A Screening Tool to Identify Spasticity in Need of Treatment

Poststroke Care Pathways and Spasticity Treatment: A Retrospective Study in Alberta

BACKGROUND

Limited evidence exists regarding care pathways for stroke survivors who do and do not receive poststroke spasticity (PSS) treatment.

METHODS

Administrative data was used to identify adults who experienced a stroke and sought acute care between 2012 and 2017 in Alberta, Canada. Pathways of stroke care within the health care system were determined among those who initiated PSS treatment (PSS treatment group: outpatient pharmacy dispensation of an anti-spastic medication, focal chemo-denervation injection, or a spasticity tertiary clinic visit) and those who did not (non-PSS treatment group). Time from the stroke event until spasticity treatment initiation, and setting where treatment was initiated were reported. Descriptive statistics were performed.

RESULTS

Health care settings within the pathways of stroke care that the PSS (n = 1,079) and non-PSS (n = 22,922) treatment groups encountered were the emergency department (86 and 84%), acute inpatient care (80 and 69%), inpatient rehabilitation (40 and 12%), and long-term care (19 and 13%), respectively. PSS treatment was initiated a median of 291 (interquartile range 625) days after the stroke event, and most often in the community when patients were residing at home (45%), followed by "other" settings (22%), inpatient rehabilitation (18%), long-term care (11%), and acute inpatient care (4%).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first population based cohort study describing pathways of care among adults with stroke who subsequently did or did not initiate spasticity treatment. Areas for improvement in care may include strategies for earlier identification and treatment of PSS.

Theoretical and Therapeutic Implications of the Spasticity-Plus Syndrome Model in Multiple Sclerosis

In patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), a typical pattern of muscle tone alteration, known as spasticity, is frequently observed in combination with other signs or symptoms such as spasms, cramps, pain, bladder dysfunction, sleep disturbances, fatigue, and tremor. Recently, the concept of spasticity-plus syndrome (SPS) has been proposed to take into account the frequent coexistence of all these complaints in patients with MS and a common pathophysiological basis for this putative new clinical entity has been proposed. Muscle tone, sleep, bladder function, and the pain pathway are controlled by cannabinoid CB1 (CB1R) and CB2 receptors (CB2R) that are particularly enriched in the brainstem. Axons with smaller diameters are particularly susceptible to conduction block and the irritative, ephaptic, consequences of demyelination and their involvement in the demyelination process caused by MS in the brainstem might underlie the various clinical manifestations of SPS. The adoption of SPS in clinical practice could be useful to improve symptomatic treatments in a significant proportion of patients with MS, possibly limiting the adverse events produced by polypharmacotherapy.

Spasticity Outpatient Evaluation via Telemedicine: A Practical Framework

The COVID-19 global pandemic has resulted in significant changes to delivery of care in the field of physiatry. Most prominently, in-person visits have fast tracked to virtual visits. As we are forced to quickly adopt this new technology for our doctor-patient interactions, many questions remain with regard to structuring telemedicine visits for optimal outcomes. Little has been written on virtual evaluations of patients with spasticity. The intent of this article was to provide a framework for conducting a virtual spasticity assessment via telemedicine. We will provide tips on how to conduct a person-centered virtual examination assessment and how to document goals related to the virtual assessment.

A Simple Bedside Screening Tool for Spasticity Referral

Background and Objectives

Spasticity is common in long-term care facilities; however, this often-disabling condition is largely underdiagnosed in this setting and therefore left untreated. This study aimed to test the ability of a three-question flowchart used at the bedside by primary care providers in the long-term care setting to identify residents in need of referral to a specialist for spasticity consultation.

Methods

All residents of a single long-term care facility were approached for participation in this cross-sectional, observational study. Spasticity diagnostic evaluations by a movement disorders specialist neurologist (reference standard) were compared with referral determinations made by two primary care providers [a primary care physician (PCP) and a nurse practitioner (NP)] using the simple flowchart.

Results

The analysis included 49 residents (80% male, age 78.2±9.0 years) who were evaluated by the reference standard neurologist and at least one primary care provider. The bedside referral tool demonstrated high sensitivity and moderate specificity when used by the PCP (92% and 78%, respectively; AUC=0.84) and NP (80% and 53%, respectively; AUC=0.67).

Conclusion

This simple tool may be useful for primary care providers to identify residents to be referred to a specialist for evaluation and treatment of spasticity. These results warrant further investigation of the potential utility of this screening tool across multiple long-term care facilities and various types of care providers.

Pediatric telerehabilitation medicine: Making your virtual visits efficient, effective and fun

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated many changes in medicine including the transition from providing care in person to providing care via technology enabled telemedicine. The benefits of telemedicine visits with a Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine (PRM) provider, also known as telerehabilitation medicine visits, are numerous. Telerehabilitation medicine provides an opportunity to deliver timely, patient and family-centric rehabilitation care while maintaining physical distance and reducing potential COVID-19 exposure for our patients, their caregivers and medical providers. Telerehabilitation medicine also allows for access to PRM care in rural areas or areas without medical specialty, virtual in-home equipment evaluation, and reduced travel burden. Because of these and many other benefits, telerehabilitation medicine will likely become part of our ongoing model of care if barriers to telemedicine continue to be lowered or removed. This paper is intended to establish a foundation for pediatric telerehabilitation medicine visit efficiency and effectiveness in our current environment and into the future.

Sensory-motor and cardiorespiratory sensory rehabilitation associated with transcranial photobiomodulation in patients with central nervous system injury: Trial protocol for a single-center, randomized, double-blind, and controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Central nervous system diseases such as stroke, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, and multiple sclerosis can be fatal or cause sequelae, affecting sensorimotor and cardiorespiratory systems and quality of life. These subjects present a low response to aerobic and resistance exercise, due to decreased recruitment of muscle fibers and reduction of metabolic capacity. Aerobic exercises bring benefits in terms of fatigue retardation, gait improvement, regulation of the autonomic nervous system, neuroprotection of the brain, stimulation of the production of endogenous neutrotransmitters related to general well-being, and a favoring of neuroplasticity. Photobiomodulation (PBM Therapy) (previously known as low-level laser therapy), and especially transcranial PBM Therapy, has shown benefits in animals and humans such as cognitive improvement, memory, and behavioral improvement, including attenuation of depression and anxiety, and increased cortical oxygenation. The aims of this trial will be to evaluate the parameters related to the function of the musculoskeletal and cardiorespiratory system and the impact of PBM therapy on these parameters, as part of a rehabilitation and training program for people with reduced mobility.

METHODS

This is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 3 groups: Control, only cardiorespiratory rehabilitation (CCR), CCR with PBM Therapy (CR-PBM), CCR and placebo PBM Therapy (CR-PlaceboPBM). n = 90, 30 per group. PBM Therapy parameters: 810 nm laser, 0.028 cm, 100 mW, 3.5 W/cm, 30 seconds per point, 3 J per point, 107.1 J /cm to 3 electroencephalogram points F7 and F8 and AFz. The trial will be conducted at the University Clinics and the sessions will be 1 hour twice a week for 9 weeks. Baseline, intermediate (4th week), final (9th week), and 2-month follow-up will be performed. Muscular activation, heart rate variability, lung volumes and capacities, fatigability, exercise tolerance, cognition, and quality of life at baseline will be evaluated. Subsequent to baseline evaluations, the PBM Therapy groups will be offered laser therapy (active or inactive); all groups will then receive CCR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov ID - NCT03751306 (approval date: November 22, 2018).