The efficacy of Botulinum Toxin A on improving ease of care in the upper and lower limbs: a systematic review and meta-analysis using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach

Assessment, goal setting, and botulinum neurotoxin a therapy in the management of post-stroke spastic movement disorder: updated perspectives on best practice

INTRODUCTION

Post-stroke spastic movement disorder (PS-SMD) appears up to 20% in the first week following stroke and 40% in the chronic phase. It may create major hurdles to overcome in early stroke rehabilitation and as one relevant factor that reduces quality of life to a major degree in the chronic phase.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we discuss predictors,early identification, clinical assessments, goal setting, and management in multiprofessional team, including Botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT-A) injection for early and chronic management of PS-SMD.

EXPERT OPINION

The earlier PS-SMD is recognized and managed, the better the outcome will be. The comprehensive management in the subacute or chronic phase of PS-SMD with BoNT-A injections requires detailed assessment, patient-centered goal setting, technical-guided injection, effective dosing of BoNT-A per site, muscle, and session and timed adjunctive treatment, delivered in a multi-professional team approach in conjunction with physical treatment. Evidence-based data showed BoNT-A injections are safe and effective in managing focal, multifocal, segmental PS-SMD and its complications. If indicated, BoNT-A therapy should be accompanied with adjunctive treatment in adequate time slots. BoNT-A could be added to oral, intrathecal, and surgical treatment in severe multisegmental or generalized PS-SMD to reach patient/caregiver's goals, especially in chronic PS-SMD.

Effectiveness of AbobotulinumtoxinA in Post-stroke Upper Limb Spasticity in Relation to Timing of Treatment

Background: Recent studies of botulinum toxin for post-stroke spasticity indicate potential benefits of early treatment (i. e., first 6 months) in terms of developing hypertonicity, pain and passive function limitations. This non-interventional, longitudinal study aimed to assess the impact of disease duration on the effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA treatment for upper limb spasticity. Methods: The early-BIRD study (NCT01840475) was conducted between February 2013 and 2018 in 43 centers across Germany, France, Austria, Netherlands and Switzerland. Adult patients with post-stroke upper limb spasticity undergoing routine abobotulinumtoxinA treatment were followed for up to four treatment cycles. Patients were categorized by time from stroke event to first botulinum toxin-A treatment in the study (as defined by the 1st and 3rd quartiles time distribution) into early-, medium- and late- start groups. We hypothesized that the early-start group would show a larger benefit (decrease) as assessed by the modified Ashworth scale (MAS, primary endpoint) on elbow plus wrist flexors compared with the late-start group. Results: Of the 303 patients enrolled, 292 (96.4%) received ≥1 treatment and 186 (61.4%) received 4 injection cycles and completed the study. Patients in all groups showed a reduction in MAS scores from baseline over the consecutive injection visits (i.e., at end of each cycle). Although reductions in MAS scores descriptively favored the early treatment group, the difference compared to the late group did not reach statistical significance at the last study visit (ANCOVA: difference in adjusted means of 0.15, p = 0.546). Conclusions: In this observational, routine-practice study, patients in all groups displayed a benefit from abobotulinumtoxinA treatment, supporting the effectiveness of treatment for patients at various disease stages. Although the data revealed some trends in favor of early vs. late treatment, we did not find strong evidence for a significant benefit of early vs. late start of treatment in terms of reduction in MAS scores.

Nonsurgical Treatment Options for Upper Limb Spasticity

There are many nonsurgical treatment options for patients with upper limb spasticity. This article presents an algorithmic approach to management, encompassing evidence-based rehabilitation therapies, medications, and promising new orthotic and robotic innovations.

Does botulinum toxin treatment improve upper limb active function?

BACKGROUND

Spasticity following lesions of the central nervous system such as stroke is a major cause of impairment and disability, especially when it affects the upper limb, and can be focally relieved by intramuscular injections of botulinum toxin (BT). Functional improvements of the affected upper limb after a BT focal treatment remain controversial.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the functional effects of BT treatment on upper-limb spasticity in the literature, identify flaws and deficiencies in proving these effects and propose leads for future trials.

METHODS

We searched the MEDLINE and Cochrane databases for trials, reviews and meta-analyses assessing the effect of BT injection in upper-limb spasticity. This was a non-systematic narrative review, and the selection of articles was based on the authors' expertise. The review focused on stroke-related spasticity and disability.

RESULTS

Patients' therapeutic targets involved use of the disability assessment scale (DAS) or goal attainment scale (GAS). Impairments and passive function goals prevailed for active function and participation and were more frequently achieved for the former than the latter. Meta-analyses showed no to mild effect sizes for improvement in upper-limb function but failed to show higher and/or better use of the paretic upper limb in activities of daily living after BT injection.

CONCLUSION

BT injections for impairment and passive function are related to improved kinematic parameters; however, the relation between relief of spasticity and improved upper-limb activity has not been established. Possible explanations for the lack of functional effect in studies are first, disability is mainly due to muscle weakness rather than spasticity, so patients with the best underlying motricity may benefit the most from BT injections; second, assessment methods may not be adapted to screen eligible patients; third, most studies' endpoints were at 4 to 12 weeks after a single injection, but repeated treatment sessions might be needed to observe functional outcome on the upper limbs; and finally, the association of rehabilitation programs or non-pharmacological treatments may enhance the functional effects of BT injections.

Interventions for managing skeletal muscle spasticity following traumatic brain injury

BACKGROUND

Skeletal muscle spasticity is a major physical complication resulting from traumatic brain injury (TBI), which can lead to muscle contracture, joint stiffness, reduced range of movement, broken skin and pain. Treatments for spasticity include a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions, often used in combination. Management of spasticity following TBI varies from other clinical populations because of the added complexity of behavioural and cognitive issues associated with TBI.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions for managing skeletal muscle spasticity in people with TBI.

SEARCH METHODS

In June 2017, we searched key databases including the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and others, in addition to clinical trials registries and the reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over RCTs evaluating any intervention for the management of spasticity in TBI. Only studies where at least 50% of participants had a TBI (or for whom separate data for participants with TBI were available) were included. The primary outcomes were spasticity and adverse effects. Secondary outcome measures were classified according to the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health including body functions (sensory, pain, neuromusculoskeletal and movement-related functions) and activities and participation (general tasks and demands; mobility; self-care; domestic life; major life areas; community, social and civic life).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Data were synthesised narratively; meta-analysis was precluded due to the paucity and heterogeneity of data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies in this review which involved 134 participants with TBI. Only five studies reported between-group differences, yielding outcome data for 105 participants with TBI. These five studies assessed the effects of a range of pharmacological (baclofen, botulinum toxin A) and non-pharmacological (casting, physiotherapy, splints, tilt table standing and electrical stimulation) interventions, often in combination. The studies which tested the effect of baclofen and tizanidine did not report their results adequately. Where outcome data were available, spasticity and adverse events were reported, in addition to some secondary outcome measures.Of the five studies with results, three were funded by governments, charities or health services and two were funded by a pharmaceutical or medical technology company. The four studies without useable results were funded by pharmaceutical or medical technology companies.It was difficult to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of these interventions due to poor reporting, small study size and the fact that participants with TBI were usually only a proportion of the overall total. Meta-analysis was not feasible due to the paucity of data and heterogeneity of interventions and comparator groups. Some studies concluded that the intervention they tested had beneficial effects on spasticity, and others found no difference between certain treatments. The most common adverse event was minor skin damage in people who received casting. We believe it would be misleading to provide any further description of study results given the quality of the evidence was very low for all outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The very low quality and limited amount of evidence about the management of spasticity in people with TBI means that we are uncertain about the effectiveness or harms of these interventions. Well-designed and adequately powered studies using functional outcome measures to test the interventions used in clinical practice are needed.

[Modern non-cosmetic treatment with botulinum toxins]

Botulinum toxin has been known in medical history for a long time. The first scientific investigations and thoughts on possible indications in the treatment of muscular disorders were published by the German physician and poet Justinus Kerner in 1822. The physiological effect of botulinum toxin was identified in the middle of the twentieth century and the first clinical use was reported in 1977. It was first used in ophthalmology for the correction of strabismus and some years later the therapy of blepharospasm and cervical dystonia was established. Further indications, all supported by randomized controlled studies, are spastic tone increase of the limbs after lesions of the central nervous system, idiopathic axillar hyperhidrosis, chronic migraine and neurogenic or idiopathic bladder hyperactivity. In addition to these indications, a large number of further possible options have been published in the literature. Beside its effect on transmission at the neuromuscular synapses, botulinum toxin has also been shown to affect the sensory transmission of nociceptive fibers.