Skip to content

Study to Evaluate Effects of DYSPORT® Injected in Lower and Upper Limb Combined With Guided Self-Rehabilitation Contract (GSC)

An International, Multicentre, Prospective, Single-Arm Study to Assess the Effect on Voluntary Movements of AbobotulinumtoxinA 1500 U Administered in Both Upper and Lower Limbs in Conjunction With a Guided Self-Rehabilitation Contract in Adult Subjects With Spastic Hemiparesis

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02969356
Acronym
ENGAGE
Enrollment
157
Registered
2016-11-21
Start date
2016-12-18
Completion date
2018-07-31
Last updated
2025-02-19

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

Conditions

Spastic Hemiparesis

Brief summary

The purpose of this clinical study is to assess whether AbobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport®) injections in upper and lower limbs accompanied with a personal exercise plan called Guided Self-rehabilitation Contract (GSC) can improve voluntary movements in subjects with hemiparesis.

Interventions

BIOLOGICALBotulinum toxin type A

Dysport® administered in both upper and lower limbs (total dose of 1500 U per injection split between the 2 limbs).

OTHERGSC

The GSC is a motivational tool. The physiotherapist will teach each subject the stretching postures and exercises to perform on a daily basis throughout the study. These will be tailored to the individual subject's needs and will form the GSC therapy.

Sponsors

Ipsen
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

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

Inclusion criteria

* Subjects aged at least the national legal adult age. * Subjects with hemiparesis due to acquired brain injury (ABI) presenting with muscle overactivity impeding motor function based on investigator's judgement including, but not limited to, at least one of the following requiring botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) treatment: typical clenched fist; flexed wrist; flexed elbow; or plantar flexed foot pattern. * At least 12 months since the ABI (i.e. stroke or traumatic brain injury (TBI)). * Naïve or non-naïve to BoNT treatment; if non-naïve, at least 4 months after the last BoNT injection, of any serotype. * Upper limb active function with an overall score between 2 and 7, as assessed by Modified Frenchay Scale (MFS), if the primary TT limb is the upper limb (UL). * A 10-metre maximal WS barefoot between 0.2 and 1.4 m/s, if the primary TT limb is the lower limb (LL). Maximal WS barefoot will be performed without walking aids. However, a cane may be permitted if absolutely necessary (although this may prevent detection of treatment-induced improvements). In this case, the same aid will have to be used for all WS assessments during the study. * Subjects must provide written informed consent to participate in the study prior to any study-related procedures. * Female subjects of childbearing potential (not surgically sterile or 2 years postmenopausal) must use a medically accepted method of contraception and must agree to continue use of this method for the duration of the study until the last visit of the subjects and for at least 12 weeks post injection. Acceptable methods of contraception include total abstinence, male partner has had a vasectomy, double barrier method (e.g. male condom plus spermicide, or female diaphragm plus spermicide), intrauterine device, or hormonal contraceptive (oral, transdermal, implanted and injected). * Subjects must be willing and able to comply with study restrictions and to remain at the clinic for the required duration during the study period and willing to return to the clinic for the follow-up evaluation as specified in the protocol

Exclusion criteria

* Inability to understand protocol procedures and requirements, which, in the opinion of the investigator, could negatively impact on protocol compliance, in particularly inability to exercise according to the GSC. * Previous surgery on the affected muscles and ligaments, tendons, nerve trunks, or bones of the treated upper or lower limb. * Previous treatment with phenol and/or alcohol in any of the treated limbs any time before the study. * Any medical condition (including severe dysphagia or breathing difficulties) that may increase, in the opinion of the investigator, the likelihood of adverse events (AEs) related to BoNT A treatment. * Current, planned or received within the last 4 weeks prior to study treatment, treatment with any drug that interferes either directly or indirectly with neuromuscular function (for example, aminoglycosides). * Major neurological impairment other than spastic paresis (including major proprioceptive ataxia or apraxia on the paretic side) that could negatively impact on the functional performance of the subject. * Known disease of the neuromuscular junction (such as Lambert-Eaton myasthenic syndrome or myasthenia gravis). * Known sensitivity to BoNT-A or any excipient of Dysport. * Infection at the injection site(s). * Current pregnancy or lactation. A pregnancy test will be performed at the start of the study for all female subjects of childbearing potential (i.e. not surgically sterile or 2 years postmenopausal). * Mental condition rendering the subject unable to understand the nature, scope and possible consequences of the study and/or evidence of an uncooperative attitude. * Abnormal baseline findings or any other medical condition(s) that, in the opinion of the investigator, might jeopardise the subject's safety. * Subjects treated, or likely to be treated, with intrathecal baclofen during the course of the study or during the 4 weeks before study entry. * Subjects who have participated in any therapeutic clinical study/received any investigational agent within 30 days of enrolment.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Percentage of Responder Participants at Week 6 After the Second Injection, According to Composite Active Range of Motion (AROM) in the Primary TT LimbAt Week 6, Cycle 2Percentage of responder participants according to AROM was measured by goniometer in the primary TT limb, using zero as the theoretical position of minimal stretch for the muscle assessed. Participants were asked to perform the active movement as far as possible against that muscle and the angle was measured. A participant was considered a responder if he/she achieved at least the predefined improvement threshold - larger or equal to 35 degrees in UL or 5 degrees in LL - in the primary TT limb (based on the composite AROM individual change from baseline to Week 6 after the second injection).

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Mean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 6 and Week 12 of each treatment cycle, reinjection cycle visit and last study visitThe AROM was measured by goniometer in the primary TT limb, using zero as the theoretical position of minimal stretch for the muscle assessed. Participants were asked to perform the active movement as far as possible against that muscle and the angle was measured. The angle of joint movement was measured in 10 prespecified muscle groups (injected or noninjected); UL: shoulder extensors (SE), elbow flexors (EF), wrist flexors (WF), extrinsic finger flexors (FF) and pronator teres (PT), LL: soleus (Sol), gastrocnemius (GN), gluteus maximus (GM), hamstrings (HS) and rectus femoris (RF). The reinjection cycle visit corresponds to Week 12, 16 or 20 of injection Cycle 1. The last study visit corresponds to the last post-baseline visit performed by the participant (including the early withdrawal visit).
Mean Change From Baseline in Composite AROM Against Injected Muscle Groups (Any of the 10 Prespecified Muscles) at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 6 and Week 12 of each treatment cycle, reinjection cycle visit and last study visitComposite AROM (XA) was measured by goniometer in the primary TT limb (either UL or LL, depending on which one has been selected as the primary TT limb), composite AROM in the UL injected muscle groups was calculated as the sum of the AROM in the EF, WF and FF. Composite AROM in the LL injected muscle groups was calculated as the sum of the AROM in Sol and GN.
Mean Change From Baseline in Full Composite AROM Against 5 UL or 5 LL Muscle Groups, Regardless of Whether the Muscle Groups Were Injected or Not at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 6 and Week 12 of each treatment cycle, reinjection cycle visit and last study visitFull composite AROM, regardless of whether the muscle groups was injected or not was measured by goniometer in the primary TT limb. Full Composite AROM in the UL was calculated as the sum of the AROM in the 5 UL muscle groups (SE+EF+WF+FF+PT). Full Composite AROM in the LL was calculated as the sum of the AROM in the 5 LL muscle groups (Sol+GN+GM+HS+RF).
Mean Change From Baseline in Modified Frenchay Scale (MFS) Overall Score Evaluated Locally and Centrally at Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle and Last Study VisitWeek 12 of each treatment cycle and last study visitThe MFS was used to measure active function in the UL. The MFS consists of 10 tasks, each of which was evaluated locally by the site investigator and centrally by a blinded central reviewer at the coordinating investigators' site, on a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from No movement to Normal. Higher score indicates a better outcome. The MFS overall scores were obtained by averaging all individual task scores, provided that at least 8 out of the 10 were not missing. The mean change from baseline was calculated for the local and central assessments and a positive change from baseline indicates an improvement in active function.
Mean Change From Baseline in Maximal Walking Speed Barefoot at Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle and at Last Study VisitWeek 12 of each treatment cycle and last study visitThe 10-meter walking speed test (WST) was used to measure active function in the LL. The participant performed the WST barefoot without a walking aid. If it was absolutely necessary that the participant used a cane, this may have been permitted provided that the same cane was used at baseline and all other walking speed assessments for that participant. The participant was given instructions to walk at his/her maximum speed. The time taken for the participant to walk from the start to the end of the 10 meters was recorded.
Participant Satisfaction With the GSC at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitAt baseline (for participants who had GSC previously only), Week 6 and Week 12 of each treatment cycle, reinjection cycle visit and last study visitEach participant received a personalised rehabilitation programme. The physiotherapist taught each participant the stretching postures and exercises to perform on a daily basis throughout the study. These were tailored to the individual participant's needs and formed the GSC therapy. The main focus was on the primary TT limb and then the other limb. Participant satisfaction was determined by asking the question How satisfied are you TODAY regarding the GSC? Responses were recorded using a 5-level Likert scale, as follows: completely satisfied (+2), rather satisfied (+1), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (0), rather dissatisfied (-1), and completely dissatisfied (-2).
Percentage of Responder Participants at Week 6 After the First Injection, According to Composite AROM in the Primary TT LimbAt Week 6, Cycle 1Percentage of responder participants according to composite AROM was measured by goniometer in the primary TT limb, using zero as the theoretical position of minimal stretch for the muscle assessed. Participants were asked to perform the active movement as far as possible against that muscle and the angle was measured. A participant was considered a responder if he/she achieved at least the predefined improvement threshold - larger or equal to 35 degrees in UL or 5 degrees in LL - in the primary TT limb (based on the composite AROM individual change from baseline to Week 6 after the first injection).
Change From Baseline in Physiotherapist's Beliefs That the GSC Will Help to Improve Functional Capacity at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 6 and Week 12 of each treatment cycle, reinjection cycle visit and last study visitPhysiotherapists were asked the following question: Do you believe that GSC will help to improve your patient's arm and leg function? Responses were recorded on a 5-level Likert scale, as follows: very true of what I believe (+2), somewhat true of what I believe (+1), no opinion/don't know (0), somewhat untrue of what I believe (-1), and very untrue of what I believe (-2).
Percentage of Days Over Study Period When GSC Therapy Was PerformedFrom baseline to end of the study, up to 280 daysThe investigator counted the number of days when GSC therapy was not performed since the last visit. Using the total number of study days and the total number of days when GSC therapy was not performed, the number of days when GSC was performed was calculated.
Global Assessment of Benefits of the Study TherapyAt reinjection cycle visit (Week 12, 16 or 20) and last study visit (Week 24 or 40)A global assessment of the benefits of the study therapy was made by the investigator and the participant (or the caregiver). The participant's caregiver performed the global assessment only in those cases when the participant was not capable to do this. Participants were asked the following question: How would you rate the overall response to study therapy since baseline? Responses on the global assessment were recorded on a 5-level Likert scale, as follows: much better (+2), a bit better (+1), the same (0), a bit worse (-1), and much worse (-2).
Number of Participants Satisfied With a Longer Interval Between 2 Treatment CyclesAt reinjection cycle visit (Week 16 or 20) and last study visit (Week 24 or 40)Participants who were not reinjected at Week 12 of a given cycle, recorded their satisfaction with a longer interval between 2 injections collected at the corresponding reinjection visit or the last cycle visit (Week 16 or Week 20 for each cycle). To assess this, the participants were asked the following question: Are you satisfied with a longer interval between 2 injections?. The possible answers were: Yes, No or No opinion.
Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) Scores at Last Study VisitAt last study visit (Week 24 or 40)Participants were asked to complete EQ-5D-5L questionnaire to assess their current health status. The EQ-5D-5L was a generic, preference-based measure of health-related quality of life (QoL). Questions were answered based on how the participant was feeling Today. The EQ-5D-5L consists of 2 parts: EQ-5D descriptive system and EQ VAS. The EQ-5D descriptive system included questions for each of the following 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 levels: no problems, slight problems, moderate problems, severe problems and extreme problems. The VAS recorded participant's self-rated health on a vertical 20-centimeter VAS where the endpoints were labelled The best health you can imagine and The worst health you can imagine. The EQ-5D-5L questionnaire scores range from 0-100, where 0= worst self-perceived health and 100= best self-perceived health. Positive change from baseline indicates an improvement in QoL.
Change From Baseline in Short Form 12 (SF-12) Scales at Last Study VisitAt last study visit (Week 24 or 40)The SF-12 was a short form questionnaire survey consisting of 12 questions, which were a subset of the SF-36 health survey. Most of the questions were answered based on how the participant had felt over the previous 4 weeks. The SF-12 covers 8 domains, including physical functioning, role-physical, body pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional and mental health. The SF-12 questionnaire survey scale ranges from 0-100, where 0= lowest level of health and 100= highest level of health. Positive change from baseline indicates an improvement in QoL.
Change From Baseline in Participant's Beliefs That the GSC Will Help to Improve Functional Capacity at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 6 and Week 12 of each treatment cycle, reinjection cycle visit and last study visitParticipants were asked the following question: Do you believe that GSC will help to improve your arm and leg function? Responses were recorded on a 5-level Likert scale, as follows: very true of what I believe (+2), somewhat true of what I believe (+1), no opinion/don't know (0), somewhat untrue of what I believe (-1), and very untrue of what I believe (-2).

Countries

Czechia, France, Russia, United States

Participant flow

Recruitment details

This multicenter, single-arm study was conducted in 18 centers in 4 countries between 22 December 2016 and 18 July 2018 in participants with spastic hemiparesis due to acquired brain injury. Study had 2 treatment cycles separated by at least 12 (maximum 20) weeks and combined with Guided Self-Rehabilitation Contract (GSC) for whole study duration.

Pre-assignment details

A total of 157 participants were treated in this study. At baseline (Cycle 1, Day 1), the primary treatment target (TT) limb (upper limb \[UL\] or lower limb \[LL\]) was defined by the investigator, following discussion with the participant. If the primary TT limb was the UL, the secondary TT limb was the LL (and vice versa).

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Dysport
Dysport 1500 U IM injection, was administered as a split dose, in both the UL and LL on Day 1 of each treatment cycle. The dose given in each limb was based on which was considered the primary TT limb at baseline. At least half the total dose must have been injected in the primary TT limb and a maximum of 1000 U could be injected in an UL (even if it was the primary TT limb). There was no maximum dose that could have been injected in a LL, provided that some out of the 1500 U total was used for the UL injection. The second Dysport injection (Cycle 2) may have been given in a different split to the first injection (Cycle 1), at the discretion of the investigator. However, the same minimal/maximal rules applied. The primary TT remained the same for both Dysport injections. Participants were also asked to perform daily GSC therapy throughout the study.
153
Total153

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000
Overall StudyAdverse Event7
Overall StudyConsent withdrawn2
Overall StudyDid not need to be reinjected6
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up3
Overall StudyPersonal reasons5

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicDysport
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
31 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
122 Participants
Age, Continuous52.9 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.6
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity: Missing
18 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity: Not Hispanic/Latino
135 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race: Asian
2 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race: Black or African American
7 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race: Missing
18 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race: White
126 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
53 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
100 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
1 / 157
other
Total, other adverse events
72 / 157
serious
Total, serious adverse events
19 / 157

Outcome results

Primary

Percentage of Responder Participants at Week 6 After the Second Injection, According to Composite Active Range of Motion (AROM) in the Primary TT Limb

Percentage of responder participants according to AROM was measured by goniometer in the primary TT limb, using zero as the theoretical position of minimal stretch for the muscle assessed. Participants were asked to perform the active movement as far as possible against that muscle and the angle was measured. A participant was considered a responder if he/she achieved at least the predefined improvement threshold - larger or equal to 35 degrees in UL or 5 degrees in LL - in the primary TT limb (based on the composite AROM individual change from baseline to Week 6 after the second injection).

Time frame: At Week 6, Cycle 2

Population: The modified ITT (mITT) population included all participants who were injected at least once with the study treatment, who received at least 1 day of GSC therapy during the study, for whom a primary TT limb had been defined and who had the primary efficacy outcome assessed at Week 6, Cycle 2.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
DysportPercentage of Responder Participants at Week 6 After the Second Injection, According to Composite Active Range of Motion (AROM) in the Primary TT Limb72.1 percentage of participants
Secondary

Change From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) Scores at Last Study Visit

Participants were asked to complete EQ-5D-5L questionnaire to assess their current health status. The EQ-5D-5L was a generic, preference-based measure of health-related quality of life (QoL). Questions were answered based on how the participant was feeling Today. The EQ-5D-5L consists of 2 parts: EQ-5D descriptive system and EQ VAS. The EQ-5D descriptive system included questions for each of the following 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has 5 levels: no problems, slight problems, moderate problems, severe problems and extreme problems. The VAS recorded participant's self-rated health on a vertical 20-centimeter VAS where the endpoints were labelled The best health you can imagine and The worst health you can imagine. The EQ-5D-5L questionnaire scores range from 0-100, where 0= worst self-perceived health and 100= best self-perceived health. Positive change from baseline indicates an improvement in QoL.

Time frame: At last study visit (Week 24 or 40)

Population: The ITT population included all participants who were injected at least once with the study treatment, who received at least 1 day of GSC therapy during the study and for whom a primary TT limb had been defined. Only participants with data available at each time point are presented.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
DysportChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) Scores at Last Study VisitMobility: Last study visit-0.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
DysportChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) Scores at Last Study VisitSelf-care: Last study visit-0.0 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
DysportChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) Scores at Last Study VisitUsual activities: Last study visit-0.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1
DysportChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) Scores at Last Study VisitPain/discomfort: Last study visit-0.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
DysportChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) Scores at Last Study VisitAnxiety/depression: Last study visit-0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
DysportChange From Baseline in European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) Scores at Last Study VisitEQ VAS: Last study visit4.27 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.71
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Participant's Beliefs That the GSC Will Help to Improve Functional Capacity at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study Visit

Participants were asked the following question: Do you believe that GSC will help to improve your arm and leg function? Responses were recorded on a 5-level Likert scale, as follows: very true of what I believe (+2), somewhat true of what I believe (+1), no opinion/don't know (0), somewhat untrue of what I believe (-1), and very untrue of what I believe (-2).

Time frame: Week 6 and Week 12 of each treatment cycle, reinjection cycle visit and last study visit

Population: The ITT population included all participants who were injected at least once with the study treatment, who received at least 1 day of GSC therapy during the study and for whom a primary TT limb had been defined. Only participants with data available at each time point are presented.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
DysportChange From Baseline in Participant's Beliefs That the GSC Will Help to Improve Functional Capacity at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 6, Cycle 1-0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
DysportChange From Baseline in Participant's Beliefs That the GSC Will Help to Improve Functional Capacity at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 12, Cycle 1-0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
DysportChange From Baseline in Participant's Beliefs That the GSC Will Help to Improve Functional Capacity at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitReinjection cycle visit-0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
DysportChange From Baseline in Participant's Beliefs That the GSC Will Help to Improve Functional Capacity at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 6, Cycle 2-0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
DysportChange From Baseline in Participant's Beliefs That the GSC Will Help to Improve Functional Capacity at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 12, Cycle 2-0.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
DysportChange From Baseline in Participant's Beliefs That the GSC Will Help to Improve Functional Capacity at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLast study visit-0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Physiotherapist's Beliefs That the GSC Will Help to Improve Functional Capacity at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study Visit

Physiotherapists were asked the following question: Do you believe that GSC will help to improve your patient's arm and leg function? Responses were recorded on a 5-level Likert scale, as follows: very true of what I believe (+2), somewhat true of what I believe (+1), no opinion/don't know (0), somewhat untrue of what I believe (-1), and very untrue of what I believe (-2).

Time frame: Week 6 and Week 12 of each treatment cycle, reinjection cycle visit and last study visit

Population: The ITT population included all participants who were injected at least once with the study treatment, who received at least 1 day of GSC therapy during the study and for whom a primary TT limb had been defined. Only participants with data available at each time point are presented.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
DysportChange From Baseline in Physiotherapist's Beliefs That the GSC Will Help to Improve Functional Capacity at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 6, Cycle 1-0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.6
DysportChange From Baseline in Physiotherapist's Beliefs That the GSC Will Help to Improve Functional Capacity at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 12, Cycle 1-0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.6
DysportChange From Baseline in Physiotherapist's Beliefs That the GSC Will Help to Improve Functional Capacity at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitReinjection cycle visit-0.1 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.6
DysportChange From Baseline in Physiotherapist's Beliefs That the GSC Will Help to Improve Functional Capacity at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 6, Cycle 2-0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.6
DysportChange From Baseline in Physiotherapist's Beliefs That the GSC Will Help to Improve Functional Capacity at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 12, Cycle 2-0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.6
DysportChange From Baseline in Physiotherapist's Beliefs That the GSC Will Help to Improve Functional Capacity at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLast study visit-0.2 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
Secondary

Change From Baseline in Short Form 12 (SF-12) Scales at Last Study Visit

The SF-12 was a short form questionnaire survey consisting of 12 questions, which were a subset of the SF-36 health survey. Most of the questions were answered based on how the participant had felt over the previous 4 weeks. The SF-12 covers 8 domains, including physical functioning, role-physical, body pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role-emotional and mental health. The SF-12 questionnaire survey scale ranges from 0-100, where 0= lowest level of health and 100= highest level of health. Positive change from baseline indicates an improvement in QoL.

Time frame: At last study visit (Week 24 or 40)

Population: The ITT population included all participants who were injected at least once with the study treatment, who received at least 1 day of GSC therapy during the study and for whom a primary TT limb had been defined. Only participants with data available at each time point are presented.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
DysportChange From Baseline in Short Form 12 (SF-12) Scales at Last Study VisitPhysical score: Last study visit3.985 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.358
DysportChange From Baseline in Short Form 12 (SF-12) Scales at Last Study VisitMental score: Last study visit-0.008 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.631
Secondary

Global Assessment of Benefits of the Study Therapy

A global assessment of the benefits of the study therapy was made by the investigator and the participant (or the caregiver). The participant's caregiver performed the global assessment only in those cases when the participant was not capable to do this. Participants were asked the following question: How would you rate the overall response to study therapy since baseline? Responses on the global assessment were recorded on a 5-level Likert scale, as follows: much better (+2), a bit better (+1), the same (0), a bit worse (-1), and much worse (-2).

Time frame: At reinjection cycle visit (Week 12, 16 or 20) and last study visit (Week 24 or 40)

Population: The ITT population included all participants who were injected at least once with the study treatment, who received at least 1 day of GSC therapy during the study and for whom a primary TT limb had been defined. Only participants with data available at each time point are presented.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
DysportGlobal Assessment of Benefits of the Study TherapyInvestigator: Reinjection cycle visit1.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.6
DysportGlobal Assessment of Benefits of the Study TherapyInvestigator: Last study visit1.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
DysportGlobal Assessment of Benefits of the Study TherapyParticipant: Reinjection cycle visit1.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.6
DysportGlobal Assessment of Benefits of the Study TherapyParticipant: Last study visit1.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study Visit

The AROM was measured by goniometer in the primary TT limb, using zero as the theoretical position of minimal stretch for the muscle assessed. Participants were asked to perform the active movement as far as possible against that muscle and the angle was measured. The angle of joint movement was measured in 10 prespecified muscle groups (injected or noninjected); UL: shoulder extensors (SE), elbow flexors (EF), wrist flexors (WF), extrinsic finger flexors (FF) and pronator teres (PT), LL: soleus (Sol), gastrocnemius (GN), gluteus maximus (GM), hamstrings (HS) and rectus femoris (RF). The reinjection cycle visit corresponds to Week 12, 16 or 20 of injection Cycle 1. The last study visit corresponds to the last post-baseline visit performed by the participant (including the early withdrawal visit).

Time frame: Week 6 and Week 12 of each treatment cycle, reinjection cycle visit and last study visit

Population: The ITT population included all participants who were injected at least once with the study treatment, who received at least 1 day of GSC therapy during the study and for whom a primary TT limb had been defined. Only participants with data available at each time point are presented.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL SE: Week 6, Cycle 18.9 degreesStandard Deviation 16.4
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL SE: Week 12, Cycle 115.8 degreesStandard Deviation 22.9
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL SE: Reinjection cycle visit13.4 degreesStandard Deviation 22.5
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL SE: Week 6, Cycle 219.3 degreesStandard Deviation 25.1
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL SE: Week 12, Cycle 221.1 degreesStandard Deviation 27.7
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL SE: Last study visit19.0 degreesStandard Deviation 24.9
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL EF: Week 6, Cycle 18.7 degreesStandard Deviation 25.5
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL EF: Week 12, Cycle 112.0 degreesStandard Deviation 27.3
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL EF: Reinjection cycle visit10.9 degreesStandard Deviation 28.3
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL EF: Week 6, Cycle 214.9 degreesStandard Deviation 26.2
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL EF: Week 12, Cycle 215.4 degreesStandard Deviation 28.1
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL EF: Last study visit13.0 degreesStandard Deviation 28.2
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL WF: Week 6, Cycle 111.0 degreesStandard Deviation 16.3
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL WF: Week 12, Cycle 110.9 degreesStandard Deviation 20.1
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL WF: Reinjection cycle visit9.6 degreesStandard Deviation 20.4
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL WF: Week 6, Cycle 215.6 degreesStandard Deviation 24.3
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL WF: Week 12, Cycle 213.6 degreesStandard Deviation 22.4
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL WF: Last study visit12.4 degreesStandard Deviation 22.3
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL FF: Week 6, Cycle 124.1 degreesStandard Deviation 37.1
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL FF: Week 12, Cycle 120.7 degreesStandard Deviation 36
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL FF: Reinjection cycle visit14.5 degreesStandard Deviation 36.7
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL FF: Week 6, Cycle 229.5 degreesStandard Deviation 43.7
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL FF: Week 12, Cycle 227.9 degreesStandard Deviation 49.1
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL FF: Last study visit24.5 degreesStandard Deviation 44.9
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL PT: Week 6, Cycle 19.0 degreesStandard Deviation 32.6
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL PT: Week 12, Cycle 18.0 degreesStandard Deviation 38
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL PT: Reinjection cycle visit7.4 degreesStandard Deviation 37.9
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL PT: Week 6, Cycle 211.0 degreesStandard Deviation 38.6
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL PT: Week 12, Cycle 29.4 degreesStandard Deviation 38.4
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL PT: Last study visit8.7 degreesStandard Deviation 41
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL Sol: Week 6, Cycle 14.7 degreesStandard Deviation 9.6
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL Sol: Week 12, Cycle 15.2 degreesStandard Deviation 13.8
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL Sol: Reinjection cycle visit4.5 degreesStandard Deviation 15.4
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL Sol: Week 6, Cycle 29.3 degreesStandard Deviation 17.9
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL Sol: Week 12, Cycle 29.0 degreesStandard Deviation 17
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL Sol: Last study visit8.2 degreesStandard Deviation 16.4
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL GN: Week 6, Cycle 19.0 degreesStandard Deviation 14.8
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL GN: Week 12, Cycle 19.9 degreesStandard Deviation 14.6
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL GN: Reinjection cycle visit7.5 degreesStandard Deviation 15
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL GN: Week 6, Cycle 212.6 degreesStandard Deviation 16.8
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL GN: Week 12, Cycle 211.8 degreesStandard Deviation 17.1
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL GN: Last study visit11.9 degreesStandard Deviation 17.4
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL GM: Week 6, Cycle 15.1 degreesStandard Deviation 15.9
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL GM: Week 12, Cycle 15.2 degreesStandard Deviation 15.2
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL GM: Reinjection cycle visit5.1 degreesStandard Deviation 14.7
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL GM: Week 6, Cycle 26.1 degreesStandard Deviation 15.9
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL GM: Week 12, Cycle 27.3 degreesStandard Deviation 15.2
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL GM: Last study visit6.6 degreesStandard Deviation 16.5
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL HS: Week 6, Cycle 10.9 degreesStandard Deviation 34.2
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL HS: Week 12, Cycle 14.0 degreesStandard Deviation 34.7
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL HS: Reinjection cycle visit5.6 degreesStandard Deviation 30.7
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL HS: Week 6, Cycle 28.2 degreesStandard Deviation 25.1
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL HS: Week 12, Cycle 210.3 degreesStandard Deviation 26.3
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL HS: Last study visit6.8 degreesStandard Deviation 31.1
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL RF: Week 6, Cycle 14.5 degreesStandard Deviation 15
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL RF: Week 12, Cycle 14.4 degreesStandard Deviation 23.1
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL RF: Reinjection cycle visit5.1 degreesStandard Deviation 25.3
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL RF: Week 6, Cycle 28.9 degreesStandard Deviation 24.7
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL RF: Week 12, Cycle 29.6 degreesStandard Deviation 23.4
DysportMean Change From Baseline in AROM Against 10 Prespecified Muscle Groups at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL RF: Last study visit8.6 degreesStandard Deviation 23
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in Composite AROM Against Injected Muscle Groups (Any of the 10 Prespecified Muscles) at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study Visit

Composite AROM (XA) was measured by goniometer in the primary TT limb (either UL or LL, depending on which one has been selected as the primary TT limb), composite AROM in the UL injected muscle groups was calculated as the sum of the AROM in the EF, WF and FF. Composite AROM in the LL injected muscle groups was calculated as the sum of the AROM in Sol and GN.

Time frame: Week 6 and Week 12 of each treatment cycle, reinjection cycle visit and last study visit

Population: The ITT population included all participants who were injected at least once with the study treatment, who received at least 1 day of GSC therapy during the study and for whom a primary TT limb had been defined. Only participants with data available at each time point are presented.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Composite AROM Against Injected Muscle Groups (Any of the 10 Prespecified Muscles) at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL: Week 6, Cycle 143.1 degreesStandard Deviation 49.9
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Composite AROM Against Injected Muscle Groups (Any of the 10 Prespecified Muscles) at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL: Week 12, Cycle 142.8 degreesStandard Deviation 56.7
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Composite AROM Against Injected Muscle Groups (Any of the 10 Prespecified Muscles) at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL: Reinjection cycle visit34.1 degreesStandard Deviation 52.8
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Composite AROM Against Injected Muscle Groups (Any of the 10 Prespecified Muscles) at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL: Week 6, Cycle 259.5 degreesStandard Deviation 64.4
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Composite AROM Against Injected Muscle Groups (Any of the 10 Prespecified Muscles) at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL: Week 12, Cycle 256.3 degreesStandard Deviation 66.7
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Composite AROM Against Injected Muscle Groups (Any of the 10 Prespecified Muscles) at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL: Last study visit49.3 degreesStandard Deviation 63.4
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Composite AROM Against Injected Muscle Groups (Any of the 10 Prespecified Muscles) at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL: Week 6, Cycle 113.7 degreesStandard Deviation 18.3
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Composite AROM Against Injected Muscle Groups (Any of the 10 Prespecified Muscles) at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL: Week 12, Cycle 115.1 degreesStandard Deviation 23.4
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Composite AROM Against Injected Muscle Groups (Any of the 10 Prespecified Muscles) at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL: Reinjection cycle visit12.0 degreesStandard Deviation 24.5
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Composite AROM Against Injected Muscle Groups (Any of the 10 Prespecified Muscles) at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL: Week 6, Cycle 221.9 degreesStandard Deviation 28.8
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Composite AROM Against Injected Muscle Groups (Any of the 10 Prespecified Muscles) at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL: Week 12, Cycle 220.8 degreesStandard Deviation 28.8
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Composite AROM Against Injected Muscle Groups (Any of the 10 Prespecified Muscles) at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL: Last study visit20.1 degreesStandard Deviation 27.6
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in Full Composite AROM Against 5 UL or 5 LL Muscle Groups, Regardless of Whether the Muscle Groups Were Injected or Not at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study Visit

Full composite AROM, regardless of whether the muscle groups was injected or not was measured by goniometer in the primary TT limb. Full Composite AROM in the UL was calculated as the sum of the AROM in the 5 UL muscle groups (SE+EF+WF+FF+PT). Full Composite AROM in the LL was calculated as the sum of the AROM in the 5 LL muscle groups (Sol+GN+GM+HS+RF).

Time frame: Week 6 and Week 12 of each treatment cycle, reinjection cycle visit and last study visit

Population: The ITT population included all participants who were injected at least once with the study treatment, who received at least 1 day of GSC therapy during the study and for whom a primary TT limb had been defined. Only participants with data available at each time point are presented.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Full Composite AROM Against 5 UL or 5 LL Muscle Groups, Regardless of Whether the Muscle Groups Were Injected or Not at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL: Week 6, Cycle 160.6 degreesStandard Deviation 68.4
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Full Composite AROM Against 5 UL or 5 LL Muscle Groups, Regardless of Whether the Muscle Groups Were Injected or Not at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL: Week 12, Cycle 166.3 degreesStandard Deviation 75.7
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Full Composite AROM Against 5 UL or 5 LL Muscle Groups, Regardless of Whether the Muscle Groups Were Injected or Not at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL: Reinjection cycle visit53.9 degreesStandard Deviation 69.9
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Full Composite AROM Against 5 UL or 5 LL Muscle Groups, Regardless of Whether the Muscle Groups Were Injected or Not at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL: Week 6, Cycle 290.5 degreesStandard Deviation 90.1
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Full Composite AROM Against 5 UL or 5 LL Muscle Groups, Regardless of Whether the Muscle Groups Were Injected or Not at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL: Week 12, Cycle 287.6 degreesStandard Deviation 94.8
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Full Composite AROM Against 5 UL or 5 LL Muscle Groups, Regardless of Whether the Muscle Groups Were Injected or Not at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitUL: Last study visit77.8 degreesStandard Deviation 89.6
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Full Composite AROM Against 5 UL or 5 LL Muscle Groups, Regardless of Whether the Muscle Groups Were Injected or Not at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL: Week 6, Cycle 124.4 degreesStandard Deviation 42.7
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Full Composite AROM Against 5 UL or 5 LL Muscle Groups, Regardless of Whether the Muscle Groups Were Injected or Not at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL: Week 12, Cycle 128.7 degreesStandard Deviation 55.9
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Full Composite AROM Against 5 UL or 5 LL Muscle Groups, Regardless of Whether the Muscle Groups Were Injected or Not at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL: Reinjection cycle visit28.0 degreesStandard Deviation 56.2
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Full Composite AROM Against 5 UL or 5 LL Muscle Groups, Regardless of Whether the Muscle Groups Were Injected or Not at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL: Week 6, Cycle 245.1 degreesStandard Deviation 58.2
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Full Composite AROM Against 5 UL or 5 LL Muscle Groups, Regardless of Whether the Muscle Groups Were Injected or Not at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL: Week 12, Cycle 248.1 degreesStandard Deviation 60.4
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Full Composite AROM Against 5 UL or 5 LL Muscle Groups, Regardless of Whether the Muscle Groups Were Injected or Not at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLL: Last study visit42.2 degreesStandard Deviation 61.7
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in Maximal Walking Speed Barefoot at Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle and at Last Study Visit

The 10-meter walking speed test (WST) was used to measure active function in the LL. The participant performed the WST barefoot without a walking aid. If it was absolutely necessary that the participant used a cane, this may have been permitted provided that the same cane was used at baseline and all other walking speed assessments for that participant. The participant was given instructions to walk at his/her maximum speed. The time taken for the participant to walk from the start to the end of the 10 meters was recorded.

Time frame: Week 12 of each treatment cycle and last study visit

Population: The ITT population included all participants who were injected at least once with the study treatment, who received at least 1 day of GSC therapy during the study and for whom a primary TT limb had been defined. Only participants with data available at each time point are presented.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Maximal Walking Speed Barefoot at Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle and at Last Study VisitWeek 12, Cycle 10.081 meters per secondStandard Deviation 0.161
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Maximal Walking Speed Barefoot at Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle and at Last Study VisitWeek 12, Cycle 20.116 meters per secondStandard Deviation 0.159
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Maximal Walking Speed Barefoot at Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle and at Last Study VisitLast study visit0.097 meters per secondStandard Deviation 0.187
Secondary

Mean Change From Baseline in Modified Frenchay Scale (MFS) Overall Score Evaluated Locally and Centrally at Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle and Last Study Visit

The MFS was used to measure active function in the UL. The MFS consists of 10 tasks, each of which was evaluated locally by the site investigator and centrally by a blinded central reviewer at the coordinating investigators' site, on a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS) ranging from No movement to Normal. Higher score indicates a better outcome. The MFS overall scores were obtained by averaging all individual task scores, provided that at least 8 out of the 10 were not missing. The mean change from baseline was calculated for the local and central assessments and a positive change from baseline indicates an improvement in active function.

Time frame: Week 12 of each treatment cycle and last study visit

Population: The ITT population included all participants who were injected at least once with the study treatment, who received at least 1 day of GSC therapy during the study and for whom a primary TT limb had been defined. Only participants with data available at each time point are presented.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Modified Frenchay Scale (MFS) Overall Score Evaluated Locally and Centrally at Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle and Last Study VisitLocal assessment: Week 12, Cycle 10.44 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.56
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Modified Frenchay Scale (MFS) Overall Score Evaluated Locally and Centrally at Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle and Last Study VisitLocal assessment: Week 12, Cycle 20.55 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.65
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Modified Frenchay Scale (MFS) Overall Score Evaluated Locally and Centrally at Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle and Last Study VisitLocal assessment: Last study visit0.53 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.63
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Modified Frenchay Scale (MFS) Overall Score Evaluated Locally and Centrally at Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle and Last Study VisitCentral assessment: Week 12, Cycle 10.08 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.49
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Modified Frenchay Scale (MFS) Overall Score Evaluated Locally and Centrally at Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle and Last Study VisitCentral assessment: Week 12, Cycle 20.18 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.61
DysportMean Change From Baseline in Modified Frenchay Scale (MFS) Overall Score Evaluated Locally and Centrally at Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle and Last Study VisitCentral assessment: Last study visit0.14 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.59
Secondary

Number of Participants Satisfied With a Longer Interval Between 2 Treatment Cycles

Participants who were not reinjected at Week 12 of a given cycle, recorded their satisfaction with a longer interval between 2 injections collected at the corresponding reinjection visit or the last cycle visit (Week 16 or Week 20 for each cycle). To assess this, the participants were asked the following question: Are you satisfied with a longer interval between 2 injections?. The possible answers were: Yes, No or No opinion.

Time frame: At reinjection cycle visit (Week 16 or 20) and last study visit (Week 24 or 40)

Population: The ITT population included all participants who were injected at least once with the study treatment, who received at least 1 day of GSC therapy during the study and for whom a primary TT limb had been defined. Results are presented for participants who were not reinjected at Week 12 of the given cycle.

ArmMeasureGroupCategoryValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
DysportNumber of Participants Satisfied With a Longer Interval Between 2 Treatment CyclesLast study visitNo opinion12 Participants
DysportNumber of Participants Satisfied With a Longer Interval Between 2 Treatment CyclesReinjection cycle visitYes52 Participants
DysportNumber of Participants Satisfied With a Longer Interval Between 2 Treatment CyclesReinjection cycle visitNo6 Participants
DysportNumber of Participants Satisfied With a Longer Interval Between 2 Treatment CyclesReinjection cycle visitNo opinion12 Participants
DysportNumber of Participants Satisfied With a Longer Interval Between 2 Treatment CyclesReinjection cycle visitMissing0 Participants
DysportNumber of Participants Satisfied With a Longer Interval Between 2 Treatment CyclesLast study visitYes42 Participants
DysportNumber of Participants Satisfied With a Longer Interval Between 2 Treatment CyclesLast study visitMissing6 Participants
DysportNumber of Participants Satisfied With a Longer Interval Between 2 Treatment CyclesLast study visitNo14 Participants
Secondary

Participant Satisfaction With the GSC at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study Visit

Each participant received a personalised rehabilitation programme. The physiotherapist taught each participant the stretching postures and exercises to perform on a daily basis throughout the study. These were tailored to the individual participant's needs and formed the GSC therapy. The main focus was on the primary TT limb and then the other limb. Participant satisfaction was determined by asking the question How satisfied are you TODAY regarding the GSC? Responses were recorded using a 5-level Likert scale, as follows: completely satisfied (+2), rather satisfied (+1), neither satisfied nor dissatisfied (0), rather dissatisfied (-1), and completely dissatisfied (-2).

Time frame: At baseline (for participants who had GSC previously only), Week 6 and Week 12 of each treatment cycle, reinjection cycle visit and last study visit

Population: The ITT population included all participants who were injected at least once with the study treatment, who received at least 1 day of GSC therapy during the study and for whom a primary TT limb had been defined. Only participants with data available at each time point are presented.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)Dispersion
DysportParticipant Satisfaction With the GSC at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitBaseline for non-naïve participants to GSC only1.8 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.5
DysportParticipant Satisfaction With the GSC at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 6, Cycle 11.3 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.9
DysportParticipant Satisfaction With the GSC at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 12, Cycle 11.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
DysportParticipant Satisfaction With the GSC at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitReinjection cycle visit1.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
DysportParticipant Satisfaction With the GSC at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 6, Cycle 21.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.7
DysportParticipant Satisfaction With the GSC at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitWeek 12, Cycle 21.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
DysportParticipant Satisfaction With the GSC at Week 6 and Week 12 of Each Treatment Cycle, Reinjection Cycle Visit and Last Study VisitLast study visit1.4 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.8
Secondary

Percentage of Days Over Study Period When GSC Therapy Was Performed

The investigator counted the number of days when GSC therapy was not performed since the last visit. Using the total number of study days and the total number of days when GSC therapy was not performed, the number of days when GSC was performed was calculated.

Time frame: From baseline to end of the study, up to 280 days

Population: The ITT population included all participants who were injected at least once with the study treatment, who received at least 1 day of GSC therapy during the study and for whom a primary TT limb had been defined.

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
DysportPercentage of Days Over Study Period When GSC Therapy Was Performed92.80 percentage of study daysStandard Deviation 9.85
Secondary

Percentage of Responder Participants at Week 6 After the First Injection, According to Composite AROM in the Primary TT Limb

Percentage of responder participants according to composite AROM was measured by goniometer in the primary TT limb, using zero as the theoretical position of minimal stretch for the muscle assessed. Participants were asked to perform the active movement as far as possible against that muscle and the angle was measured. A participant was considered a responder if he/she achieved at least the predefined improvement threshold - larger or equal to 35 degrees in UL or 5 degrees in LL - in the primary TT limb (based on the composite AROM individual change from baseline to Week 6 after the first injection).

Time frame: At Week 6, Cycle 1

Population: The ITT population included all participants who were injected at least once with the study treatment, who received at least 1 day of GSC therapy during the study and for whom a primary TT limb had been defined.

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
DysportPercentage of Responder Participants at Week 6 After the First Injection, According to Composite AROM in the Primary TT Limb58.2 percentage of participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 15, 2026