[Botulinum toxin A injections in neuropathic pain : A post-hoc subgroup analysis of patients with peripheral nerve injury]

Effectiveness of Botulinum Toxin in the Treatment of Neuropathic Pain: A Literature Review

Neuralgia is characterized by chronic pain resulting from damage or diseases in the somatosensory system, including nerves responsible for transmitting sensory information. Current treatments for neuropathic pain, which is a type of neuralgia, have limited success rates and can cause unwanted side effects. Since 1989, botulinum toxin-A (BTX-A), derived from the potent neurotoxin Clostridium botulinum, has been used to treat neuropathic pain in humans. BTX-A has shown analgesic effects by inhibiting the release of neurotransmitters involved in pain transmission. This review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of BTX-A in various types of neuralgia. The research question guiding this review is whether BTX-A is safe and effective in reducing pain in different types of neuralgias. To conduct this review, a literature search was performed using the PubMed, Medline, and PubMed Central databases. The search strategy included relevant keywords related to BTX-A, neuralgia, and neuropathic pain. After screening titles, abstracts, and full texts, a total of 30 articles were included in the review. These studies examined the efficacy of BTX-A in various conditions such as postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), auriculotemporal neuralgia (ATN), occipital neuralgia (ON), leprosy-induced neuropathic pain (LIN), focal painful neuropathies, complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS), trigeminal neuralgia (TN), and neuropathic pain associated with spinal cord injury. However, further research is needed to enhance our understanding of the optimal use of BTX-A in specific neuralgias. It is important to acknowledge the limitations of the included studies. Nevertheless, BTX-A might be considered a viable treatment option for neuralgia.

[Clinical use of botulinum toxin type A in pain medicine]

Botulinum toxin has been used for decades in the treatment of a variety of painful diseases. Botulinum toxin not only blocks neuromuscular transmission, but also the secretion of neuropeptides, such as substance P, glutamate and calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) and thus inhibits neurogenic inflammation. In addition, it has a modulatory pain-relieving effect via retrograde transport into the central nervous system. In addition to approval for the treatment of dystonia or spasticity, onabotulinum toxin A is also approved for the prophylaxis of chronic migraine if the oral prophylactic migraine medication has had an insufficient effect or has not been tolerated. In addition, botulinum toxin is also recommended in guidelines as a third-line treatment for neuropathic pain, but in Germany this is an off-label application. This article provides an overview of the current clinically relevant areas of application of botulinum toxin in the field of pain medicine.

Modern Principles of Diagnosis and Treatment in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Background: Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a relatively common complication, occurring in 5% of cases after injury or surgery, particularly in the limbs. The incidence of CPRS is around 5-26/100 000. The latest revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-11) now categorizes CRPS as a primary pain condition of multifactorial origin, rather than a disease of the skeletal system or the autonomic nervous system.

METHODS

Method: Based on a selective search of the literature, we summarize current principles for the diagnosis and treatment of CRPS.

RESULTS

Results: Regional findings in CRPS are accompanied by systemic symptoms, especially by neurocognitive disorders of body perception and of symptom processing. The therapeutic focus is shifting from predominantly passive peripheral measures to early active treatments acting both centrally and peripherally. The treatment is centered on physiotherapy and occupational therapy to improve sensory perception, strength, (fine) motor skills, and sensorimotor integration/ body perception. This is supported by stepped psychological interventions to reduce anxiety and avoidance behavior, medication to decrease inflammation and pain, passive physical measures for reduction of edema and of pain, and medical aids to improve functioning in daily life. Interventional procedures should be limited to exceptional cases and only be performed in specialized centers. Spinal cord and dorsal root ganglion stimulation, respectively, are the interventions with the best evidence.

CONCLUSION

Conclusion: The modern principles for the diagnosis and treatment of CRPS consider both, physiological and psychological mechanisms, with the primary goal of restoring function and participation. More research is needed to strengthen the evidence base in this field.

Managing Chronic Neuropathic Pain: Recent Advances and New Challenges

Aim. Neuropathic pain affects 7–10% of the population, with most of the patients receiving inadequate and incomplete treatment. Owing to the high financial burden and the poor quality of life of the patients and their caretakers, there is a dire need to address the challenges in diagnosing and treating chronic neuropathic pain. Methods. This literature review was conducted to review novel treatments and related challenges through a systematic search from sources such as PubMed, Google Scholar with the combination of MESH words such as neuropathic pain, management of neuropathic pain. Articles from non-English literature, reports without human subjects, animal studies, and abstracts/posters were excluded. However, human studies and studies published in English were included. Result. This review article discusses novel treatment modalities while acknowledging the challenges medical workers face while encountering neuropathic pain. Despite the recent advances in diagnosis and treatment modalities, several challenges still exist. Hence, there is still a need to explore the various treatment modalities, emphasizing the cause and underlying pathophysiology of neuropathic pain. Conclusion. We recommend integrated multimodal treatment with the current treatment facility, including various medical disciplines. However, a personalized approach would work the best depending on the ’patient’s medical history. Therefore, this article recommends an integrated, cause-specific, cost-effective approach to address this problem of chronic neuropathic pain.

A comparative study of Botulinum toxin type A versus conventional oral therapy as a second-line treatment of diabetic neuropathy

Background

Diabetes mellitus is commonly complicated by diabetic peripheral neuropathy. Poor adherence to medication is common in diabetic peripheral neuropathy mainly due to common side effects and poor tolerance to medication. Botulinum toxin A intradermal injection has proved efficacy in cases of diabetic peripheral neuropathy, however there is a need to compare its effect to other lines of treatment. The aim of the study was to compare Botulinum toxin type A versus conventional oral treatment as a second-line treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. The current study was a comparative study on 30 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetic peripheral neuropathy was proved by nerve conduction study. All patients were on carbamazepine. Patients were divided randomly into three groups. First group was add-on duloxetine, second group was add-on gabapentin and the third group was injected intradermal with Botulinum toxin A.

Results

Our study showed that Botulinum A intradermal injection, gabapentin and duloxetine add-on therapy decreased the VAS and PSQI over a 12-week study period and this was statistically significant at p < 0.001*. Botulinum A intradermal injection also decreased the mean of PSQ1 from 17.3 ± 1.8 to 10.9 ± 3.1 in 12 weeks constituting the highest decline in PSQ1 among the three groups and this was statistically significant at p < 0.001*.

Conclusion

Botulinum toxin A injection had a comparable if not superior efficacy to duloxetine and gabapentin as a second-line treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

The Safety and Effect of Local Botulinumtoxin A Injections for Long-Term Management of Chronic Pain in Post-Herpetic Neuralgia: Literature Review and Cases Report Treated with Incobotulinumtoxin A

There are few reports on the safety and effectiveness of long-term botulinumtoxin A (BoNT A) therapy in severe chronic pain of post-herpetic neuralgia (PHN). The literature was searched with the term “neuropathic pain” and “botulinum” on PubMed (up to 29 February 2020). Pain was assessed with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) before and after BoNT A therapy. A total of 10 clinical trials and six case reports including 251 patients with PHN were presented. They showed that BoNT A therapy had significant pain reduction (up to 30–50%) and improvement in quality of life. The effect duration seems to be correlated with BoNT A doses injected per injection site. Intervals between BoNT A injections were 10–14 weeks. No adverse events were reported in cases and clinical studies, even in the two pregnant women, whose babies were healthy. The repeated (≥6 times) intra/subcutaneous injections of incobotulinumtoxin A (Xeomin^®, Merz Pharmaceuticals, Germany) over the two years of our three cases showed marked pain reduction and no adverse events. Adjunctive local BoNT A injection is a promising option for severe PHN, as a safe and effective therapy in long-term management for chronic neuropathic pain. Its effect size and -duration seem to be depended on the dose of BoNT A injected per each point.

Perineural injection of botulinum toxin-A in painful peripheral nerve injury - a case series: pain relief, safety, sensory profile and sample size recommendation

Objectives: Subcutaneous injection of botulinum toxin-A (sBONT-A) is a novel treatment for peripheral neuropathic pain. While its analgesic effects are well documented, this treatment is often not comfortable and fails in patients who show signs of sensory loss but rarely allodynia. There are some case reports about perineural BONT-A injection (pBONT-A) which could be an alternative approach. Here we present a retrospective, open label case series of pBONT-A's efficacy and safety regarding neurological consequences involving changes in somatosensory profiles of both responders and non-responders. Methods: Sixty patients (53 ± 13years, 77% males) with PNI were treated with pBONT-A after a test injection with a local anesthetic, which prompted distinctive pain relief. Quantitative sensory testing (QST; DFNS protocol) and pain intensity were assessed before and ≥7 days post pBONT-A injection. Definition of response: satisfactory pain reduction of ≥30% NRS (numerical rating scale: 0 = no pain, 10 = worst pain) for ≥4 days. Statistics: Paired t-test, Mann-Whitney U-test, χ² test. Results: A temporary weak paresis in one case was clinically verified. The QST -parameters remained unchanged, but patients with more frequent hyperalgesia signs reported less analgesia (p = .04). The pBONT-A injection prompted pain relief by 24.8% (NRS: 6.0 ± 1.7 vs. 4.5 ± 2.1; p < .0001); 57% (n = 34) were responders (NRS: 6.0 ± 1.6 vs. 3.4 ± 1.6, relief of 43.4%; p < .0001). Based on these results, we suggest that future parallel design trials on pBONT-A need to include at least 84 patients. Discussion: Ultrasound-guided pBONT-A injection seems to be a safe treatment leading to a sufficient pain relief for some months without sensory changes. Surprisingly, pBONT-A showed a pronounced analgesic effect also in patients without signs of hyperalgesia.

[Long-term effectiveness of topical analgesics]

BACKGROUND

Neuropathic pain consistently presents a significant therapeutic challenge. Topically applied analgesics have the advantage of showing low systemic side effects, but data on long-term effectiveness are lacking. Consequently, interviews were carried out with all patients being treated with topical analgesics in hospital.

METHODS

Ethics 16-5690, German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) 00011877. Between 2008 and 2017 a total of 265 patients were treated at least once with either capsaicin 8% (C), lidocaine 5% (L) and/or perineural botulinum toxin type A (B). From this sample, 205 patients (77%) were interviewed by telephone for feedback on pain reduction (first/last treatment: low/moderate/very good), the possible reduction of analgesic prescription and if applicable the reasons for discontinuation of use (time of interview C: 26 ± 19 months, L: 61 ± 23 months, B: 11 ± 6 months after start). Further pretreatment data and diagnoses were obtained from the in-house documentation system. Responders or long-term responders were defined as patients with at least one moderate pain reduction after the first or last treatment, as long as the effect was adequately maintained.

RESULTS

In all treatment groups (56 ± 13 years, 62% male, C: 80, L: 84, B: 58 patients) patients with a long history of pain (C: 60 ± 73 months, L: 59 ± 66 months, B: 67 ± 71 months) and high pain intensity (numeric rating scale, NRS, C: 7 ± 2, L: 7 ± 2, B: 6 ± 2), were predominant. The highest primary and long-term responder rates were exhibited by L (57%/60%, B: 52%/37%, C: 23%/15%). With B, long-term responders were most frequently able to reduce analgesic use (74%, C: 58%, L: 38%).

DISCUSSION

Despite the long duration of the disease, the most used off-label topical drugs L and B demonstrated a high primary response rate (in contrast to C), with most benefiting from long-term treatment.