CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03261167Updated Jun 2, 2020Results posted

A Phase III Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of GSK1358820 in Subjects With Post-stroke Upper Limb Spasticity

A Phase 3 interventional study of Botulinum toxin A (GSK1358820) and Placebo in Spasticity, Post-Stroke, sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline. Completed at 38 sites in Japan. Open to participants aged 20 Years to 80 Years. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-06-02.

Sponsored by GlaxoSmithKline · Phase 3, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
124
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
20 Years to 80 Years
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Botulinum toxin A (GSK1358820) is a sterile, purified type A botulinum neurotoxin complex. In Japan, 240 units of botulinum toxin A are approved as a maximum dose per administration for upper limb spasticity. This study is planned to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of 400 units of botulinum toxin A which can help to increase the maximum dose per administration to 400 units from 240 units as the treatment with 240 units is considered insufficient in subjects with post-stroke upper limb spasticity. Approximately 120 subjects will be randomized to receive either 400 or 240 units of botulinum toxin A in double blind phase followed by open-label phase in which 400 units of the study treatment will be injected in both the groups. The study period will be up to 52 weeks, consisting of a screening phase up to 4 weeks, minimum 12-week double blind phase (Part 1), maximum 36- week open-label phase (12 weeks per cycle with 3 treatment phases: Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4).

02

Conditions studied

  • Spasticity, Post-Stroke

Keywords

  • Botulinum toxin A
  • Safety
  • post-stroke upper limb spasticity
  • Efficacy
  • GSK1358820
  • double blind
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
20 Years to 80 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • For screening phase (Day -28 to Day -1): Between 20 and 80 years of age at the time of informed consent (ICF).
  • Subjects with at least a 3-month history of upper limb spasticity after the most recent stroke.
  • Subjects who have spastic symptoms in the finger (including the thumb), wrist, and elbow flexors whom the investigator considers the injections of 400 units of the product is necessary for the upper limb based on the muscle spasms and the symptoms of the subject.
  • Subjects who have a previous treatment history of 240 units of the product for the upper limb at least 16 weeks before screening.
  • Subjects who meet following criteria on MAS at screening (Test position : sitting): at least 3 in for the elbow flexors and at least 2 in the finger or wrist flexors.
  • Subjects who have severe upper limb spasticity, which deserves to be treated with 400 units of the product in the divided dose and was previously injected 240 units of the product.
  • Subjects whom the investigator considers that enrolment in the study poses no problems based on the laboratory data results at screening.
  • Subjects who are free from a history of acute decreased lung function (hospitalization with aggravated asthma/ chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), pneumonia, or signs of pneumonia, or abnormal reactive airway diseases suggested on X-rays) within the last 3 months at screening and have stable pulmonary function (oxygen saturation [SpO2]value is >=95%).
  • Body weight >=40 kilograms (kg) at screening.
  • Male or female subjects will be included. Male subjects must content to use highly effective contraceptive methods and sperm donation must be avoided. Female subjects who are not pregnant or lactating are considered eligible if at least one of the following criteria is met; non-childbearing potential, women of childbearing potential who content to follow the guidance about contraception during the study period and at least for 3 months after the last dose of the product, no plan of pregnancy during the study period.
  • Subjects who have ability to sign their name on the ICF.
  • For enrolment in the study (Day 1 [prior to injection]):Subjects who meet the following criteria on MAS score: (Test position : sitting): At least 3 in the elbow flexors and at least 2 in the finger or wrist flexors.
  • If centrally acting muscle relaxants, tetracycline antibiotics, anticholinergics, benzodiazepines, or benzamides are given, the dose and regimen must be stable at least for the last 2 months before Day 1; Subjects who can maintain the same dosage and regimens at least in the blind phase after initial injection (dose reductions and discontinuation of the drugs are acceptable in the open-label phase. However, second dose increase, resumption, and or new treatment will not be performed).
  • If intrathecal baclofen is given, the dose and regimen must be stable at least for the last 1 month before Day 1; Subjects who can maintain the same dosage and regimens at least in the blind phase after initial injection (intravenous bolus is not acceptable, dose reductions and discontinuation of the drugs are acceptable. However, second dose increase, resumption, and or new treatment will not be performed).
  • If antiepileptic agents are given, the dose and regimen must be stable at least for the 1 month before Day 1; Subjects who can maintain the same dose and regimens at least in the blind phase after initial injection (dose reductions and discontinuation of the drugs are acceptable in the open-label phase. However, second dose increase, resumption, and new treatment will not be performed).
  • If a physical therapy, occupational therapy, or a static splint on the study involvement upper limbs is given, the frequency and treatment regimen must be stable at least for the last 3 weeks before Day 1; Subjects who can maintain the same dose and regimens at least in blind phase (In the open-label phase, the frequency and treatment regimen can be changed depending on the condition of spasticity).

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • For screening phase (Day -28 to Day -1): Subjects present with spasticity requiring treatment in the non-paralytic side of the upper limb.
  • Subjects who have fixed contracture in the finger (upper limb), wrist, elbow or shoulder muscle, which will be involved in the study.
  • Subjects who have medically significant capsulitis or subluxation in any one of the fingers (upper limb), wrist, elbow and shoulder, which will be involved in the study, or whom a investigator considers the complicated local signs of pain may affect the efficacy evaluation.
  • Subjects's upper limb spasticity is attributed to other than stroke (traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, or cerebral palsy).
  • Subjects who have a 2-fold higher alanine aminotransferase (ALT) level than the upper limit of normal (ULN).
  • Subjects who have a 1.5-fold higher bilirubin than the ULN (If a bilirubin fractionation shows direct bilirubin \< 35%, a 1.5-fold higher free bilirubin than the ULN is acceptable).
  • Subjects whom the investigator considers presence of a current medical history of unstable liver diseases or biliary tract diseases (the condition will be defined by development of ascites, encephalopathy, coagulopathy, hypoalbuminemia, esophageal or gastric varices, persistent jaundice or hepatic cirrhosis).
  • Subjects with corrected QT interval (QTc) > 450 milliseconds (msec) or QTc > 480 msec in subjects with bundle branch block.
  • Subjects who use peripherally acting muscle relaxants (dantrolene sodium, suxamethonium chloride, pancuronium bromide, vecuronium bromide, rocuronium bromide, etc.) within 1 week of screening.
  • Subjects who use antibiotic agents with neuromuscular junction inhibitory effects: Aminoglycoside antibiotic agents (streptomycin sulfate, kanamycin sulfate, gentamicin sulfate, neomycin sulfate, spectinomycin hydrochloride, etc.), polypeptides (polymyxin B sulfate), lincomycins (lincomycin hydrochloride, clindamycin), and enviomycin sulfate within 1 week of screening.
  • Subjects who was diagnosed as having a malignant tumor, or have a history of a malignant tumor within the last 5 years (except completely resected basal cell carcinoma or planocellular carcinoma at least 12 weeks before screening).
  • Subjects who have participated in another study of an investigational product or other medical research (a clinical study of pharmacotherapy, non-pharmacotherapy, or interventional device) within 30 days before screening, or are currently participating in a study.
  • Subjects who are concerned likely to have an increased risk for an underlying medical condition/neurological disease due to exposure of the product; subjects who have myasthenia gravis, Eaton-Lambert syndrome, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or a serious disease and use of a concomitant drug which may inhibit neuromuscular function.
  • Subjects with antihuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV) antibody positive.
  • Subjects who previously experienced allergic reactions or hypersensitivity due to botulinum toxin type A, an additive agent of sodium chloride, or human serum albumin.
  • Subjects who were previously suspected to have neutralizing antibody production by a investigator during an injection of botulinum toxin type A.
  • Subjects who have a skin disease such as infection at the site to be injected.
  • Subjects who suffer from serious and unstable disease, which could pose problems for the safety of subjects and study procedure compliance.
  • For enrolment in the study (Day 1 [prior to injection]): Subjects who have aspiration pneumonia, relapse of lower respiratory tract infection, uncontrollable asthma, uncontrollable COPD, and/or underlying or a history of serious respiratory dysfunction, which were clinically considered to be respiratory function impairment by a investigator within 12 months before Day 1 visit.
  • Subjects who have a history of aspiration, or an underlying and/or a history of the symptoms that suggests high risks for aspiration by a investigator within 12 months before Day 1 (serious salivation requiring changing in a type of diet, chronic dysphagia that is difficult to swallow).
  • Subjects who were treated with botulinum toxin for spasticity of upper limb less than 16 weeks before Day 1 visit.
  • Subjects who underwent surgical interventions, phenol block, ethanol block or muscle afferent block (MAB) within 12 months before Day 1 visit, or these interventions are planned during the study period in any one of the finger (upper limb), wrist, elbow or shoulder muscles, which will be involved in the study.
  • Subjects who placed a surgical cast or a dynamic splint within 3 months before Day 1 study visit, and/or these interventions are planned to be placed on the upper limb to be involved in the study.
  • Subjects who were injected corticosteroid or an anesthetic agent into the finger (upper limb), wrist, or shoulder flexors, which will be involved in the study within 3 months before Day 1 visit, or these injections are planned during the study.
  • Subjects who received constraint-induced movement therapy (CIMT) within 3 months before Day 1 visit or CIMT is planned during the blind phase.
  • Subjects who underwent ultrasound therapy, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) , electrical stimulation therapy, or acupuncture therapy in the upper arm, which will be involved in the study within 1 month before Day 1 visit, or these therapies are planned during the study.
04

Study design

Phase
Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Double (Participant, Investigator)
Enrollment
124 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Part 1: Subjects receiving 400 units of botulinum toxin A

    Subjects will receive a total dose of 400 units of botulinum toxin A of which 240 units will be injected into the muscles that act on finger (including thumb flexors) and wrist flexors, and a total of 160 units will be injected into the muscles that act on the elbow flexors.

    Drug: Botulinum toxin A (GSK1358820)

  • Active comparator
    Part 1: Subjects receiving 240 units of botulinum toxin A

    Subjects will receive 240 units of botulinum toxin A injected into the muscles that act on the finger (including thumb flexors) and wrist flexors. Placebo will be injected into the muscles that act on the elbow flexors.

    Drug: Botulinum toxin A (GSK1358820) · Drug: Placebo

  • Experimental
    Part 2,3,4: Subjects receiving 400 units of botulinum toxin A

    Subjects will receive botulinum toxin A with a dose of 400 units injected in a divided doses.

    Drug: Botulinum toxin A (GSK1358820)

Interventions

  • DrugBotulinum toxin A (GSK1358820)

    GSK1358820 is sterile, purified type A botulinum neurotoxin complex. GSK1358820 injection will contain botulinum toxin A (100 units), sodium chloride (0.9 milligrams \[mg\]), and human serum albumin (0.5 mg). It will be available with doses of 400 units and 240 units.

  • DrugPlacebo

    Placebo injection will contain sodium chloride (0.9 mg).

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Percentage of Participants Who Had Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) Score Reduced at Least 1 From Baseline in the Elbow Flexors at Week 6

    MAS was used to measure the level of spasticity. The test was performed in a sitting position throughout the study. The affected parts were extended as fast as possible to grade the flexor muscle tones. It was scored on a scale of 0 to 4 as: 0=No increase in muscle tone, 1=Slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch and release or by minimal resistance at the end of the range of motion (ROM) when the affected part(s) is moved in flexion or extension, 1+= Slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch, followed by minimal resistance throughout the remainder (less than half of ROM, 2 =More marked increase in muscle tone through most of the ROM, but affected part(s) easily moved, 3= Considerable increase in muscle tone, passive movement difficult and 4= Affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension. Higher scores= Worst outcome while lower scores= Better outcome.

    Time frame: Week 6

Secondary outcomes

  1. Percentage of Participants Who Had MAS Score Reduction in Elbow, Wrist, Finger and Thumb Flexors up to Week 12

    MAS was used to measure the level of spasticity. The test was performed in a sitting position throughout the study. The affected parts were extended as fast as possible to grade the flexor muscle tones. It was scored on a scale of 0 to 4 as: 0=No increase in muscle tone, 1=Slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch and release or by minimal resistance at the end of the range of motion (ROM) when the affected part(s) is moved in flexion or extension, 1+=Slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch, followed by minimal resistance throughout the remainder (less than half) of the ROM, 2=More marked increase in muscle tone through most of the ROM, but affected part(s) easily moved, 3=Considerable increase in muscle tone, passive movement difficult and 4=Affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension. Higher scores=worst outcome while lower scores=better outcome.

    Time frame: Week 2, Week 4, Week 6 and Week 12

  2. Change From Baseline in MAS Scores in Elbow, Wrist, Finger and Thumb Flexors up to Week 12 (Mixed Model Repeated Measures [MMRM])

    The affected parts were extended as fast as possible to grade the flexor muscle tones. It was scored on a scale of 0 to 4 as: 0=No increase in muscle tone, 1=Slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch and release or by minimal resistance at the end of the range of motion (ROM) when the affected part(s) is moved in flexion/extension, 1+=Slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch, followed by minimal resistance throughout the remainder (less than half) of the ROM, 2=More marked increase in muscle tone through most of the ROM, but affected part(s) easily moved, 3=Considerable increase in muscle tone, passive movement difficult and 4=Affected part(s) rigid in flexion/extension. Higher scores=worst outcome while lower scores=better outcome. Baseline was defined as the latest pre-first dose assessment with a non-missing value. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-dose visit value minus the Baseline value.

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 1), Week 2, Week 4, Week 6 and Week 12

  3. Change From Baseline in Principal Therapeutic Target of Disability Assessment Scale (DAS) - MMRM up to Week 12

    The investigator assessed 4 areas of disability namely hygiene, pain, dressing and limb posture and was graded using the 4-point DAS scale where (0=No functional disability, 1: Mild disability, 2: Moderate disability and 3=Severe disability). The investigator, in consultation with the participant, selected 1 functional disability item from the 4 areas of disability and assessed it as a principal therapeutic target. The maximum possible score was 3 where higher scores indicate severe disability and lowers scores indicate sound functional ability. Baseline value was defined as the latest pre-first dose assessment with a non-missing value, including those from unscheduled visits. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-dose visit value minus the Baseline value.

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 1), Week 2, Week 4, Week 6 and Week 12

  4. Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) After 84 Days of First Treatment

    An AE is any untoward medical occurrence in a participant, temporally associated with the use of a medicinal product, whether or not considered related to the medicinal product. An AE can therefore be any unfavorable and unintended sign (including an abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease (new or exacerbated) temporally associated with the use of a medicinal product. Any untoward event resulting in death, life threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly/birth defect or any other situation according to medical or scientific judgment was categorized as SAE. Data for number of participants with any AE and any SAE is presented.

    Time frame: Up to 84 days post first treatment

  5. Number of Participants With AEs and SAEs-Overall Study Period

    An AE is any untoward medical occurrence in a participant, temporally associated with the use of a medicinal product, whether or not considered related to the medicinal product. An AE can therefore be any unfavorable and unintended sign (including an abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease (new or exacerbated) temporally associated with the use of a medicinal product. Any untoward event resulting in death, life threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly/birth defect or any other situation according to medical or scientific judgment was categorized as SAE. Data for number of participants with any AE and any SAE is presented.

    Time frame: Up to Week 48

  6. Number of Participants With Abnormal Findings After Physical Examinations

    Physical examinations included assessment of lungs, cardiovascular system, and abdominal region (liver and spleen). This analysis was not planned and data was not collected and captured in the database.

    Time frame: Up to Week 48

  7. Number of Participants With Worst Case Hematology Results Relative to Normal Range Post-Baseline Relative to Baseline

    Hematology parameters along with their normal ranges included: basophils (0 to 2 percent), eosinophils (0 to 8 percent), hemoglobin (135 to 175 grams/liter), hematocrit (0.397 to 0.524 proportion of red blood cells in blood), lymphocytes (18 to 49 percent), monocytes (2 to 10 percent), total neutrophils (40 to 75 percent), platelet count (140 to 340 giga cells/liter), red blood cell count (4.3 to 5.7 trillion cells/liter), white blood cell count (3.3 to 9 giga cells/liter), mean corpuscular volume (85 to 102 femtoliters), mean corpuscular hemoglobin (28 to 34 picograms) and reticulocyte count (0.004 to 0.019 percent/ratio). Shift in values relative to normal range as high and low have been presented for categories having non-zero values.

    Time frame: Up to Week 48

  8. Number of Participants With Worst Case Clinical Chemistry Results Relative to Normal Range Post-Baseline Relative to Baseline

    Clinical chemistry parameters assessed were alkaline phosphatase (100 to 325 international units/liter), alanine amino transferase (5 to 45 international units/liter), aspartate amino transferase (10 to 40 international units/liter), direct bilirubin (0 to 3.42 micromoles/liter), total bilirubin (3.42 to 20.52 micromoles/liter), calcium (2.0958 - 2.5948 millimoles/liter), creatinine (53.924 - 91.936 micromoles/liter), potassium (3.5 - 5 millimoles/liter), sodium (137 - 147 millimoles/liter), total protein (67 - 83 grams/liter), urea/blood urea nitrogen (BUN) \[2.856 - 7.14 millimoles/liter\]. Shift in values relative to normal range as high and low have been presented for categories having non-zero values.

    Time frame: Up to Week 48

  9. Number of Participants With Worst-case Urinalysis Results Post-Baseline Relative to Baseline by Dipstick Analysis

    Urinalysis parameters assessed were urine occult blood, urine protein . In this dipstick test, occult blood and protein in urine samples were recorded as negative trace, 1+, 2+, and 3+ (the plus sign increases with occult blood or proteins in the urine: 1+=slightly positive, 2+=positive, 3+=high positive etc). Number of participants with worst-case urinalysis results post-Baseline relative to Baseline by dipstick analysis have been presented.

    Time frame: Up to Week 48

  10. Change From Baseline in Vital Sign Parameters Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) and Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) at Week 12 and Week 48

    Vital sign parameters SBP and DBP were measured in a semi-recumbent position after a 5-minute rest. If measurement in a semi-recumbent position was difficult, measurement in another position (e.g., sitting) was acceptable. The measurement was performed always in the same position during the study period. SBP and DBP were measured using an automated device. Baseline value was defined as the latest pre-dose assessment with a non-missing value, including those from unscheduled visits. Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting the post-dose visit value minus the Baseline value.

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 1), Week 12 and Week 48

  11. Change From Baseline in Vital Sign Parameter Heart Rate at Week 12 and Week 48

    Vital sign parameter heart rate was measured in a semi-recumbent position after a 5-minute rest. If measurement in a semi-recumbent position was difficult, measurement in another position (e.g., sitting) was acceptable. The measurement was performed always in the same position during the study period. Heart rate was measured using an automated device. Baseline value was defined as the latest pre-dose assessment with a non-missing value, including those from unscheduled visits. Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting the post-dose visit value minus the Baseline value.

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 1), Week 12 and Week 48

  12. Change From Baseline in Vital Sign Parameter Temperature at Week 12 and Week 48

    Vital sign parameter temperature was measured orally, intra-aurally, or axillary fossa, the participant was instructed to refrain from eating food or drinking beverage within 5 minutes before the measurement. The method for the measurement of body temperature was same throughout the study. Baseline value was defined as the latest pre-dose assessment with a non-missing value, including those from unscheduled visits. Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting the post-dose visit value minus the Baseline value.

    Time frame: Baseline (Day 1), Week 12 and Week 48

06

Results

Posted Oct 18, 2019

Participant flow

This was a multicenter study conducted at 40 study centers in Japan, of which 38 centers enrolled participants.

Double Blind(Treatment cyc1,Upto Week48)
Participant flow — Double Blind(Treatment cyc1,Upto Week48)
MilestoneGSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 U
Started6361
Completed6057
Not completed34
Withdrew: Adverse event03
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject31
Open-label(Treatment cycle2,Upto Week48)
Participant flow — Open-label(Treatment cycle2,Upto Week48)
MilestoneGSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 U
Started6057
Completed5857
Not completed20
Withdrew: Protocol defined stopping criteria10
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject10
Open-label(Treatment cycle3,Upto Week48)
Participant flow — Open-label(Treatment cycle3,Upto Week48)
MilestoneGSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 U
Started5556
Completed5455
Not completed11
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject11
Open-label(Treatment cycle4,Upto Week48)
Participant flow — Open-label(Treatment cycle4,Upto Week48)
MilestoneGSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 U
Started4340
Completed4340
Not completed00

Outcome measures

PrimaryPercentage of Participants Who Had Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) Score Reduced at Least 1 From Baseline in the Elbow Flexors at Week 6

MAS was used to measure the level of spasticity. The test was performed in a sitting position throughout the study. The affected parts were extended as fast as possible to grade the flexor muscle tones. It was scored on a scale of 0 to 4 as: 0=No increase in muscle tone, 1=Slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch and release or by minimal resistance at the end of the range of motion (ROM) when the affected part(s) is moved in flexion or extension, 1+= Slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch, followed by minimal resistance throughout the remainder (less than half of ROM, 2 =More marked increase in muscle tone through most of the ROM, but affected part(s) easily moved, 3= Considerable increase in muscle tone, passive movement difficult and 4= Affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension. Higher scores= Worst outcome while lower scores= Better outcome.

Time frame:
Week 6
Reported as:
Number · Percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Who Had Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) Score Reduced at Least 1 From Baseline in the Elbow Flexors at Week 6
Percentage of participantsGSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 U
Percentage of Participants Who Had Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) Score Reduced at Least 1 From Baseline in the Elbow Flexors at Week 650.868.9
Statistical analysis
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Difference: 18.1 · 95% CI 1.1 to 35.0
SecondaryPercentage of Participants Who Had MAS Score Reduction in Elbow, Wrist, Finger and Thumb Flexors up to Week 12

MAS was used to measure the level of spasticity. The test was performed in a sitting position throughout the study. The affected parts were extended as fast as possible to grade the flexor muscle tones. It was scored on a scale of 0 to 4 as: 0=No increase in muscle tone, 1=Slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch and release or by minimal resistance at the end of the range of motion (ROM) when the affected part(s) is moved in flexion or extension, 1+=Slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch, followed by minimal resistance throughout the remainder (less than half) of the ROM, 2=More marked increase in muscle tone through most of the ROM, but affected part(s) easily moved, 3=Considerable increase in muscle tone, passive movement difficult and 4=Affected part(s) rigid in flexion or extension. Higher scores=worst outcome while lower scores=better outcome.

Time frame:
Week 2, Week 4, Week 6 and Week 12
Reported as:
Number · Percentage of participants
Percentage of Participants Who Had MAS Score Reduction in Elbow, Wrist, Finger and Thumb Flexors up to Week 12
Percentage of participantsGSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 U
Elbow Flexion, Week 2, n=63,6144.477.0
Elbow Flexion, Week 4, n=63,6152.473.8
Elbow Flexion, Week 6, n=63,6150.868.9
Elbow Flexion, Week 12, n=63,6133.345.9
Wrist Flexion, Week 2, n=63,6177.872.1
Wrist Flexion, Week 4, n=63,6182.573.8
Wrist Flexion, Week 6, n=63,6181.068.9
Wrist flexion, Week 12, n=63,6154.044.3
Finger Flexion, Week 2, n=63,6187.378.7
Finger Flexion, Week 4, n=63,6185.775.4
Finger Flexion, Week 6, n=63,6181.072.1
Finger Flexion, Week 12, n =63,6146.045.9
Thumb Flexion, Week 2, n=60,5475.064.8
Thumb Flexion, Week 4, n=60,5471.764.8
Thumb Flexion, Week 6, n=60,5468.366.7
Thumb flexion, Week 12,n=60,5446.746.3
Statistical analysis
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Adjusted rate difference: 33.1 · 95% CI 17.0 to 49.2Week 2, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Adjusted rate difference: 21.7 · 95% CI 4.9 to 38.5Week 4, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Adjusted rate difference: 18.4 · 95% CI 1.3 to 35.5Week 6, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Adjusted rate difference: 12.9 · 95% CI -4.2 to 30.1Week 12, Elbow flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Adjusted rate difference: -5.6 · 95% CI -20.9 to 9.8Week 2, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Adjusted rate difference: -8.6 · 95% CI -23.0 to 5.9Week 4, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Adjusted rate difference: -12.1 · 95% CI -27.5 to 3.2Week 6, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Adjusted rate difference: -9.6 · 95% CI -27.2 to 7.9Week 12, Wrist flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Adjusted rate difference: -8.6 · 95% CI -21.9 to 4.7Week 2, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Adjusted rate difference: -10.4 · 95% CI -24.3 to 3.4Week 4, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Adjusted rate difference: -8.9 · 95% CI -23.8 to 6.0Week 6, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Adjusted rate difference: -0.1 · 95% CI -17.7 to 17.4Week 12, Finger flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Adjusted rate difference: -9.9 · 95% CI -26.4 to 6.5Week 2, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Adjusted rate difference: -6.7 · 95% CI -23.6 to 10.3Week 4, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Adjusted rate difference: -1.5 · 95% CI -18.8 to 15.7Week 6, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Adjusted rate difference: -0.5 · 95% CI -18.8 to 17.9Week 12, Thumb flexion. Analysis was based on the Mantel-Haenszel method using Baseline MAS score of the elbow flexors.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in MAS Scores in Elbow, Wrist, Finger and Thumb Flexors up to Week 12 (Mixed Model Repeated Measures [MMRM])

The affected parts were extended as fast as possible to grade the flexor muscle tones. It was scored on a scale of 0 to 4 as: 0=No increase in muscle tone, 1=Slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch and release or by minimal resistance at the end of the range of motion (ROM) when the affected part(s) is moved in flexion/extension, 1+=Slight increase in muscle tone, manifested by a catch, followed by minimal resistance throughout the remainder (less than half) of the ROM, 2=More marked increase in muscle tone through most of the ROM, but affected part(s) easily moved, 3=Considerable increase in muscle tone, passive movement difficult and 4=Affected part(s) rigid in flexion/extension. Higher scores=worst outcome while lower scores=better outcome. Baseline was defined as the latest pre-first dose assessment with a non-missing value. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-dose visit value minus the Baseline value.

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 1), Week 2, Week 4, Week 6 and Week 12
Reported as:
Least squares mean · Scores on a scale
Change From Baseline in MAS Scores in Elbow, Wrist, Finger and Thumb Flexors up to Week 12 (Mixed Model Repeated Measures [MMRM])
Scores on a scaleGSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 U
Elbow Flexion, Week 2, n=63,60-0.59 ± 0.089-1.07 ± 0.102
Elbow Flexion, Week 4, n=63,59-0.7 ± 0.097-1.12 ± 0.110
Elbow Flexion, Week 6, n=63,59-0.71 ± 0.107-1.09 ± 0.128
Elbow Flexion, Week 12, n=60,57-0.35 ± 0.072-0.61 ± 0.101
Wrist Flexion, Week 2, n=63,60-1.29 ± 0.120-1.21 ± 0.126
Wrist Flexion, Week 4, n=63,59-1.45 ± 0.122-1.35 ± 0.132
Wrist Flexion, Week 6, n=63,59-1.29 ± 0.115-1.31 ± 0.136
Wrist flexion, Week 12, n=60,57-0.69 ± 0.097-0.59 ± 0.107
Finger Flexion, Week 2, n=63,60-1.38 ± 0.113-1.28 ± 0.121
Finger Flexion, Week 4, n=63,59-1.49 ± 0.117-1.32 ± 0.130
Finger Flexion, Week 6, n=63,59-1.36 ± 0.118-1.22 ± 0.123
Finger Flexion, Week 12, n=60,57-0.63 ± 0.116-0.59 ± 0.097
Thumb Flexion, Week 2, n=60,53-1.24 ± 0.123-0.96 ± 0.130
Thumb Flexion, Week 4, n=60,53-1.29 ± 0.127-1.15 ± 0.138
Thumb Flexion, Week 6, n=60,53-1.12 ± 0.119-1.10 ± 0.132
Thumb flexion, Week 12, n=57,51-0.69 ± 0.133-0.61 ± 0.144
Statistical analysis
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): -0.48 · 95% CI -0.75 to -0.22Week 2, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): -0.42 · 95% CI -0.71 to -0.13Week 4, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): -0.37 · 95% CI -0.71 to -0.04Week 6, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): -0.27 · 95% CI -0.51 to -0.02Week 12, Elbow flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): 0.08 · 95% CI -0.27 to 0.42Week 2, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): 0.11 · 95% CI -0.25 to 0.46Week 4, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): -0.02 · 95% CI -0.37 to 0.33Week 6, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): 0.09 · 95% CI -0.19 to 0.38Week 12, Wrist flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): 0.10 · 95% CI -0.23 to 0.43Week 2, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): 0.17 · 95% CI -0.17 to 0.52Week 4, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): -0.14 · 95% CI -0.20 to 0.48Week 6, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interaction, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): 0.05 · 95% CI -0.25 to 0.34Week 12, Finger flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interaction, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): 0.28 · 95% CI -0.08 to 0.63Week 2, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): 0.14 · 95% CI -0.23 to 0.51Week 4, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): 0.03 · 95% CI -0.33 to 0.38Week 6, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): 0.08 · 95% CI -0.31 to 0.47Week 12, Thumb flexion. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Principal Therapeutic Target of Disability Assessment Scale (DAS) - MMRM up to Week 12

The investigator assessed 4 areas of disability namely hygiene, pain, dressing and limb posture and was graded using the 4-point DAS scale where (0=No functional disability, 1: Mild disability, 2: Moderate disability and 3=Severe disability). The investigator, in consultation with the participant, selected 1 functional disability item from the 4 areas of disability and assessed it as a principal therapeutic target. The maximum possible score was 3 where higher scores indicate severe disability and lowers scores indicate sound functional ability. Baseline value was defined as the latest pre-first dose assessment with a non-missing value, including those from unscheduled visits. Change from Baseline was calculated as the post-dose visit value minus the Baseline value.

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 1), Week 2, Week 4, Week 6 and Week 12
Reported as:
Least squares mean · Scores on scale
Change From Baseline in Principal Therapeutic Target of Disability Assessment Scale (DAS) - MMRM up to Week 12
Scores on scaleGSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 U
Week 2, n=63,60-0.34 ± 0.087-0.59 ± 0.085
Week 4, n=63,59-0.46 ± 0.096-0.62 ± 0.086
Week 6, n=63,59-0.52 ± 0.081-0.67 ± 0.078
Week 12, n=60,57-0.35 ± 0.082-0.63 ± 0.092
Statistical analysis
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): -0.24 · 95% CI -0.48 to 0.00Week 2. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interaction, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): -0.16 · 95% CI -0.42 to 0.09Week 4. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): -0.15 · 95% CI -0.37 to 0.08Week 6. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
  • GSK1358820 240 U vs GSK1358820 400 U · Mean difference (net): -0.28 · 95% CI -0.52 to -0.04Week 12. Analysis method was MMRM with Treatment, Visit, Treatment by visit interation, Baseline, and Baseline by visit interaction as fixed effects.
SecondaryNumber of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) After 84 Days of First Treatment

An AE is any untoward medical occurrence in a participant, temporally associated with the use of a medicinal product, whether or not considered related to the medicinal product. An AE can therefore be any unfavorable and unintended sign (including an abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease (new or exacerbated) temporally associated with the use of a medicinal product. Any untoward event resulting in death, life threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly/birth defect or any other situation according to medical or scientific judgment was categorized as SAE. Data for number of participants with any AE and any SAE is presented.

Time frame:
Up to 84 days post first treatment
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number of Participants With Adverse Events (AEs) and Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) After 84 Days of First Treatment
ParticipantsGSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 U
Any AE2931
Any SAE45
SecondaryNumber of Participants With AEs and SAEs-Overall Study Period

An AE is any untoward medical occurrence in a participant, temporally associated with the use of a medicinal product, whether or not considered related to the medicinal product. An AE can therefore be any unfavorable and unintended sign (including an abnormal laboratory finding), symptom, or disease (new or exacerbated) temporally associated with the use of a medicinal product. Any untoward event resulting in death, life threatening, requires hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, results in disability/incapacity, congenital anomaly/birth defect or any other situation according to medical or scientific judgment was categorized as SAE. Data for number of participants with any AE and any SAE is presented.

Time frame:
Up to Week 48
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number of Participants With AEs and SAEs-Overall Study Period
ParticipantsGSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 U
Any AE5249
Any SAE68
SecondaryNumber of Participants With Abnormal Findings After Physical Examinations

Physical examinations included assessment of lungs, cardiovascular system, and abdominal region (liver and spleen). This analysis was not planned and data was not collected and captured in the database.

Time frame:
Up to Week 48

No measurements were reported for this outcome.

SecondaryNumber of Participants With Worst Case Hematology Results Relative to Normal Range Post-Baseline Relative to Baseline

Hematology parameters along with their normal ranges included: basophils (0 to 2 percent), eosinophils (0 to 8 percent), hemoglobin (135 to 175 grams/liter), hematocrit (0.397 to 0.524 proportion of red blood cells in blood), lymphocytes (18 to 49 percent), monocytes (2 to 10 percent), total neutrophils (40 to 75 percent), platelet count (140 to 340 giga cells/liter), red blood cell count (4.3 to 5.7 trillion cells/liter), white blood cell count (3.3 to 9 giga cells/liter), mean corpuscular volume (85 to 102 femtoliters), mean corpuscular hemoglobin (28 to 34 picograms) and reticulocyte count (0.004 to 0.019 percent/ratio). Shift in values relative to normal range as high and low have been presented for categories having non-zero values.

Time frame:
Up to Week 48
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number of Participants With Worst Case Hematology Results Relative to Normal Range Post-Baseline Relative to Baseline
ParticipantsGSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 U
Eosinophils, To high73
Hemoglobin, To low55
Hemoglobin, To high15
Hematocrit, To low55
Hematocrit, To high46
Lymphocytes, To low1111
Lymphocytes, To high01
Mean corpuscle hemoglobin, To low21
Mean corpuscle hemoglobin, To high13
Mean corpuscle volume, To low30
Mean corpuscle volume, To high12
Monocytes, To high04
Total neutrophils, To low01
Total neutrophils, To high611
Platelet count, To low21
Platelet count, To high74
Red blood cell count, To low22
Red blood cell count, To high27
Reticulocytes, To high45
White blood cell count, To low01
White blood cell count, To high33
SecondaryNumber of Participants With Worst Case Clinical Chemistry Results Relative to Normal Range Post-Baseline Relative to Baseline

Clinical chemistry parameters assessed were alkaline phosphatase (100 to 325 international units/liter), alanine amino transferase (5 to 45 international units/liter), aspartate amino transferase (10 to 40 international units/liter), direct bilirubin (0 to 3.42 micromoles/liter), total bilirubin (3.42 to 20.52 micromoles/liter), calcium (2.0958 - 2.5948 millimoles/liter), creatinine (53.924 - 91.936 micromoles/liter), potassium (3.5 - 5 millimoles/liter), sodium (137 - 147 millimoles/liter), total protein (67 - 83 grams/liter), urea/blood urea nitrogen (BUN) \[2.856 - 7.14 millimoles/liter\]. Shift in values relative to normal range as high and low have been presented for categories having non-zero values.

Time frame:
Up to Week 48
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number of Participants With Worst Case Clinical Chemistry Results Relative to Normal Range Post-Baseline Relative to Baseline
ParticipantsGSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 U
Alkaline Phosphatase, High56
Alanine amino transferase, High86
Aspartate amino transferase, High32
Direct bilirubin, High12
Total bilirubin, High02
Calcium, Low01
Creatinine, Low51
Creatinine, High32
Potassium, Low11
Potassium, High11
Sodium, Low52
Sodium, High10
Total protein, Low1114
Total protein, High11
Urea/BUN, Low23
Urea/BUN, High75
SecondaryNumber of Participants With Worst-case Urinalysis Results Post-Baseline Relative to Baseline by Dipstick Analysis

Urinalysis parameters assessed were urine occult blood, urine protein . In this dipstick test, occult blood and protein in urine samples were recorded as negative trace, 1+, 2+, and 3+ (the plus sign increases with occult blood or proteins in the urine: 1+=slightly positive, 2+=positive, 3+=high positive etc). Number of participants with worst-case urinalysis results post-Baseline relative to Baseline by dipstick analysis have been presented.

Time frame:
Up to Week 48
Reported as:
Count of participants · Participants
Number of Participants With Worst-case Urinalysis Results Post-Baseline Relative to Baseline by Dipstick Analysis
ParticipantsGSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 U
Occult blood, Any increase1111
Occult blood, Increase to trace42
Occult blood, Increase to 1+27
Occult blood, Increase to 2+12
Occult blood, Increase to 3+40
Protein, Any increase914
Protein, Increase to trace411
Protein, Increase to 1+42
Protein, Increase to 2+10
Protein, Increase to 3+01
Protein, Increase to 4+00
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Vital Sign Parameters Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) and Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) at Week 12 and Week 48

Vital sign parameters SBP and DBP were measured in a semi-recumbent position after a 5-minute rest. If measurement in a semi-recumbent position was difficult, measurement in another position (e.g., sitting) was acceptable. The measurement was performed always in the same position during the study period. SBP and DBP were measured using an automated device. Baseline value was defined as the latest pre-dose assessment with a non-missing value, including those from unscheduled visits. Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting the post-dose visit value minus the Baseline value.

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 1), Week 12 and Week 48
Reported as:
Mean · Millimeters of mercury
Change From Baseline in Vital Sign Parameters Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) and Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) at Week 12 and Week 48
Millimeters of mercuryGSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 U
SBP, Week 12; n=60, 570.8 ± 11.291.3 ± 11.19
DBP, Week 12; n=60, 570.5 ± 8.010.1 ± 10.39
SBP, Week 48; n=57, 56-1.6 ± 13.85-1.7 ± 14.60
DBP, Week 48; n=57, 56-1.8 ± 10.01-1.2 ± 11.42
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Vital Sign Parameter Heart Rate at Week 12 and Week 48

Vital sign parameter heart rate was measured in a semi-recumbent position after a 5-minute rest. If measurement in a semi-recumbent position was difficult, measurement in another position (e.g., sitting) was acceptable. The measurement was performed always in the same position during the study period. Heart rate was measured using an automated device. Baseline value was defined as the latest pre-dose assessment with a non-missing value, including those from unscheduled visits. Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting the post-dose visit value minus the Baseline value.

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 1), Week 12 and Week 48
Reported as:
Mean · Beats per minute
Change From Baseline in Vital Sign Parameter Heart Rate at Week 12 and Week 48
Beats per minuteGSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 U
Week 12; n=60, 570.2 ± 9.952.6 ± 8.20
Week 48; n=57, 560.5 ± 10.05-0.1 ± 9.01
SecondaryChange From Baseline in Vital Sign Parameter Temperature at Week 12 and Week 48

Vital sign parameter temperature was measured orally, intra-aurally, or axillary fossa, the participant was instructed to refrain from eating food or drinking beverage within 5 minutes before the measurement. The method for the measurement of body temperature was same throughout the study. Baseline value was defined as the latest pre-dose assessment with a non-missing value, including those from unscheduled visits. Change from Baseline was calculated by subtracting the post-dose visit value minus the Baseline value.

Time frame:
Baseline (Day 1), Week 12 and Week 48
Reported as:
Mean · Degree Celsius
Change From Baseline in Vital Sign Parameter Temperature at Week 12 and Week 48
Degree CelsiusGSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 U
Week 12; n=59, 56-0.03 ± 0.428-0.08 ± 0.466
Week 48; n=57, 560.00 ± 0.505-0.06 ± 0.461

Adverse events

Collected over Non-serious AE and SAE were collected from start of the study drug until Week 48 in double blind-phase (Treatment cycle1) and from day of injection in Treatment cycles 2, 3 and 4 until Week 48 (48 weeks after first treatment) for participants in the respective treatment cycles in Open-label phase.. Non-serious events are listed at a 3% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
GSK1358820 240 U (Double Blind-Treatment Cycle 1)0/63 (0%)4/63 (6.3%)19/63 (30.2%)
GSK1358820 400 U (Double Blind-Treatment Cycle 1)1/61 (1.6%)5/61 (8.2%)24/61 (39.3%)
GSK1358820 240 U (Open Label-Treatment Cycle 2)0/60 (0%)1/60 (1.7%)7/60 (11.7%)
GSK1358820 400 U (Open labelTreatment Cycle 2)0/57 (0%)2/57 (3.5%)11/57 (19.3%)
GSK1358820 240 U (Open Label-Treatment Cycle 3)0/55 (0%)2/55 (3.6%)12/55 (21.8%)
GSK1358820 400 U (Open Label-Treatment Cycle 3)0/56 (0%)1/56 (1.8%)6/56 (10.7%)
GSK1358820 240 U (Open Label-Treatment Cycle 4)0/43 (0%)0/43 (0%)7/43 (16.3%)
GSK1358820 400 U (Open Label-Treatment Cycle 4)0/40 (0%)2/40 (5%)13/40 (32.5%)
Most frequent serious events
Showing 10 of 16
Most frequent serious events
EventGSK1358820 240 U (Double Blind-Treatment Cycle 1)GSK1358820 400 U (Double Blind-Treatment Cycle 1)GSK1358820 240 U (Open Label-Treatment Cycle 2)GSK1358820 400 U (Open labelTreatment Cycle 2)GSK1358820 240 U (Open Label-Treatment Cycle 3)GSK1358820 400 U (Open Label-Treatment Cycle 3)GSK1358820 240 U (Open Label-Treatment Cycle 4)GSK1358820 400 U (Open Label-Treatment Cycle 4)
PneumoniaInfections and infestations1/631/610/600/570/551/560/431/40
Cerebral haemorrhageNervous system disorders0/631/610/600/570/550/560/431/40
CellulitisInfections and infestations0/630/610/600/571/550/560/430/40
Prostate cancerNeoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps)0/630/610/600/571/550/560/430/40
PyelonephritisInfections and infestations0/630/610/601/570/550/560/430/40
Decreased activityGeneral disorders1/631/610/601/570/550/560/430/40
Lung infectionInfections and infestations0/630/611/600/570/550/560/430/40
Pelvic fractureInjury, poisoning and procedural complications0/631/610/600/570/550/560/430/40
Spinal compression fractureInjury, poisoning and procedural complications0/631/610/600/570/550/560/430/40
DeliriumPsychiatric disorders0/631/610/600/570/550/560/430/40
Most frequent other events
Showing 10 of 31
Most frequent other events
EventGSK1358820 240 U (Double Blind-Treatment Cycle 1)GSK1358820 400 U (Double Blind-Treatment Cycle 1)GSK1358820 240 U (Open Label-Treatment Cycle 2)GSK1358820 400 U (Open labelTreatment Cycle 2)GSK1358820 240 U (Open Label-Treatment Cycle 3)GSK1358820 400 U (Open Label-Treatment Cycle 3)GSK1358820 240 U (Open Label-Treatment Cycle 4)GSK1358820 400 U (Open Label-Treatment Cycle 4)
NasopharyngitisInfections and infestations11/637/612/601/574/550/562/433/40
FallInjury, poisoning and procedural complications3/637/614/605/573/553/562/430/40
ContusionInjury, poisoning and procedural complications1/634/613/603/571/552/560/430/40
InsomniaPsychiatric disorders1/633/610/600/570/550/560/430/40
Oxygen saturation decreasedInvestigations2/633/610/600/572/550/560/430/40
ArthralgiaMusculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders0/633/610/600/570/550/560/430/40
ConstipationGastrointestinal disorders0/633/610/600/570/550/560/430/40
InfluenzaInfections and infestations3/632/610/600/570/550/560/430/40
Ligament sprainInjury, poisoning and procedural complications0/630/610/600/570/550/562/430/40
HypertensionVascular disorders2/631/610/600/570/550/562/430/40

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(Years)GSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 UTotal
Mean57.3 ± 10.9857.1 ± 9.9057.2 ± 10.42
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)GSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 UTotal
Female101525
Male534699
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race/Ethnicity, Customized(Participants)GSK1358820 240 UGSK1358820 400 UTotal
Japanese/East Asian Heritage (AH)/South East AH6360123
Asian & Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander011
07

Study locations

38 sites
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Aichi, 465-8620, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Aichi, 490-1405, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Chiba, 277-8567, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Chiba, 279-0021, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Fukui, 910-0067, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Fukuoka, 819-8551, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Hiroshima, 720-0825, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Hiroshima, 734-8530, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Hokkaido, 005-0802, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Hyogo, 651-2181, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Ibaraki, 300-0028, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Ibaraki, 312-0057, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Kagoshima, 890-0067, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Kanagawa, 227-8518, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Kanagawa, 232-0024, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Kanagawa, 245-8560, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Kanagawa, 259-1143, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Kochi, 780-0051, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Kumamoto, 862-0924, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Nagano, 399-6461, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Niigata, 945-8585, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Oita, 870-0862, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Okayama, 703-8265, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Osaka, 538-0044, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Osaka, 570-8507, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Osaka, 580-0032, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Saga, 849-8501, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Shizuoka, 417-0801, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Shizuoka, 433-8511, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Tokushima, 770-8503, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Tokyo, 102-8798, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Tokyo, 105-8471, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Tokyo, 123-0853, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Tokyo, 165-8906, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Tokyo, 192-0032, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Tokyo, 201-8601, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Wakayama, 641-8509, Japan
  • GSK Investigational Site
    Yamagata, 992-0057, Japan
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Abo M, Shigematsu T, Hara H, Matsuda Y, Nimura A, Yamashita Y, Takahashi K. Efficacy and Safety of OnabotulinumtoxinA 400 Units in Patients with Post-Stroke Upper Limb Spasticity: Final Report of a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial with an Open-Label Extension Phase. Toxins (Basel). 2020 Feb 18;12(2):127. doi: 10.3390/toxins12020127. PubMed 32085529 ↗

Study documents

  • Study protocol · Apr 4, 2017
  • Statistical analysis plan · Apr 2, 2018

Documents are hosted by the registry — open the source record to download them.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — IPD for this study will be made available via the Clinical Study Data Request site.

Supporting information: Study protocol, Sap, Icf, Csr

09

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03261167
Lead sponsor
GlaxoSmithKline
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Aug 24, 2017
Start date
Aug 2, 2017
Primary completion
Mar 20, 2018
Completion
Jan 10, 2019
Results posted
Oct 18, 2019
Last update
Jun 2, 2020

Study contacts

GSK Clinical Trials
study director · GlaxoSmithKline

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in May 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion