Side effects and potential risk factors of botulinum toxin type A intramuscular injections in knee flexion contractures of hemophiliacs

Botulinum toxin type A is a potential therapeutic drug for chronic orofacial pain

BACKGROUND

Botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A), produced by the gram-positive anaerobic bacterium Clostridium botulinum, acts by cleaving synaptosome-associated protein-25 (SNAP-25), an essential component of the presynaptic neuronal membrane that is necessary for fusion with the membrane proteins of neurotransmitter-containing vesicles. Recent studies have highlighted the efficacy of BTX-A in treating chronic pain conditions, including lower back pain, chronic neck pain, neuropathic pain, and trigeminal neuralgia, particularly when patients are unresponsive to traditional painkillers. This review focuses on the analgesic effects of BTX-A in various chronic pain conditions, with a particular emphasis on the orofacial region.

HIGHLIGHT

This review focuses on the mechanisms by which BTX-A induces analgesia in patients with inflammatory and temporomandibular joint pain. This review also highlights the fact that BTX-A can effectively manage neuropathic pain and trigeminal neuralgia, which are difficult-to-treat chronic pain conditions. Herein, we present a comprehensive assessment of the central analgesic effects of BTX-A and a discussion of its various applications in clinical dental practice.

CONCLUSION

BTX-A is an approved treatment option for various chronic pain conditions. Although there is evidence of axonal transport of BTX-A from peripheral to central endings in motor neurons, the precise mechanism underlying its pain-modulating effects remains unclear. This review discusses the evidence supporting the effectiveness of BTX-A in controlling chronic pain conditions in the orofacial region. BTX-A is a promising therapeutic agent for treating pain conditions that do not respond to conventional analgesics.

Safety of intramuscular COVID-19 vaccination in patients with haemophilia

Background

Guidelines recommend that patients with haemophilia should preferably receive vaccination subcutaneously. COVID‐19 and other vaccines, however, are only licenced for intramuscular application.

Aims

To assess the safety of intramuscular COVID‐19 vaccination in patients living with haemophilia.

Methods

Part A of this prospective observational study enrolled consecutive patients with haemophilia A (HA) and B (HB) of all ages and severities and assessed injection site bleeding and other complications within 30 days of vaccination. Part B enrolled patients providing informed consent for detailed data collection including medication and prophylaxis around the time of vaccination. Logistic regression was performed to assess potential risk factors for bleeding.

Results

Four hundred and sixty‐one patients were enrolled into part A. The primary endpoint injection site bleeding occurred in seven patients (1.5%, 95% confidence interval .7–3.1%). Comprehensive analysis of 214 patients (404 vaccinations, part B) revealed that 97% of patients with severe haemophilia had prophylaxis before vaccination, either as part of their routine prophylaxis or using additional doses. 56% and 30% of patients with moderate and mild haemophilia, respectively, received prophylaxis before vaccination. Among the seven bleeds recorded, three occurred when intramuscular vaccination was done without prophylaxis (odds ratio 12).

Conclusions

This is the first prospective study reporting on the safety of intramuscular vaccination in haemophilia. The rate of injection site bleeding was low in mild haemophilia, and in moderate and severe haemophilia if patients received factor prophylaxis.