Neuronox versus BOTOX for spastic equinus gait in children with cerebral palsy: a randomized, double-blinded, controlled multicentre clinical trial.

AIM The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a newly manufactured botulinum toxin, Neuronox, compared with BOTOX for the treatment of the spastic equinus gait in children with cerebral palsy. METHOD A total of 127 children with cerebral palsy, aged 2 to 10 years, who presented at three university hospitals with spastic equinus gait were assessed for eligibility to participate in this double-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. Of the 119 eligible participants (mean age 4.33 y; SD 2.07; 76 males and 43 females; 79 with diplegia and 40 with hemiplegia), 57 were classified as Gross Motor Function Classification System level I, 29 as level II, and 33 as level III. Participants were randomly assigned to receive an injection of Neuronox (n=60) or BOTOX (n=59) to the calf muscles at a dose of 4U/kg for those with hemiplegia and 6U/kg for those with diplegia. Assessments were performed at baseline (V1) and at 4 (V2), 12 (V3), and 24 (V4) weeks after the intervention. The primary outcome measure was response rate at V3, with a positive response being defined as at least a 2-point increase in the Physicians' Rating Scale (PRS) score. The non-inferiority margin was set as -20% for the difference in the response rate. The secondary outcome measures included PRS score, passive range of motion (PROM) of the ankle and knee, and Gross Motor Function Measure 88 (GMFM-88). Any adverse events were investigated for safety implications. RESULTS The response rate of the Neuronox group at V3 was not inferior to that of the BOTOX group (90% lower limit=-11.58%). There were significant improvements in PRS, PROM of ankle dorsiflexion, and GMFM scores at V2, V3, and V4 in both groups. The changes in PRS score were not statistically different between the two groups in serial evaluation (p=0.96). PROM of the ankle dorsiflexion increased without any significant difference between the two groups, either overall (p=0.56) or at each visit (V2, p=0.32; V3, p=0.66; V4, p=0.90). The increase in GMFM score in serial measurements were not significantly different between the two groups (p=0.16), whereas it was larger in the BOTOX group than in the Neuronox group at V2 and V4 (p=0.03 and 0.05 respectively). The frequency of adverse events was not significantly different between the two groups (p=0.97), and drug-related complications of Neuronox treatment were not addressed. INTERPRETATION The outcomes of Neuronox, based on PRS, proved to be as effective and safe as those of BOTOX for the treatment of spasticity in individuals with cerebral palsy.