| Literature DB >> 35113259 |
Claudia Ledda1,2, Carlo Alberto Artusi3,4, Leonardo Lopiano1,2, Maurizio Zibetti1,2, Antonella Tribolo1,2, Domiziana Rinaldi5, Gabriele Imbalzano1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin (BoNT) is a valuable treatment in movement disorders; however, time to onset and duration of efficacy may widely differ among patients. We aimed to clarify the impact of main demographic and clinical features on time to onset and duration of BoNT efficacy.Entities:
Keywords: Botulinum toxin; Duration; Efficacy; Movement disorders; Sialorrhea
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35113259 PMCID: PMC9217780 DOI: 10.1007/s00415-022-10995-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Neurol ISSN: 0340-5354 Impact factor: 6.682
Main clinical and demographic characteristics of patients included in the study
| Total sample ( | Blepharospasm ( | Cervical dystonia ( | Hemifacial spasm ( | Oromandibular dystonia ( | Focal dystonia ( | Sialorrhea ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | |||||||
| Female | 115 (61.8%) | 46 (70.8%) | 27 (58.7%) | 28 (70%) | 3 (60%) | 8 (50%) | 3 (21.4%) |
| Male | 71 (38.2%) | 19 (29.2%) | 19 (41.3%) | 12 (30%) | 2 (40%) | 8 (50%) | 11 (78.6%) |
| Age | |||||||
| 68.2 ± 15 (20–96) | 73.7 ± 12.2 (26–96) | 61 ± 15.1 (20–88) | 72.6 ± 13.3 (43–91) | 55.9 ± 8 (49–68) | 54.7 ± 17.6 (24–83) | 74.9 ± 8.1 (56–85) | |
| Years of treatment with BoNT | |||||||
| 8.7 ± 7.2 (1–33) | 9.1 ± 6.3 (1–31) | 10 ± 7.4 (1–27) | 11.4 ± 8.9 (1–33) | 5.4 ± 2 (2–7) | 4.1 ± 3.2 (1–14) | 2.7 ± 1.4 (1–5) | |
| Type of BoNT | |||||||
| OnaBoNTA | 98 (52.7%) | 52 (80%) | 1 (2.2%) | 32 (80%) | 1 (20%) | 0 | 12 (85.7%) |
| IncoBoNTA | 31 (16.7%) | 13 (20%) | 6 (13%) | 7 (17.5%) | 2 (40%) | 1 (6.2%) | 2 (14.3%) |
| AboBoNTA | 57 (30.6%) | 0 | 39 (84.8%) | 1 (2.5%) | 2 (40%) | 15 (93.8%) | 0 |
| Dose of BoNT (U) | |||||||
| 63 ± 55.4 (2.5–500) | 45 ± 19.7 (10–95) | 109 ± 46.9 (33.3–266.7) | 31.1 ± 18.8 (7.5–65) | 59 ± 55.3 (6.7–133.3) | 78.2 ± 62 (16.7–266.7) | 50.7 ± 19 (20–90) | |
Data are reported as mean ± standard deviation (range) or number of patients (percentage)
BoNT botulinum toxin
Multiple regression analysis of time to onset of BoNT effect
| Model summary | Adjusted | Standard error | Durbin–Watson | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.348 | 0.121 | 0.065 | 4,88,630 | 2037 |
As a categorical, non-dichotomous variable, type of toxin was inserted in the statistical model as a dummy variable with onabotulinumtoxin-A as the reference level (thus not present in the table)
Likely, type of disease was inserted as a dummy variable with blepharospasm as the reference level (thus not present in the table)
BoNT botulinum toxin
Covariance analysis of duration of BoNTa efficacy
| Model summary | Adjusted | Standard error | Durbin–Watson | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.449 | 0.2013 | 0.148 | 2,621,350 | 0.387 |
As a categorical, non-dichotomous variable, type of toxin was inserted in the statistical model as a dummy variable with onabotulinumtoxin-A as the reference level (thus not present in the table)
Likely, type of disease was inserted as a dummy variable with blepharospasm as the reference level (thus not present in the table)
BoNT botulinum toxin
Fig. 1BoNTa efficacy in different types of toxins. a Days between BoNT injection and perceived improvement of symptoms. b Days between BoNT injection and perceived wearing off of the effect. BoNT botulinum toxin