A Screening Tool to Identify Spasticity in Need of Treatment

OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinically useful patient-reported screening tool for health care providers to identify patients with spasticity in need of treatment regardless of etiology. DESIGN: Eleven spasticity experts participated in a modified Delphi panel and reviewed and revised 2 iterations of a screening tool designed to identify spasticity symptoms and impact on daily function and sleep. Spasticity expert panelists evaluated items pooled from existing questionnaires to gain consensus on the screening tool content. The study also included cognitive interviews of 20 patients with varying spasticity etiologies to determine if the draft screening tool was understandable and relevant to patients with spasticity. RESULTS: The Delphi panel reached an initial consensus on 21 of 47 items for the screening tool and determined that the tool should have no more than 11 to 15 items and a 1-month recall period for symptom and impact items. After 2 rounds of review, 13 items were selected and modified by the expert panelists. Most patients (n = 16 [80%]) completed the cognitive interview and interpreted the items as intended. CONCLUSIONS: Through the use of a Delphi panel and patient interviews, a 13-item spasticity screening tool was developed that will be practical and easy to use in routine clinical practice

Safety and efficacy of incobotulinumtoxinA doses up to 800 U in limb spasticity: The TOWER study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate safety (primary objective) and efficacy of increasing doses (400 U up to 800 U) of incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin, Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH) for patients with limb spasticity. METHODS: In this prospective, single-arm, dose-titration study (NCT01603459), patients (18-80 years) with spasticity due to cerebral causes, who were clinically deemed to require total doses of 800 U incobotulinumtoxinA, received 3 consecutive injection cycles (ICs) with 400 U, 600 U, and 600-800 U incobotulinumtoxinA, respectively, each followed by 12-16 weeks' observation. Outcomes included adverse events (AEs), antibody testing, Resistance to Passive Movement Scale (REPAS; based on the Ashworth Scale), and Goal Attainment Scale. RESULTS: In total, 155 patients were enrolled. IncobotulinumtoxinA dose escalation did not lead to an increased incidence of treatment-related AEs (IC1: 4.5%; IC2: 5.3%; IC3: 2.9%). No treatment-related serious AEs occurred. The most frequent AEs overall were falls (7.7%), nasopharyngitis, arthralgia, and diarrhea (6.5% each). Five patients (3.2%) discontinued due to AEs. No patient developed secondary nonresponse due to neutralizing antibodies. Mean (SD) REPAS score improvements from each injection to 4 weeks postinjection increased throughout the study (IC1: -4.6 [3.9]; IC2: -5.9 [4.2]; IC3: -7.1 [4.8]; p < 0.0001 for all). The proportion of patients achieving 653 (of 4) treatment goals also increased (IC1: 25.2%; IC2: 50.7%; IC3: 68.6%). CONCLUSION: Escalating incobotulinumtoxinA doses (400 U up to 800 U) did not compromise safety or tolerability, enabled treatment in a greater number of muscles/spasticity patterns, and was associated with increased treatment efficacy, improved muscle tone, and goal attainment. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01603459. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence that, for patients with limb spasticity, escalating incobotulinumtoxinA doses (400 U up to 800 U) increases treatment efficacy without compromising safety or tolerability