{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03470715835140998, 'fraction_numerical': 0.021149674620390455, 'mean_word_length': 4.8386075949367084, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 2, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Efficacy and safety of repeated doses of botulinum toxin type B in type A resistant and responsive cervical dystonia

Efficacy of botulinum toxin type B (BoNT B) for the treatment of type A‐resistant (AR) and non‐A‐resistant (NAR) cervical dystonia (CD) has been demonstrated in several single injection studies. There is little data available on long‐term therapy with repeated injection sessions and it is unknown if AR and NAR patients respond in a similar manner over time. To evaluate the long‐term efficacy and safety of BoNT B in AR and NAR CD patients, we carried out a prospective, open‐label study examining 10 repeated dosing sessions of BoNT B in 34 patients with CD (15 AR and 19 NAR). Dosing was started at 10,000 units and could be increased to 25,000. Assessments included the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) and a patient global assessment at each baseline (injection) and Week 4 (peak effect) visit. Change in TWSTRS total was the primary efficacy end point. Data was analyzed using repeated‐measures analysis of variance. BoNT B therapy resulted in an overall significant improvement of CD (P < 0.001) and improvement was seen in all 10 individual sessions (2.5 years). The magnitude of response decayed over time (P < 0.001). There was no difference between AR and NAR patients with regard to dose, treatment effect, or decay in response. The AR group perceived (patient global) treatment as being less effective (P = 0.047). Dry mouth frequency decreased with each session despite increasing doses whereas flu‐like syndrome and weakness increased. BoNT B therapy provides long‐term benefit for CD patients but the magnitude of response diminishes over time. The cause of this decay is probably multifactorial. AR and NAR CD patients respond in a similar fashion. © 2005 Movement Disorder Society