Search

Spasticity is common in multiple sclerosis (MS), often leading to functional limitations and disability. We developed a conceptual model of spasticity in MS integrating expert opinion, recent literature, and experiences of clinicians and people with MS spasticity. A conceptual model was developed based on a targeted literature review of articles published between 2014 and 2019, followed by input from clinicians, then input from participants with MS spasticity. Multidisciplinary experts on spasticity provided guidance at each step. Key concepts of the integrated spasticity conceptual model included: moderators; triggers; modifiers; treatment; objective manifestations; subjective experience; physical, functional, social, and emotional/psychological impacts; and long-term consequences. Participants with MS spasticity most frequently endorsed spasms, tightness, and pain as descriptors of spasticity. Some participants with MS spasticity had difficulty distinguishing spasticity from other MS symptoms (e.g. muscle weakness). Some triggers, emotional/psychological impacts, and long-term consequences of spasticity reported by participants with MS spasticity were not previously identified in the published literature. This conceptual model of spasticity, integrating published literature with the experience of clinicians, people with MS spasticity, and experts, demonstrates the complex, multidimensional nature of MS spasticity. This model may be used to improve clinician–patient dialogue, research, and patient care. Many people with multiple sclerosis (MS) have spasticity, generally in the lower limbs, but this symptom is complex and multidimensional and therefore difficult to characterize. MS spasticity may be influenced by moderators, triggers, modifiers, and treatment, all of which can affect objective measures and the subjective experience of spasticity. MS spasticity can have physical, functional, social, and emotional/psychological impacts as well as long-term consequences that can affect rehabilitation and ultimately reduce health-related quality of life for people with MS. Given that people with MS may view spasticity differently than their rehabilitation providers, providers should ask patients about their spasticity, including their moderators, triggers, modifiers, experience, impacts, long-term consequences, and effects on quality of life. This conceptual model provides a framework to improve clinician-patient dialogue, research, and rehabilitation for MS spasticity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical practice, expert opinion, and evidence-based guidelines recommend daily stretching as first-line treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS) spasticity, but this has not been evaluated by fully powered clinical trials. Objective: To determine whether MS Spasticity: Take Control (STC), a guideline-based program of spasticity education and stretching exercises has different effects on the impact of spasticity than a control program of different spasticity education and range of motion (ROM) exercises. Methods: Ambulatory people with self-reported MS spasticity were randomly assigned to STC or ROM, delivered in same duration, facilitator-led, group classes, face-to-face (F2F) initially and later virtually, due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity Scale (MSSS) scores were compared between groups at 1 (primary outcome) and 6 months after interventions. Results: A total of 231 people enrolled. There was no significant difference in MSSS scores between STC and ROM at 1 month (mean difference = 0.28, 95% (confidence interval (CI)) = [−9.45 to 10.01], p = 0.955). There were significant group mean improvements in MSSS scores and most other outcomes at 1 and 6 months. Conclusion: Education with stretching exercises, the first-line recommended treatment for MS spasticity, and education with ROM exercises may both improve MS spasticity to a similar degree. This study debunks the belief that stretching is essential to managing MS spasticity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bell’s palsy is the most common cause of facial paralysis, affecting one in every 60 people in their lifetime. Transcutaneously applied selective electrical muscle stimulation could potentially accelerate recovery from Bell’s palsy but this intervention remains controversial. Studies have shown benefit, but concerns for lack of efficacy and potential for worsening synkinesis remain. We performed a prospective controlled trial comparing outcomes at initial recovery and six months later with selective electrical muscle stimulation and usual physical therapy versus usual physical therapy alone in adults with acute Bell’s palsy. Outcomes were facial function assessed with the House Brackman and eFACE scales. Outcomes were evaluated at discharge and six months after discharge. Discharge occurred when participants were judged to be fully recovered by their treating therapist and supervisor. 38 adults participated in the study. Participants in the electrical stimulation group achieved maximal recovery twice as fast as the control group (2.5 weeks versus 5.2 weeks) with no significant differences in facial function or synkinesis between groups at any time point. This study is the first human trial of electrical stimulation in Bell’s palsy to follow patients 6 months from recovery and supports that selective electrical muscle stimulation accelerates recovery and does not increase synkinesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]