What's the "catch" in upper-limb post-stroke spasticity: expanding the role of botulinum toxin applications.

Department of Neurology and Psychiatry, University of Santo Tomas, Manila 1008, Philippines.
Parkinsonism & Related Disorders (Impact Factor: 4.13). 11/2011; 17 Suppl 1:S3-10. DOI: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2011.06.019
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT More than a third of stroke patients will develop post-stroke spasticity, especially involving the paretic upper limbs. Despite established, intensive rehabilitation programmes in place, spasticity may still affect a post-stroke patient's quality of life and create economic and caregiver burdens. Hence, there is a need to explore how botulinum toxin (BTX) therapy may further improve patient outcomes. Consensus guidelines on the clinical use of BTX for established and symptomatic upper-limb spasticity are now available. While BTX therapy has been universally shown to reduce muscle tone in spasticity, its corresponding improvement in functional-outcome measures are far from consistent. This review article attempts to analyse the reasons for the inconsistency and makes the case that improved and reliable functional outcomes after BTX therapy may be achieved when: patient-specific goals that incorporate realistic expectations (such as improving passive as well as active functions and reducing pain) are used as functional-outcome measures; patients are followed up over a reasonable amount of time so as to optimise learning, rehabilitation and possibly even allow plasticity to occur; and, correct and thoughtful muscle targeting that considers various factors, such as spread, technique and avoidance of compensatory muscles, is employed. This article also summarises the characteristics of post-stroke patients who are at greatest risk for developing spasticity and those who are most likely to become the "best responders;" and, it attempts to outline the potential advantages of early BTX therapy in the acute to sub-acute post-stroke period, while spasticity is still evolving.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: Evaluate upper-limb goal attainment following botulinum toxin-A, map goals to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) and explore associations between client goals, clinical indicators of spasticity and the Botulinum Toxin-A injection strategy adopted by the treating physician. Design: Pre-test/post-test. Participants: Twenty-eight community-dwelling adults with acquired brain injury. Methods: Goal attainment was measured using the Goal Attainment Scale (GAS) 4 weeks post-injection. Goals were linked to the ICF. Clinical measures including the Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS), Tardieu Spasticity Angle (TSA) and Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) were collected pre-injection for determining association with injection strategy. Results: Goals represented the ICF domains of Body Structure/Function and Activity/Participation. Approximately half the goals were achieved 4 weeks post-injection and GAS T-scores improved significantly. Activity/Participation goals were equally likely to be achieved as Body Structure/Function goals. Pre-injection ARAT scores were correlated with GAS change, whereas MAS and TSA scores were not. TSA was a stronger indicator of muscle selection for botulinum toxin-A injections than MAS. Goals were directly associated with botulinum toxin-A injections for distal hand function, but not for proximal upper-limb function. Conclusion: Goal setting and review provides a clinically useful process for measuring upper-limb botulinum toxin-A outcomes.
    Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 07/2014; · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim was to compare follow up impairment, function and quality of life follow up outcomes between dense parietal centred strokes treated by the optokinetic chart based OKCSIB protocol and those treated by conventional neuro-physiotherapy.
    Neurorehabilitation 09/2014; · 1.74 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To evaluate whether botulinum toxin can decrease the burden for caregivers of long term care patients with severe upper limb spasticity. This was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial with a 24-week follow-up period. A 250-bed long term care hospital, the infirmary units of 3 regional hospitals, and 5 care and attention homes. Participants included 55 long term care patients with significant upper limb spasticity and difficulty in basic upper limb care. Patients were randomized into 2 groups that received either intramuscular botulinum toxin A or saline. The primary outcome measure was provided by the carer burden scale. Secondary outcomes included goal attainment scale, measure of spasticity by modified Ashworth score, passive range of movement for shoulder abduction, and elbow extension and finger extension. Pain was assessed using the Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia Scale. A total of 55 patients (21 men; mean age = 69, SD =18) were recruited. At week 6 post-injection, 18 (60%) of 30 patients in the treatment group versus 2 (8%) of 25 patients in the control group had a significant 4-point reduction of carer burden scale (P < .001). There was also significant improvement in the goal attainment scale, as well as the modified Ashworth score, resting angle, and passive range of movement of the 3 regions (shoulder, elbow, and fingers) in the treatment group which persisted until week 24. There were also fewer spontaneous bone fractures after botulinum toxin injection, although this did not reach statistical significance. No significant difference in Pain Assessment in Advanced Dementia scale was found between the 2 groups. No serious botulinum toxin type A-related adverse effects were reported. Long term care patients who were treated for upper limb spasticity with intramuscular injections of botulinum toxin A had a significant decrease in the caregiver burden. The treatment was also associated with improved scores on patient-centered outcome measures.
    Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 04/2012; 13(5):477-84. · 5.30 Impact Factor