4.6 Article

Clinical efficacy of botulinum toxin type A in patients with traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, or multiple sclerosis: An observational longitudinal study

Journal

FRONTIERS IN NEUROLOGY
Volume 14, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1133390

Keywords

botulinum toxin; pain; spasticity; movement disorders; multiple sclerosis; spinal cord injury; traumatic brain injury; rehabilitation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aims to clarify the role of BoNT-A in the context of non-stroke spasticity (NSS). BoNT-A demonstrated significant improvement in spasticity severity, pain, and quality of life. The effect persistence over time varies depending on the diagnosis and the number of treated sites.
Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) is the treatment of choice for focal spasticity, with a concomitant effect on pain reduction and improvement of quality of life (QoL). Current evidence of its efficacy is based mainly on post stroke spasticity. This study aims to clarify the role of BoNT-A in the context of non-stroke spasticity (NSS). We enrolled 86 patients affected by multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, and traumatic brain injury with clinical indication to perform BoNT-A treatment. Subjects were evaluated before injection and after 1, 3, and 6 months. At every visit, spasticity severity using the modified Ashworth scale, pain using the numeric rating scale, QoL using the Euro Qol Group EQ-5D-5L, and the perceived treatment effect using the Global Assessment of Efficacy scale were recorded. In our population BoNT-A demonstrated to have a significant effect in improving all the outcome variables, with different effect persistence over time in relation to the diagnosis and the number of treated sites. Our results support BoNT-A as a modifier of the disability condition and suggest its implementation in the treatment of NSS, delivering a possible starting point to generate diagnosis-specific follow-up programs.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available