Search

Background: The American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (AAPM&R) conducted a comprehensive review in 2021 to identify opportunities for enhancing the care of adult and pediatric patients with spasticity. A technical expert panel (TEP) was convened to develop consensus-based practice recommendations aimed at addressing gaps in spasticity care., Objective: To develop consensus-based practice recommendations to identify and address gaps in spasticity care., Methods: The Spasticity TEP engaged in a 16-month virtual meeting process, focusing on formulating search terms, refining research questions, and conducting a structured evidence review. Evidence quality was assessed by the AAPM&R Evidence, Quality and Performance Committee (EQPC), and a modified Delphi process was employed to achieve consensus on recommendation statements and evidence grading. The Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) guided the rating of individual studies and the strength of recommendations., Results: The TEP approved five recommendations for spasticity management and five best practices for assessment and management, with one recommendation unable to be graded due to evidence limitations. Best practices were defined as widely accepted components of care, while recommendations required structured evidence reviews and grading. The consensus guidance statement represents current best practices and evidence-based treatment options, intended for use by PM&R physicians caring for patients with spasticity., Conclusion: This consensus guidance provides clinicians with practical recommendations for spasticity assessment and management based on the best available evidence and expert opinion. Clinical judgment should be exercised, and recommendations tailored to individual patient needs, preferences, and risk profiles. The accompanying table summarizes the best practice recommendations for spasticity assessment and management, reflecting principles with little controversy in care delivery., (© 2024 American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation.)

Two randomized, placebo-controlled studies evaluated the pulmonary function safety of onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) for treatment of upper and/or lower limb spasticity. Patients with stable baseline respiratory status received one or two treatments with placebo, 240 U, or 360 U of onabotA. Pulmonary function tests, adverse events, and efficacy were measured at least every 6 weeks for 18 weeks (Study 1) or 30 weeks (Study 2). Study 1 enrolled 109 patients ( n = 36-37/group) and Study 2 enrolled 155 patients ( n = 48-54/group). Mean baseline forced vital capacity (FVC) was 76-78% of predicted per group in Study 1 and 71% of predicted per group in Study 2. In Study 1, change from baseline FVC values were significantly ( p < 0.05) decreased vs. placebo at weeks 3 (240 U -57 mL vs. placebo +110 mL) and 12 (360 U -6 mL vs. +167 mL placebo). In Study 2, change from baseline FVC values were significantly decreased in the 360 U group vs. placebo at weeks 6 (-78 mL vs. +49 mL placebo), 13 (-60 mL vs. +119 mL placebo), 18 (-128 mL vs. +80 mL placebo), and 24 (-82 mL vs. +149 mL placebo). Individual pulmonary function-related adverse events were not correlated with PFT decreases. The most frequent pulmonary-related adverse events were nasopharyngitis (Study 1) and upper respiratory tract infection (Study 2). Ashworth scores were significantly improved at multiple time points in both studies. Injection of onabotA for spasticity in patients with decreased pulmonary function, at single and repeated doses of up to 360 U, was associated with small but statistically significant decreases in FVC or forced expiratory volume 1 s (FEV1) (>12% and 200 mL) that were subclinical and not correlated with any adverse clinical pulmonary events.

Among the estimated 20% to 40% of stroke survivors who develop spasticity, the burden of this condition on patients, caregivers, and society is substantial. Stroke survivors with spasticity may experience reductions in their ability to perform activities of daily living and in their health-related quality of life. The occurrence of spasticity in stroke survivors may also result in an increased burden on their caregivers, who exhibit poorer physical and emotional health as compared with the general population. The responsibilities that caregivers have to the stroke survivor--in terms of providing medical care, protecting from falls, and assisting with feeding and hygiene, among other tasks of daily living--must be balanced with their responsibilities to other family members and to themselves. Caregivers of stroke survivors often report a feeling of confinement with little opportunity for relief, and although social support can be helpful, it is frequently limited in its availability. In terms of the socioeconomic burden of spasticity after stroke, recent data point to a 4-fold increase in health care costs associated with stroke survivors with spasticity compared with stroke survivors without spasticity. Thus, it is important to reduce the burden of spasticity after stroke. Consequently, effective spasticity treatment that reduces spasticity and the level of disability experienced by stroke survivors will likely increase their functioning and their health-related quality of life and will also result in a diminished burden on their caregivers.