Essential Tremor
Conditions
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
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.
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
Study design
Eligibility
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
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Baseline and 30 days after intervention | 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. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Aerodynamic Data- Airflow | Baseline and 30 days after intervention | 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. |
| Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Baseline and 30 days after intervention | 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. |
| Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) | Baseline and 30 days after intervention | 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. |
| Acoustic Analysis- Frequencies | Baseline and 30 days after intervention | 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). |
| Aerodynamic Data- Peak Air Pressure | Baseline and 30 days after intervention | 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. |
| Aerodynamic Data- Loudness | Baseline and 30 days after intervention | 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. |
| Aerodynamic Data- Maximum Phonation Time | Baseline and 30 days after intervention | 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. |
| Percent of Normal Function (PNF) | Baseline and 30 days after intervention | 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. |
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
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| 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 |
| Total | 7 |
Withdrawals & dropouts
| Period | Reason | FG000 |
|---|---|---|
| Washout (90 Days) | Conflicting medication | 1 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Botulinum 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, Continuous | 62 years |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 7 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Female | 5 Participants |
| Sex: Female, Male Male | 2 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 7 | 0 / 7 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 7 | 0 / 7 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 7 | 0 / 7 |
Outcome results
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Botulinum Toxin | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Base of tongue 30 days after intervention | 1 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.29 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Palate at Baseline | 2.14 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Base of tongue at Baseline | 0.57 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.79 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Larynx at Baseline | 1.43 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.98 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Larynx 30 days after intervention | 1.86 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.07 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Palate 30 days after intervention | 1.71 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.95 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Pharyngeal walls at baseline | 1.86 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.35 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Pharyngeal walls 30 days after intervention | 1.86 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Supraglottis at Baseline | 2.14 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.69 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Supraglottis 30 days after intervention | 1 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.82 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | True Vocal Folds at Baseline | 2.14 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | True Vocal Folds 30 days after intervention | 1.57 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.98 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Total at Baseline | 10.29 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.15 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Total at 30 days after intervention | 9 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 2.83 |
| RenuGel | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | True Vocal Folds at Baseline | 1.71 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.95 |
| RenuGel | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Pharyngeal walls 30 days after intervention | 1.14 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.07 |
| RenuGel | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Total at Baseline | 8.29 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.25 |
| RenuGel | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Base of tongue at Baseline | 0.57 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.53 |
| RenuGel | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Base of tongue 30 days after intervention | 0.43 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.13 |
| RenuGel | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Supraglottis at Baseline | 1.57 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.98 |
| RenuGel | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Larynx at Baseline | 0.86 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.46 |
| RenuGel | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | True Vocal Folds 30 days after intervention | 1.43 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.27 |
| RenuGel | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Larynx 30 days after intervention | 1.29 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 1.25 |
| RenuGel | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Palate at Baseline | 1.71 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.76 |
| RenuGel | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Supraglottis 30 days after intervention | 1.71 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.76 |
| RenuGel | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Palate 30 days after intervention | 1.86 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
| RenuGel | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Total at 30 days after intervention | 7.86 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 3.98 |
| RenuGel | Vocal Tremor Scoring System (VTSS) | Pharyngeal walls at baseline | 1.86 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 0.9 |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Botulinum Toxin | Acoustic Analysis- Frequencies | CPP F0 Baseline | 203.13 Frequency (Hz) | Standard Deviation 35.7 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Acoustic Analysis- Frequencies | CPP F0 30 Days after Intervention | 194.11 Frequency (Hz) | Standard Deviation 34.47 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Acoustic Analysis- Frequencies | Fatr Baseline | 3.81 Frequency (Hz) | Standard Deviation 2.21 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Acoustic Analysis- Frequencies | Fatr 30 days after intervention | 3.87 Frequency (Hz) | Standard Deviation 1.05 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Acoustic Analysis- Frequencies | Fftr Baseline | 4.53 Frequency (Hz) | Standard Deviation 1.28 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Acoustic Analysis- Frequencies | Fftr 30 days after intervention | 4.11 Frequency (Hz) | Standard Deviation 1.31 |
| RenuGel | Acoustic Analysis- Frequencies | Fftr Baseline | 4.22 Frequency (Hz) | Standard Deviation 1.86 |
| RenuGel | Acoustic Analysis- Frequencies | CPP F0 Baseline | 195.06 Frequency (Hz) | Standard Deviation 36.15 |
| RenuGel | Acoustic Analysis- Frequencies | Fatr 30 days after intervention | 4.09 Frequency (Hz) | Standard Deviation 0.88 |
| RenuGel | Acoustic Analysis- Frequencies | CPP F0 30 Days after Intervention | 189.96 Frequency (Hz) | Standard Deviation 31.27 |
| RenuGel | Acoustic Analysis- Frequencies | Fftr 30 days after intervention | 4.20 Frequency (Hz) | Standard Deviation 1.34 |
| RenuGel | Acoustic Analysis- Frequencies | Fatr Baseline | 3.69 Frequency (Hz) | Standard Deviation 1.5 |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Botulinum Toxin | Aerodynamic Data- Airflow | Mean airflow during voicing Baseline | 0.32 Liters per second (L/s) | Standard Deviation 0.47 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Aerodynamic Data- Airflow | Mean airflow during voicing 30 days after interven | 0.38 Liters per second (L/s) | Standard Deviation 0.6 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Aerodynamic Data- Airflow | Mean expiratory airflow Baseline | 0.31 Liters per second (L/s) | Standard Deviation 0.38 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Aerodynamic Data- Airflow | Mean expiratory airflow 30 days after intervention | 0.42 Liters per second (L/s) | Standard Deviation 0.63 |
| RenuGel | Aerodynamic Data- Airflow | Mean expiratory airflow 30 days after intervention | 0.23 Liters per second (L/s) | Standard Deviation 0.21 |
| RenuGel | Aerodynamic Data- Airflow | Mean airflow during voicing Baseline | 0.34 Liters per second (L/s) | Standard Deviation 0.41 |
| RenuGel | Aerodynamic Data- Airflow | Mean expiratory airflow Baseline | 0.35 Liters per second (L/s) | Standard Deviation 0.4 |
| RenuGel | Aerodynamic Data- Airflow | Mean airflow during voicing 30 days after interven | 0.26 Liters per second (L/s) | Standard Deviation 0.25 |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Botulinum Toxin | Aerodynamic Data- Loudness | Mean loudness Baseline | 82.67 Decibel of sound pressure level (dB SPL) | Standard Deviation 8.26 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Aerodynamic Data- Loudness | Mean loudness 30 Days after Intervention | 81.40 Decibel of sound pressure level (dB SPL) | Standard Deviation 6.29 |
| RenuGel | Aerodynamic Data- Loudness | Mean loudness Baseline | 85.16 Decibel of sound pressure level (dB SPL) | Standard Deviation 5.02 |
| RenuGel | Aerodynamic Data- Loudness | Mean loudness 30 Days after Intervention | 84.82 Decibel of sound pressure level (dB SPL) | Standard Deviation 5.04 |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Botulinum Toxin | Aerodynamic Data- Maximum Phonation Time | Maximum Phonation Time 30 days after intervention | 9.21 seconds (s) | Standard Deviation 5.08 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Aerodynamic Data- Maximum Phonation Time | Maximum Phonation Time Baseline | 12.27 seconds (s) | Standard Deviation 10.34 |
| RenuGel | Aerodynamic Data- Maximum Phonation Time | Maximum Phonation Time Baseline | 10 seconds (s) | Standard Deviation 10.57 |
| RenuGel | Aerodynamic Data- Maximum Phonation Time | Maximum Phonation Time 30 days after intervention | 9.34 seconds (s) | Standard Deviation 7.52 |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Botulinum Toxin | Aerodynamic Data- Peak Air Pressure | Mean peak air pressure Baseline | 6.98 Centimeter of water (cm H2O) | Standard Deviation 2.11 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Aerodynamic Data- Peak Air Pressure | Mean peak air pressure 30 days after intervention | 7.91 Centimeter of water (cm H2O) | Standard Deviation 4.13 |
| RenuGel | Aerodynamic Data- Peak Air Pressure | Mean peak air pressure Baseline | 9.66 Centimeter of water (cm H2O) | Standard Deviation 3.97 |
| RenuGel | Aerodynamic Data- Peak Air Pressure | Mean peak air pressure 30 days after intervention | 10.08 Centimeter of water (cm H2O) | Standard Deviation 4.04 |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Botulinum Toxin | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Breathiness at Baseline | 40 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.49 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Breathiness 30 days after intervention | 42.14 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 24.3 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Loudness at Baseline | 23.57 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 33.26 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Loudness 30 days after intervention | 29.29 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.01 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Pitch at Baseline | 45.71 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 26.99 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Roughness at Baseline | 32.14 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 19.76 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Strain 30 days after intervention | 41.43 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 23.22 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Overall at Baseline | 63.71 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 24.47 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Overall after intervention | 55.43 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 24.21 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Roughness 30 days after intervention | 32.43 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 21.52 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Strain at Baseline | 59.29 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 24.4 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Pitch 30 days after intervention | 41.43 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 12.49 |
| RenuGel | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Roughness at Baseline | 37.14 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 21.38 |
| RenuGel | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Breathiness at Baseline | 47.14 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 28.56 |
| RenuGel | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Roughness 30 days after intervention | 30.71 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 15.39 |
| RenuGel | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Breathiness 30 days after intervention | 31.43 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 27.95 |
| RenuGel | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Strain at Baseline | 55 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 30.41 |
| RenuGel | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Loudness at Baseline | 30.71 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 31.81 |
| RenuGel | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Strain 30 days after intervention | 52.86 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 23.07 |
| RenuGel | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Loudness 30 days after intervention | 20 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 24.32 |
| RenuGel | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Overall after intervention | 56.43 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 21.93 |
| RenuGel | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Pitch at Baseline | 55.71 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 24.57 |
| RenuGel | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Pitch 30 days after intervention | 49.71 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 23.75 |
| RenuGel | Consensus Auditory-Perceptual Evaluation of Voice (CAPE-V) | Overall at Baseline | 64 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 27.59 |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Botulinum Toxin | Percent of Normal Function (PNF) | PNF at Baseline | 0.40 percentage of normal function | Standard Deviation 0.32 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Percent of Normal Function (PNF) | PNF at 30 days after Intervention | 0.45 percentage of normal function | Standard Deviation 0.23 |
| RenuGel | Percent of Normal Function (PNF) | PNF at Baseline | 0.34 percentage of normal function | Standard Deviation 0.34 |
| RenuGel | Percent of Normal Function (PNF) | PNF at 30 days after Intervention | 0.44 percentage of normal function | Standard Deviation 0.32 |
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
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) | Dispersion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Botulinum Toxin | Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) | VHI-10 at Baseline | 26.29 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.69 |
| Botulinum Toxin | Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) | VHI-10 at 30 days after Intervention | 23.57 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 7.41 |
| RenuGel | Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) | VHI-10 at Baseline | 25.86 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 10.61 |
| RenuGel | Voice Handicap Index-10 (VHI-10) | VHI-10 at 30 days after Intervention | 29.86 units on a scale | Standard Deviation 8.49 |