AzTrials
AzTrials

Chronic Plantar FasciitisPhase 2/3NCT00447876

Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Dysport® in the Treatment of Chronic Plantar Fasciitis

A Phase 2/3 study testing Botulinum toxin type A in people with Chronic Plantar Fasciitis, run by Ipsen at 6 sites in Germany.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

This study will investigate the hypothesis that the analgesic effect of a single injection of Dysport (200 MU) induces a significant reduction of symptoms in chronic cases of plantar fasciitis. Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Chronic Plantar Fasciitis
What is being tested?
Botulinum toxin type A
Could I receive a placebo?
Yes, some participants may receive a placebo
How many people
40 participants
Where
6 sitesGermany
Study dates
Jul 2005to Apr 2009
Phase
Phase 2/3
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

Who may be able to join

  • Chronic plantar fasciitis (duration of disorder at least 4 months)
  • At least 4 points on the visual analogue scale (0-10) for the most severe pain within the last 48 hours
  • At least 2 previous unsuccessful conservative therapies
  • Age 18 and older

Who cannot join

  • Rheumatoid diseases (M. Bechterew, chronic polyarthritis, psoriasis-arthritis, para /post-infectious arthritis etc.)
  • Previous surgery in the affected area of the foot
  • Pre-treatment with Botulinum toxin A (only de novo patients)
  • Prohibited concomitant treatment: local injections during the study and 2 weeks prior to start of study

Trial locations and contacts

6 sites in 1 country.

6 sites in 1 country

Germany6 sites
  • University Hospital Charite, Campus Virchow, Musculoskeletal Centre, Orthopedic Clinic

    Berlin, 13353

  • Orthopedic Practice Biberburg

    Berlin, 14089

  • Orthopedic Practice

    Karlsruhe, 76133

  • Klinik für Orthopädie und Rheumatologie, Universitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg GmbH

    Marburg

  • Orthocentre Munich

    Munich, 81547

  • Orthopedic Practice

    Weiden, 92637

Other trials in Germany

About this study

Official title: Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Randomised, Multicentre Study on the Efficacy and Safety of a Single Injection of Botulinum Toxin A (200 Units Dysport®) in the Treatment of Chronic Plantar Fasciitis

This study will investigate the hypothesis that the analgesic effect of a single injection of Dysport (200 MU) induces a significant reduction of symptoms in chronic cases of plantar fasciitis.

Being tested
Botulinum toxin type A, Placebo
Medical subject headings
Fasciitis, Plantar

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Botulinum toxin type ABiological

    Also called AbobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport®)

    Botulinum type A toxin (Dysport®): 200 Units injected at the root of the plantar fascia

  • PlaceboDrug

    0.9% sodium chloride: 2 ml injected at the root of the plantar fascia

Study groups in NCT00447876
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Botulinum type A toxin (Dysport®)ExperimentalNot described
Receives: Biological: Botulinum toxin type A
PlaceboPlacebo comparatorNot described
Receives: Drug: Placebo

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Responders Rate at Week 6 (Pain While Moving)

    The responder rate was defined as the percentage of patients whose pain score while moving during the last 48 hours, measured by means of a 10 cm Visual Analogue Scale (VAS, 0 = no pain, 10 = maximum pain) decreased by at least 50% at Week 6 as compared to baseline. Pain at movement is the cardinal symptom of plantar fasciitis and the 10 cm VAS is a reference method for the assessment of pain intensity.

    Measured: Baseline and Week 6

Secondary outcomes (12)
  1. Changes From Baseline in Gerbershagen's Score at Week 18

    The Gerbershagen scale gives a global score ranging between I and III, with lower scores reflecting less impact of pain in terms of temporal, spatial aspects, drug taking behaviour and utilization of the health care system. The changes in Gerbershagen's global scores from baseline to Week 18 are reported as percentage of patients for each of the specified categories.

    Measured: Baseline and Week 18

  2. Changes From Baseline in Maximum Pain (Pain While Moving) at Each Visit

    Assessments of the pain intensity while moving (maximum pain during the previous 48 hours) were performed by means of a 10 cm VAS (0 = no pain, 10 = maximum pain) at each visit. The changes from baseline, expressed as Pain Intensity Difference (PID) values at each indicated timepoint are reported.

    Measured: Baseline and Weeks 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18

  3. Assessment of Sum of Pain Intensity Difference (SPID) for Maximum Pain for Overall Study

    Assessments of the pain intensity while moving (maximum pain during the previous 48 hours) were performed by means of a 10 cm VAS (0 = no pain, 10 = maximum pain) at each visit. The PID values at each timepoint were determined by comparison to baseline, followed by calculation of the area under the curve (AUC) of PID as a function of time (i.e. SPID). The least square (LS) means of SPID, adjusted for the baseline value of pain while moving are reported.

    Measured: Baseline and Weeks 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18

  4. Changes From Baseline in Continuous Pain (Pain At Rest) at Each Visit

    Assessments of the pain intensity while at rest (continuous pain during the previous 48 hours) were performed by means of a 10 cm VAS (0 = no pain, 10 = maximum pain) at each visit. The changes from baseline, expressed as PID values at each indicated timepoint are reported.

    Measured: Baseline and Weeks 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18

  5. Assessment of SPID for Continuous Pain for Overall Study

    Assessments of the pain intensity while at rest (continuous pain during the previous 48 hours) were performed by means of a 10 cm VAS (0 = no pain, 10 = maximum pain) at each visit. The PID values at each timepoint were determined by comparison to baseline, followed by calculation of the AUC of PID as a function of time (i.e. SPID). The LS means for SPID, adjusted for the baseline value of pain at rest are reported.

    Measured: Baseline and Weeks 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18

  6. Changes From Baseline in Pain Threshold at Each Visit

    The maximum pain felt in the medial back foot was measured using an algometer. The pain threshold corresponded to the maximum pressure at which pain was still tolerated. Changes from baseline, expressed as pain threshold differences at each indicated timepoint are reported.

    Measured: Baseline and Weeks 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18

  7. Assessment of Sum of Pain Threshold Differences (by Measurement of AUC) for Overall Study

    Assessments of the pain threshold using an algometer (which was the pressure corresponding to the maximum tolerated pain) were performed at each visit. Pain threshold differences at each timepoint were determined by comparison to baseline, followed by calculation of the AUC of the pain threshold difference as a function of time. The LS means of AUC, adjusted for the baseline value of pain threshold are reported.

    Measured: Baseline and Weeks 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18

  8. Changes From Baseline in Pressure Threshold (With Algometer) at Each Visit

    Pressure pain in the medial back foot was measured using an algometer. Pressure threshold corresponded to the minimum pressure causing pain. The changes from baseline, expressed as pressure threshold differences at each indicated timepoint are reported.

    Measured: Baseline and Weeks 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18

  9. Assessment of Sum of Pressure Threshold Differences (by Measurement of AUC) for Overall Study

    Assessments of the pressure threshold using an algometer (which corresponded to the minimum pressure causing pain) were performed at each visit. Pressure threshold differences at each timepoint were determined by comparison to baseline, followed by calculation of the AUC of the pressure threshold difference as a function of time. The LS means of AUC, adjusted for the baseline value of pressure threshold are reported.

    Measured: Baseline and Weeks 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18

  10. Assessment of Dorsal Extension / Plantar Flexion Range of Motion (ROM) of the Affected Foot At Week 18

    Dorsal extension and plantar flexion of the affected foot were assessed at baseline and at Week 18. A ROM of approximately 70 degrees is considered to be normal. The LS means, adjusted for the baseline value are reported.

    Measured: Baseline and Week 18

  11. Number of Patients Without Pain and/or With a Pain Reduction Based on Global Assessment of Pain by Investigator at Each Visit

    A global assessment of the patient's current condition relative to baseline was performed by the Investigator at each visit using 5 level scale: significantly better, slightly better, unchanged, slightly worse, significantly worse. The number of patients for each variable at each indicated timepoint are reported.

    Measured: Baseline and Weeks 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18

  12. Number of Patients Without Pain and/or With a Pain Reduction Based on Global Assessment of Pain by Patient at Each Visit

    A global assessment of the patient's current condition relative to baseline was performed by the patient at each visit using a 5 level scale: significantly better, slightly better, unchanged, slightly worse, significantly worse. The number of patients for each variable at each indicated timepoint are reported.

    Measured: Baseline and Weeks 2, 6, 10, 14 and 18

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted15 Mar 2007 (estimated)
  2. Study startJul 2005
  3. Primary completionJan 2009
  4. Study completionApr 2009

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase 2/3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Parallel groups
Masking
Double blind
Who is masked
Participant, Investigator
Enrolment
40 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT00447876
Sponsor's protocol ID
A-94-52120-100
Other IDs
2004-002533-39, 2004
Status last verified
Nov 2019
First submitted
13 Mar 2007
Last updated
22 Nov 2019
Data monitoring committee
No

Publications

  • Peterlein CD, Funk JF, Holscher A, Schuh A, Placzek R. Is botulinum toxin A effective for the treatment of plantar fasciitis? Clin J Pain. 2012 Jul;28(6):527-33. doi: 10.1097/AJP.0b013e31823ae65a.

    PubMed 22673486

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A Phase 2/3 study testing Botulinum toxin type A in people with Chronic Plantar Fasciitis, run by Ipsen at 6 sites in Germany.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 4 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 Nov 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 6 sites in Germany. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. Some participants in this study may receive a placebo. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

What does this combined phase mean?

Phase 2 studies give the treatment to a larger group to see whether it has the intended effect and to keep checking safety.

Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.

Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 23 Jun 2017). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Responders Rate at Week 6 (Pain While Moving) (time frame: Baseline and Week 6). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00447876, which also lists 1 linked publication.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 Nov 2019.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in