Efficacy and tolerability of eperisone and baclofen in spastic palsy: a double-blind randomized trial

Comparative effect of oral drugs in improving spasticity of different etiology: a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Spasticity, a prevalent manifestation of various neurological conditions, significantly impacts the quality of life of patients. Research on the effects of oral drugs on spasticity has produced controversial results. Thus, the aim of this network meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy of oral drugs for improving spasticity in patients with different etiologies.

METHODS

We searched four different databases from their inception to 30 November 2023. A network meta-analysis using a frequentist perspective was conducted to assess the effects of different oral drugs on spasticity, evaluated by the modified Ashworth scale.

RESULTS

Our findings showed that, in a frequentist network meta-analysis, eperisone, diazepam, and baclofen had significantly greater spasticity, as measured by the modified Ashworth scale, than did the placebo (MD: -0.80; 95% CIs: -1.42, -0.18; MD: -0.68; 95% CIs: -1.28, -0.09; MD: -0.58; 95% CIs: -1.11, -0.06, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In summary, our study confirmed that eperisone, diazepam, and baclofen could be effective approaches for reducing spasticity of different etiologies and could be useful approaches for improving patient quality of life. Key messages What is already known on this topic: The impact of oral drugs, such as baclofen, gabapentin, tizanidine, and dantrolene, in the treatment of spasticity has been documented. What this study adds: This study determines which of the oral drugs aimed at treating spasticity is the most effective across different etiologies. How this study might affect research, practice, or policy: This study suggests tailored treatment strategies for spasticity based on its etiology.

Deep Brain Stimulation of the Interposed Nucleus Reverses Motor Deficits and Stimulates Production of Anti-inflammatory Cytokines in Ataxia Mice

Cerebellum is one of the major targets of autoimmunity and cerebellar damage that leads to ataxia characterized by the loss of fine motor coordination and balance, with no treatment available. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) could be a promising treatment for ataxia but has not been extensively investigated. Here, our study aims to investigate the use of interposed nucleus of deep cerebellar nuclei (IN-DCN) for ataxia. We first characterized ataxia-related motor symptom of a Purkinje cell (PC)-specific LIM homeobox (Lhx)1 and Lhx5 conditional double knockout mice by motor coordination tests, and spontaneous electromyogram (EMG) recording. To validate IN-DCN as a target for DBS, in vivo local field potential (LFP) multielectrode array recording of IN-DCN revealed abnormal LFP amplitude surges in PCs. By synchronizing the EMG and IN-DCN recordings (neurospike and LFP) with high-speed video recordings, ataxia mice showed poorly coordinated movements associated with low EMG amplitude and aberrant IN-DCN neural firing. To optimize IN-DCN-DBS for ataxia, we tested DBS parameters from low (30 Hz) to high stimulation frequency (130 or 150 Hz), and systematically varied pulse width values (60 or 80 µs) to maximize motor symptom control in ataxia mice. The optimal IN-DCN-DBS parameter reversed motor deficits in ataxia mice as detected by animal behavioral tests and EMG recording. Mechanistically, cytokine array analysis revealed that anti-inflammatory cytokines such as interleukin (IL)-13 and IL-4 were upregulated after IN-DCN-DBS, which play key roles in neural excitability. As such, we show that IN-DCN-DBS is a promising treatment for ataxia and possibly other movement disorders alike.

Effects of Eperisone Hydrochloride and Non-Steroid Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) for Acute Non-Specific Back Pain with Muscle Spasm: A Prospective, Open-Label Study

Background

Low back pain (LBP) occurs as a common condition and may harm the patient’s quality-of-life. Non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and eperisone form a drug regiment that has been reported as effective in improving low back pain, yet the evidence for its efficacy and safety is lacking.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of eperisone hydrochloride and ibuprofen compared with ibuprofen alone in reducing symptoms of patients with acute non-specific back pain with a muscle spasm.

Methods

This was an open-label, prospective study involving 100 subjects with symptoms of back pain and muscle spasm. Eligible participants were randomly allocated to an experimental group (54 patients) and a control group (46 patients). The experimental group received eperisone 50 mg three times daily + ibuprofen 400 mg twice daily, and the control group received ibuprofen 400 mg twice daily over a 4-week duration. The primary outcomes were measured with the visual analog scale (VAS), and finger-to-floor (FTF) distance at baseline, week 2, and week 4.

Results

After 4 weeks of follow-up, results from 59 subjects were collected. In both groups, VAS and FTF were decreased compared to baseline. Clinically significant pain reduction (>50% than baseline) was observed to be higher in the experimental group compared with the control group in the fourth week (72.4% vs 46.7%, P<0.05). At the end of the study, pain reduction in the experimental group was more significant compared to the control group (28.13±24.72 vs 34.42±28.47) and participants mobility (FTF distance <10 cm) improved in both groups, especially in the experimental group (75.9% vs 70%). There was no difference in adverse events between groups (P>0.05).

Conclusion

The combination of eperisone hydrochloride and ibuprofen effectively reduces pain and improves functional outcomes over ibuprofen alone with a similar safety profile in these patients with acute non-specific back pain with muscle spasm.

Eperisone-Induced Anaphylaxis: Pharmacovigilance Data and Results of Allergy Testing

PURPOSE

Eperisone is an oral muscle relaxant used in musculoskeletal disorders causing muscle spasm and pain. For more effective pain control, eperisone is usually prescribed together with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). As such, eperisone may have been overlooked as the cause of anaphylaxis compared with NSAIDs. This study aimed to analyze the adverse drug reaction (ADR) reported in Korea and suggest an appropriate diagnostic approach for eperisone-induced anaphylaxis.

METHODS

We reviewed eperisone-related pharmacovigilance data (Korea Institute of Drug Safety-Korea Adverse Event Reporting System [KIDS-KAERS]) reported in Korea from 2010 to 2015. ADRs with causal relationship were selected. Clinical manifestations, severity, outcomes, and re-exposure information were analyzed. For further investigation, 7-year ADR data reported in a single center were also reviewed. Oral provocation test (OPT), skin prick test (SPT) and basophil activation test (BAT) were performed in this center.

RESULTS

During the study period, 207 patients had adverse reactions to eperisone. The most common ADRs were cutaneous hypersensitive reactions (30.4%) such as urticaria, itchiness or angioedema. Fifth common reported ADR was anaphylaxis. There were 35 patients with anaphylaxis, comprising 16.9% of the eperisone-related ADRs. In the single center study, there were 11 patients with eperisone-induced anaphylaxis. All the patients underwent OPT and all the provoked patients showed a positive reaction. Four of the 11 patients with anaphylaxis also underwent SPT and BAT, which were all negative.

CONCLUSIONS

Incidence of eperisone-induced anaphylaxis calculated from the KIDS-KAERS database was 0.001%. Eperisone can cause hypersensitive reactions, including anaphylaxis, possibly by inducing non-immunoglobulin E-mediated immediate hypersensitivity.

Efficacy and Safety of Botulinum Toxin Type A in Spasticity Caused by Spinal Cord Injury: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Background

Baclofen is approved by the US FDA to treat spasticity, but its sustained use may cause drug addiction. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of botulinum toxin type A versus baclofen in spasticity.

Material/Methods

A total of 336 patients who had spasticity caused by spinal cord injury were enrolled in a randomized (in 1: 1: 1: ratio) for placebo, controlled trial. Patients had received baclofen (BA group, n=112), local intramuscular injection of 500 U Botulinum toxin type A (BTI group, n=112), or physical therapies alone (placebo group, n=112). Modified Ashworth scale (mAS) score, disability assessment scale (DAS) score, modified medical research council (mMRC) score, the Barthel Index (BI) score, and treatment-emergent adverse effects were evaluated during the follow-up period. Wilcoxon test or one-way ANOVA/Tukey post hoc tests were performed at 95% of confidence level.

Results

Baclofen (1.504±0.045 vs. 1.53±0.06, p=0.003, q=4.068) and botulinum toxin type A (1.49±0.09 vs. 1.528±0.15, p=0.0224, q=3.5541) had improved mAS scores after 2 weeks. Baclofen had a more strongly improved DAS score than botulinum toxin type A at 4 (p=0.0496, q=3.48) and 6 (p<0.0001, q=6.48) weeks. Baclofen and botulinum toxin type A had consistently improved BI scores. Baclofen caused asthenia and sleepiness, while botulinum toxin type A caused bronchitis and elevated blood pressure.

Conclusions

Botulinum toxin type A may be an effective therapeutic option for spasticity caused by spinal cord injury.

The comparative study of clinical efficacy and safety of baclofen vs tolperisone in spasticity caused by spinal cord injury

In the present study we compared the clinical efficacy and safety of baclofen vs tolperisone in spasticity caused by spinal cord injury. A total of 150 patients were enrolled in the present study and were divided into two groups with 75 patients in each group, receiving baclofen or tolperisone, respectively. We used Modified Ashworth Scale, Medical research council scale, Barthel Index, and Coefficient of efficacy to measure clinical efficacy. After 6-week treatment, both groups demonstrated significant improvement in muscle tone, muscle strength and functional outcome (Group I, 1.55 ± 0.053, 2.79 ± 0.032, 59.31 ± 1.32; Group II, 1.57 ± 0.053, 3.04 ± 0.032, 73 ± 1.32 respectively). There was no significant difference regarding improvement in muscle tone and muscle strength between the two groups (Group I, 1.055 ± 0.053 vs Group II, 1.57 ± 0.053; Group I, 2.79 ± 0.032 vs Group II, 3.04 ± 0.032, p > 0.05). However, the improvement in functional outcomes was greater in group II as compared to that in group I (Group I, 59.31 ± 1.32 vs Group II, 73 ± 1.32, p < 0.05). In addition, overall efficacy coefficient was greater for group II as compared to group I (Group I, 3.6 vs Group II, 2.3, p < 0.05). Group I had more side effects compared to Group II. Compared to baclofen, tolperisone offers greater improvement in activities of daily living compared to baclofen.

Comparative study of therapeutic response to baclofen vs tolperisone in spasticity

BACKGROUND

Spasticity from the upper motor neuron syndrome can result from a variety of conditions affecting the cortex or spinal cord. Some of the more common conditions associated with spasticity include spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy, and post-stroke syndrome. In this study we compared the efficacy and safety of baclofen vs tolperisone in spasticity. One hundred fifty patients with cerebral palsy or post stroke or spinal cord injury associated spasticity were enrolled in present study. Group I comprised of Seventy-five patients receiving baclofen and group II comprised of 75 patients receiving tolperisone. For efficacy measurement 4 evaluation methods were used, 1) Modified Ashworth Scale for muscle tone, 2) Medical research council scale for muscle strength and 3) Barthel Index for functional outcome 4) Coefficient of efficacy. In efficacy evaluation, both groups showed significant improvement in muscle tone, muscle strength and functional outcome at week 6 (Group I, 1.55±0.053, 2.79+0.032, 59.31±1.32; Group II, 1.57±0.053, 3.04±0.032, 73±1.32 respectively). In between the group analysis, there was no significant difference in muscle tone improvement in both the groups after 6 weeks (Group I, 1.055±0.053 vs Group II, 1.57±0.053, p>0.05). Group II showed non-significant but greater improvement in muscle strength (Week 6; Group I, 2.79±0.032 vs Group II, 3.04±0.032, p>0.07). Improvement in functional outcomes was greater in group II as compared to group I (Group I, 59.31±1.32 vs Group II, 73±1.32, p<0.05). Overall efficacy coefficient was greater for group II (3.6) as compared to group I (2.3). Baclofen showed more side effects compared to tolperisone in, asthenia being the most frequent. Tolperisone offers greater improvement in activities of daily living compared to baclofen. Tolperisone is more tolerable drug as compared to baclofen.

Efficacy and tolerability of eperisone and baclofen in spastic palsy: a double-blind randomized trial

INTRODUCTION

Few trials have compared different central muscle relaxants in the treatment of spastic palsy. This head-to-head phase 3 trial compares oral eperisone, a central muscle relaxant with a promising activity in spasticity therapy, and oral baclofen.

METHODS

Patients (>18 years) with moderate to severe spastic palsy were eligible in this double-blind, randomized study; they received eperisone 300 mg/ day or baclofen 60 mg/day for 6 weeks. The efficacy evaluations included: functional analysis (Pedersen's scale, muscular tone, joint range of motion, 10-meter walking time); physiological and pathological reflexes; and electromyography (Hmax/Mmax amplitude ratio and the Wartenberg test). Physicians and patients globally assessed treatment efficacy.

RESULTS

Both eperisone (n=40) and baclofen (n=40) significantly improved functionality of lower limbs versus baseline (eperisone: -9.1%, P<0.01; baclofen: -8.3%, P<0.05), but only eperisone improved this parameter in the upper limbs (-7.8%, P<0.01 vs. -6.3%, P=NS). Both drugs reduced muscular tone from week 2. Only eperisone improved the joint range of motion (-32.5%, P<0.01 vs. -14.6%, P=NS). Both treatments reduced the 10-meter walking time (eperisone: -20.2%, P<0.01; baclofen: -24.0%, P<0.01); this effect was evident at week 2 with eperisone only. Both drugs improved reflexes. Eperisone and baclofen decreased the Hmax/Mmax amplitude ratio (eperisone: -30.0%, baclofen: -18.6%; P<0.01 for both). Eperisone increased the number of leg oscillations at the Wartenberg test (P<0.05) while baclofen increased the velocity of leg falling (P<0.01). For tolerability, no differences were observed between eperisone and baclofen in any parameters. Eperisone was judged as "good" by a higher number of physicians and patients than baclofen. Eighteen adverse events, most of mild intensity, were reported with eperisone and 27 with baclofen.

CONCLUSION

Eperisone 300 mg/day and baclofen 60 mg/day, administered orally, are effective and well-tolerated drugs in the treatment of spastic palsy. However, eperisone might be associated with some additional clinical benefits when compared with baclofen.