel of sound pressure level (dB SPL)Standard Deviation 6.29
RenuGelAerodynamic Data- LoudnessMean loudness Baseline85.16 Decibel of sound pressure level (dB SPL)Standard Deviation 5.02
RenuGelAerodynamic Data- LoudnessMean loudness 30 Days after Intervention84.82 Decibel of sound pressure level (dB SPL)Standard Deviation 5.04
Secondary

Aerodynamic Data- Maximum Phonation Time

Aerodynamic data were collected using the Phonatory Aerodynamic System (PAS) 6600 (Pentax). Subjects held a facemask coupled to a pneumotachometer with a pressure-sensor tube firmly over the nose and mouth, and rested the pressure-sensor tube in the oral cavity above the tongue. They produced sustained /a/ from which Maximum Sustained Phonation time was recorded.

Time frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Botulinum ToxinAerodynamic Data- Maximum Phonation TimeMaximum Phonation Time 30 days after intervention9.21 seconds (s)Standard Deviation 5.08
Botulinum ToxinAerodynamic Data- Maximum Phonation TimeMaximum Phonation Time Baseline12.27 seconds (s)Standard Deviation 10.34
RenuGelAerodynamic Data- Maximum Phonation TimeMaximum Phonation Time Baseline10 seconds (s)Standard Deviation 10.57
RenuGelAerodynamic Data- Maximum Phonation TimeMaximum Phonation Time 30 days after intervention9.34 seconds (s)Standard Deviation 7.52
Secondary

Aerodynamic Data- Peak Air Pressure

Aerodynamic data were collected using the Phonatory Aerodynamic System (PAS) 6600 (Pentax). Subjects held a facemask coupled to a pneumotachometer with a pressure-sensor tube firmly over the nose and mouth, and rested the pressure-sensor tube in the oral cavity above the tongue. A string of five consonant-vowel syllables (/pa/) at a comfortable pitch and loudness were analyzed through the Voicing Efficiency protocol to determine mean peak air pressure.

Time frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Botulinum ToxinAerodynamic Data- Peak Air PressureMean peak air pressure Baseline6.98 Centimeter of water (cm H2O)Standard Deviation 2.11
Botulinum ToxinAerodynamic Data- Peak Air PressureMean peak air pressure 30 days after intervention7.91 Centimeter of water (cm H2O)Standard Deviation 4.13
RenuGelAerodynamic Data- Peak Air PressureMean peak air pressure Baseline9.66 Centimeter of water (cm H2O)Standard Deviation 3.97
RenuGelAerodynamic Data- Peak Air PressureMean peak air pressure 30 days after intervention10.08 Centimeter of water (cm H2O)Standard Deviation 4.04
Secondary

Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)

The Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) is used to describe the severity of auditory-perceptual attributes of a voice problem. It indicates salient perceptual vocal attributes: (a) Overall Severity; (b) Roughness; (c) Breathiness; (d) Strain; (e) Pitch; and (f) Loudness. The CAPE-V displays each attribute accompanied by a 100- millimeter line forming a visual analog scale (VAS). The clinician indicates the degree of perceived deviance from normal for each parameter on this scale, using a tic mark. For each dimension, scalar extremes are unlabeled. The scale range is from 0mm to 100mm. Results can indicate distance in mm to describe the degree of deviancy, so the higher the score the more deviancy from the norm there is.

Time frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Botulinum ToxinConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Breathiness at Baseline40 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 31.49
Botulinum ToxinConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Breathiness 30 days after intervention42.14 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.3
Botulinum ToxinConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Loudness at Baseline23.57 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 33.26
Botulinum ToxinConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Loudness 30 days after intervention29.29 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 31.01
Botulinum ToxinConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Pitch at Baseline45.71 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 26.99
Botulinum ToxinConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Roughness at Baseline32.14 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.76
Botulinum ToxinConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Strain 30 days after intervention41.43 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.22
Botulinum ToxinConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Overall at Baseline63.71 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.47
Botulinum ToxinConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Overall after intervention55.43 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.21
Botulinum ToxinConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Roughness 30 days after intervention32.43 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.52
Botulinum ToxinConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Strain at Baseline59.29 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.4
Botulinum ToxinConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Pitch 30 days after intervention41.43 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.49
RenuGelConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Roughness at Baseline37.14 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.38
RenuGelConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Breathiness at Baseline47.14 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 28.56
RenuGelConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Roughness 30 days after intervention30.71 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.39
RenuGelConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Breathiness 30 days after intervention31.43 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 27.95
RenuGelConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Strain at Baseline55 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 30.41
RenuGelConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Loudness at Baseline30.71 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 31.81
RenuGelConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Strain 30 days after intervention52.86 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.07
RenuGelConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Loudness 30 days after intervention20 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.32
RenuGelConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Overall after intervention56.43 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.93
RenuGelConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Pitch at Baseline55.71 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 24.57
RenuGelConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Pitch 30 days after intervention49.71 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 23.75
RenuGelConsensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V)Overall at Baseline64 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 27.59
Secondary

Percent of Normal Function (PNF)

The Percent of Normal Function (PNF) is a scale for patients to rate their recurrent functions in increments of five, from no function (0%) to normal function (100%). The higher the percentage, the more normal the function as experienced by the patient.

Time frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Botulinum ToxinPercent of Normal Function (PNF)PNF at Baseline0.40 percentage of normal functionStandard Deviation 0.32
Botulinum ToxinPercent of Normal Function (PNF)PNF at 30 days after Intervention0.45 percentage of normal functionStandard Deviation 0.23
RenuGelPercent of Normal Function (PNF)PNF at Baseline0.34 percentage of normal functionStandard Deviation 0.34
RenuGelPercent of Normal Function (PNF)PNF at 30 days after Intervention0.44 percentage of normal functionStandard Deviation 0.32
Secondary

Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10)

The Voice Handicap Index-10 consists of 10 questions (statements about voice), where patients rate their the frequency of their problems as: never (0), almost never (1), sometimes (2), almost always (3), and always (4). The scores from each answer are added, and can range from 0-40. The higher the score, the worse the patient's perception of their voice handicap.

Time frame: Baseline and 30 days after intervention

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Botulinum ToxinVoice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10)VHI-10 at Baseline26.29 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.69
Botulinum ToxinVoice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10)VHI-10 at 30 days after Intervention23.57 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.41
RenuGelVoice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10)VHI-10 at Baseline25.86 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 10.61
RenuGelVoice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10)VHI-10 at 30 days after Intervention29.86 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.49

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026