Next Article in Journal
Biodigestion System Made of Polyethylene and Polystyrene Insulator for Dog Farm (on the Example of the Republic of Chile)
Next Article in Special Issue
Cutoff Point of Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test Scores for Elderly Estimated by Center of Pressure Measurements by Linear Regression and Decision Tree Classification
Previous Article in Journal
Helicobacter Pylori: A Review of Current Treatment Options in Clinical Practice
Previous Article in Special Issue
Telerehabilitation in Older Thai Community-Dwelling Adults
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Life
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/life12122037
life-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness and Safety of Botulinum Toxin in the Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome

by
Yu-Chi Su
1,
Pei-Chun Hsieh
1,
Yao-Hong Guo
1 and
Yu-Ching Lin
1,2,*
1
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan
2
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 70101, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2022, 12(12), 2037; https://doi.org/10.3390/life12122037
Submission received: 25 October 2022 / Revised: 23 November 2022 / Accepted: 2 December 2022 / Published: 6 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation: Trends and Applications)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is characterized by pain, limited range of motion, swelling, skin changes, vasomotor instability, and patchy bone demineralization. Conservative management strategies for CRPS include physical and occupational therapy, psychosocial and behavioral therapy, and pharmacotherapy. However, some patients still experience CRPS symptoms after receiving conventional treatments. Therefore, botulinum toxin (BoNT) has been applied to patients with CRPS in several trials considering its analgesic effect in musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain; however, the results were controversial. We conducted the study to explore the effectiveness and safety of BoNT in patients with complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). A search was performed using the following electronic databases up to 19 October 2022: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. We included both randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized controlled studies involving patients with complex regional pain syndrome managed with botulinum toxin. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist were used for quality assessment for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies. Only randomized controlled trials entered the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the visual analogue scale of pain presented as a weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The secondary outcome was the risk of adverse events presented as an odds ratio (OR) with 95% CI. We analyzed eight articles with 176 patients, including three randomized controlled trials with 62 participants. The age of the patients ranged from 23.8 to 51 years old. The duration of the disease ranged from 2.2 to 11.8 years. The proportion of females ranged from 16.6% to 100%. The route of administration of BoNT included: (1) lumbar sympathetic block (LSB), (2) intramuscular injection, (3) subcutaneous or intradermal injection (SC/ID). Improvement in pain was revealed in six studies, and adverse events were all self-limited and temporary. Meta-analysis revealed a significant reduction in pain at the first follow-up between 3 weeks to 1 month after intervention (WMD, −1.036, 95% CI, −1.673 to −0.400) but not at the second follow-up between 2 to 3 months after treatment (WMD, −0.895, 95% CI, −2.249 to 0.458). Subgroup analyses between LSB and SC/ID were nonsignificant at both follow-up periods (p = 0.422, 0.139). The risk of adverse events was similar between the BoNT and control group (OR, 0.698, 95% CI, 0.136 to 3.581). In conclusion, BoNT may be effective and safe for alleviating pain in patients with CRPS. However, we could not draw definite conclusions due to small sample size and high between-study heterogeneity. The limited number of participants may conceal the possibility of serious adverse events. Further large-scale randomized controlled trials are warranted to delineate the role of BoNT in CRPS.

1. Introduction

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is characterized by pain, limited range of motion, swelling, skin changes, vasomotor instability, and patchy bone demineralization [1,2]. Moreover, approximately 20% of patients with CRPS develop fixed dystonia [3,4]. There are three subtypes of CRPS [5]. In type 1 CRPS, no nerve injury can be identified, while type 2 CRPS arises after an injury or trauma to a peripheral nerve. A third class, named CRPS not otherwise specified, refers to those who partially meet CRPS criteria and are not better explained by any other condition [5]. So far, the pathogenesis of CRPS is still unclear [6]. Several diagnostic criteria have been proposed, including the earlier Orlando criteria and the current Budapest criteria [7].
Conservative management strategies for CRPS include physical and occupational therapy, psychosocial and behavioral therapy, and pharmacotherapy [7,8]. A review published in 2020 concluded that physical therapy with occupational and cognitive behavioral treatment is the recommended option for pediatric CPRS, while pharmacological therapy should be reserved for refractory conditions and selected individuals [9]. Further interventional procedures encompass trigger point injections, regional sympathetic nerve blocks, spinal cord stimulation, and sympathectomy [10]. However, some patients still experience CRPS symptoms after receiving conventional treatments [11,12]; hence, identifying new methods to treat this group of patients is necessary.
In previous research [13,14,15], botulinum toxin (BoNT) has been demonstrated to have an analgesic effect in musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain. The mechanisms might be inhibition of the release of proinflammatory and pain mediators [15]. The pathophysiology of CRPS remains undetermined, but several studies have demonstrated a substantial increase in proinflammatory cytokines in affected tissue, plasma, and cerebrospinal fluid in individuals with CRPS [16,17,18,19]. Theoretically, BoNT may alleviate pain in CRPS through the control of proinflammatory factors [20] and pain [21]. In addition, it may treat dystonia by blocking the cholinergic innervation of striate muscles [22]; hence, BoNT possesses the potential to relieve pain and dystonic symptoms related to CRPS. Several routes of administration with BoNT, such as intra-muscular, subcutaneous and lumbar sympathetic block (LSB), have been surveyed in previous articles [23,24,25,26,27,28,29], and the results of the effectiveness of BoNT were controversial. However, no research has addressed the topic of BoNT in CRPS comprehensively so far.
The objective of our study was to assess the effectiveness and safety of BoNT in CRPS by performing a meta-analysis of articles on the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases between their inception and 19 October 2022. Both randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were included. We also compared the effectiveness of BoNT between different delivery routes.

2. Materials and Methods

This meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (see File S1 for the PRISMA checklist) [30]. The protocol was registered on the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY2022100087).

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) case arm consisting of patients with CRPS treated with BoNT, (2) without control arm or control arm with treatment different from the case arm, and (3) randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) studies that did not report the administration route of BoNT, (2) case reports and conference proceedings. No restrictions were set for publication language and the center where the studies were conducted.

2.2. Search Strategy

We retrieved papers from the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We searched the online literature using the following combination of subject heading search terms: “complex regional pain syndrome” and “botulinum toxin.” The search period was from the inception of the database to 19 October 2022 (see File S1 for the full search strategy).

2.3. Study Selection and Data Extraction

After excluding duplicate articles, the first two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of applicable studies. If consensus was not reached after discussion, the opinion of the senior author (YCL) was sought. We used a data collection form to record the extracted data from the included studies on the following: first author, year of publication, participants’ demographics and clinical presentations, BoNT dosage, BoNT dilution method, commercial form of BoNT, injection technique, comparative regimen, clinical assessments and electrophysiological outcomes. For data presented as charts, we used ImageJ software (ImageJ v1.52k by Wayne Rasband, NIH, Bethesda, MD, USA) “http://wsr.imagej.net/distros/win/ij152-win-java8.zip (accessed on 15 January 2019)” to extract the information [31]. The authors were approached to resolve uncertainties.

2.4. Quality Assessment

The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool [32] for randomized controlled trials. The quality of the nonrandomized controlled studies was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies [33]. Disagreements about the results were resolved through discussion, and the final results were determined by the senior author if consensus could not be reached. The results are presented using Reviewer Manager version 5.3 (Cochrane, London, UK).

2.5. Statistical Analysis

To increase the robustness of the results of the meta-analysis, only randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was the intensity of pain in patients with CRPS after treatment with BoNT. The visual analog scale pain scores for the intervention and control groups were first extracted. Meta-analysis was then conducted for the pain scores at different follow-up time points. The results were represented as weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The secondary outcome was the risk of adverse events after intervention. The number of adverse events in the control and BoNT group were extracted, and the results were represented by odds ratio (OR) and 95% CIs. The effect size was pooled using a random effects model. The I2 value was used to grade between-study heterogeneity, and statistical significance was reached when I2 exceeded 50% [34]. Subgroup analysis was conducted for different administration routes of BoNT, and significant difference between subgroups was identified when p < 0.05. Funnel plots and the Egger test were adopted for publication bias [35]. Statistical significance was defined as a two-tailed p value of <0.1 [36]. Sensitivity analysis was also performed by excluding the studies that did not score low risk of bias in all of the categories during quality assessment. We used Comprehensive Meta-analysis Software version 3 (Biostat, Englewood, NJ, USA) for the analysis.

2.6. Certainty of Evidence

The certainty of the evidence of outcomes were assessed by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Our meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials only, so the results start as high certainty. The final rating depends on the publication bias, indirectness, overall risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency [37].

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection and Description

In the initial search, 308 articles were obtained, of which 8 fulfilled our inclusion criteria. The details are presented in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1). Four of them were uncontrolled longitudinal studies [23,25,26,28], three were randomized controlled trials [24,27,38], and one was a retrospective cohort study [29]. All of the papers comprised at least one arm using BoNT type A. The main characteristics of the papers included are listed in Table 1.
Three articles applied BoNT intramuscularly in patients with CRPS-related dystonia [25,26,28]. Of these, Cordivari et al. [28] revealed that both pain and dystonia improved after treatment, Kharkar et al. [25] reported an analgesic effect, and Schilder et al. [26] concluded that BoNT relieved dystonia, which they measured using surface electromyography.
Two studies administered BoNT intradermally or subcutaneously [23,24]. Safarpour et al. [24] concluded that BoNT failed to alleviate pain, and the procedure was intolerable because of the extreme level of discomfort. Lessard et al. [23] performed nerve blocks before BoNT treatments to increase injection tolerance and revealed a significant decrease in pain after multiple sessions of monthly BoNT treatment, with maximum pain reduction being achieved by the ninth treatment session.
Three articles performed lumbar sympathetic block with a combination of local anesthetic and BoNT [27,29,38]. Carroll et al. [27] concluded that additional BoNT prolonged the analgesic effect of standard LSB, and Lee et al. [29] revealed that adding BoNT type B to the local anesthetic prolonged the effect of LSB more than adding BoNT type A. Yoo et al. [38] found that LSB with BoNT type A increased the temperature and reduced the pain of the affected foot. Further details of the intervention protocols are listed in Table 2.
Of the 8 studies included, 4 reported transient side effects. Carroll et al. [27] noted one individual with transient nausea and emesis after LSB with a combination of BoNT and local anesthetic. Lee et al. [29] reported that one patient had transient dizziness after LSB with local anesthetic and BoNT type A and one patient had temporary dizziness after LSB with local anesthetic and BoNT type B. Kharkar et al. [25] revealed that one patient had a transient neck drop after an intramuscular injection of BoNT type A. Yoo et al. [38] found six participants in the control group and three in the BoNT group had mild post-procedure dizziness. No serious adverse events were reported in the included articles.

3.2. Risk-of-Bias Assessment

Two [24,27] of the three randomized controlled trials [24,27,38] had an unclear risk of selection bias because neither provided details on the generation of random sequences. Furthermore, Safarpour et al. [24] did not detail the allocation concealment (Figure 2). Of the 5 nonrandomized controlled studies, Schilder et al. [26], Cordivari et al. [28], Kharkar et al. [25], and Lessard et al. [23] did not include a control group (Figure 3).

3.3. Outcomes

The first follow-up for pain ranged from 3 weeks to 1 month after BoNT. The meta-analysis included two articles using LSB [27,38] and one using subcutaneous and intradermal injection [24]. The summarized effect size revealed a significantly larger decrease of VAS score in the BoNT group than the control group (WMD, −1.036, 95% CI, −1.673 to −0.400, I2 = 8.713%, Figure 4). For subgroup analysis, the difference between LSB (WMD, −1.616, 95% CI, −3.509 to 0.277, I2 = 38.748%) and subcutaneous and intradermal injection (WMD, −0.750, 95% CI, −1.688 to 0.188, I2 = 0%) did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.422). For sensitivity analysis, after excluding the studies which did not score a low risk of bias in all of the categories during quality assessment, the estimation point was still significant (WMD, −1.100, 95% CI, −1.867 to −0.333, I2 = 0%). No significant publication bias was detected by the funnel plot and Egger’s test (p = 0.36854, Figure 5).
The second follow-up for pain ranged from 1 months to 2 months. The estimation point was nonsignificant (WMD, −0.895, 95% CI, −2.249 to 0.458, I2 = 54.214%, Figure 6). For subgroup analysis, the difference between LSB (WMD, −1.400, 95% CI, −2.188 to −0.612, I2 = 0%) and subcutaneous and intradermal injection (WMD, 0.050, 95% CI, −1.704 to 1.804, I2 = 0%) did not reach statistical significance. (p = 0.139). For sensitivity analysis, the effect size turned significant (WMD, −1.400, 95% CI, −2.188 to −0.612, I2 = 0%) after excluding the studies that did not score low risk of bias in all of the categories during quality assessment. The funnel plot and Egger’s test were not conducted due to insufficient number of articles.
For the risk of adverse events, the meta-analysis included two randomized controlled trials [27,38] using LSB. The difference between the BoNT group and the control group did not reach statistical significance (OR, 0.698, 95% CI, 0.136 to 3.581, I2 = 13.850%, Figure 7). For sensitivity analysis, the estimation point was still nonsignificant (OR, 0.450, 95% CI, 0.098 to 2.068, I2 = 0%) after excluding the studies that did not score low risk of bias in all of the categories during quality assessment. The subgroup analysis, funnel plot and Egger’s test were not conducted due to insufficient number of articles.

3.4. Certainty of Evidence

The certainty of the evidence of pain and risk for adverse events scored low to very low quality of evidence. The level was mainly downgraded because of the risk of bias and imprecision due to large 95% CI (Table 3).

4. Discussion

Our study found that the current evidence of BoNT in CRPS mainly focused on the augmentation of lumbar sympathetic block with BoNT. The meta-analysis revealed that BoNT decreased pain after 3 weeks to 1 months after BoNT injection, though the difference were not significant during the second follow-up at 2 to 3 months. The subgroup analysis showed that different administration routes did not alter the analgesic effect of BoNT. No serious adverse events were reported so far, and the meta-analysis revealed that adding BoNT to LSB did not increase the risk of adverse events.
The summary effect of our meta-analysis agreed with our initial hypothesis. The effect on pain at 3 weeks to 1 month not only reached statistical significance but also had clinical significance [39]. Additionally, the low between-study heterogeneity may imply a common analgesic mechanism despite the different administration routes. A previous research proposed that BoNT might possess a central antinociceptive effect through retrograde axonal transport [40]. BoNT injected subcutaneously may undergo such a pathway; thus, it can achieve similar results to LSB with BoNT. Moreover, our meta-analysis only included randomized controlled trials; the results were therefore robust at the evidence level of this meta-analysis. However, because of the small number of included studies, the possibility of false negatives cannot be excluded. The findings should be interpreted with caution.
Of the eight articles enrolled in our study, only one by Safarpour et al. concluded that BoNT was unable to relieve pain in patients with CRPS [24]. This might be the result of the low statistical power, dose of BoNT per session, or total number of treatment sessions. The trial of Safarpour et al. had a small sample size, with just eight patients recruited for their randomized controlled trial, making the findings susceptible to type II error [24]. With regard to BoNT dosage, Lessard et al. used a dose two times that of the dose of Safarpour et al. Moreover, Lessard et al. had multiple treatment sessions, but Safarpour et al. measured their outcome after a single session [23,24]. These differences may indicate that a higher dose per session and multiple sessions may increase the effectiveness of the treatment. However, we were unable to demonstrate our hypothesis quantitatively because of the insufficient number of trials. Future studies are necessary to verify the optimal dose and number of treatment sessions.
Cordivari et al. [28] and Kharkar et al. [25] reported that CRPS pain was alleviated after intramuscular interventions with BoNT type A, but these articles only included patients with CRPS and dystonia. No study addressed intramuscular injection in patients with CRPS without dystonia. However, some evidence has been reported for the effectiveness of the intramuscular administration of BoNT in alleviating pain that is not related to dystonia, such as trigeminal neuralgia [41], lateral epicondylitis [42], and migraine [43]. Because dystonia occurs only in approximately 20% of patients with CRPS [3,4], establishing whether BoNT is effective in CRPS without dystonia is warranted.
Despite the statistically and clinically significant results shown in our meta-analysis, the application of BoNT in CRPS still needs further research. Considering that CRPS is currently a diagnosis without objective data but with criteria involving ambiguous signs and symptoms, the indiscriminate use of pain medications to treat subjective symptoms of CRPS can be a risk factor for analgesic misuse or abuse [44]. The same situation is also applicable to children with CRPS. The diverse pathophysiology provides a variety of therapeutic targets, but there is still insufficient evidence to identify reliably effective pharmacotherapy for these patients [45].
Our meta-analysis has several strengths. First, this is the first article to systematically review the role of BoNT in CRPS. Second, we were the first to conduct a meta-analysis not only to summarize the effect size statistically but also to investigate the effectiveness of different administration routes. Third, we were the first to summarize the adverse events of BoNT in CRPS.
There are several limitations in our review. First, three studies [23,24,28] did not report the type of CRPS of their participants, making it difficult to know whether a different treatment efficacy existed between type I and type II of CRPS. Second, only one article [19] provided details of the symptoms and indications used to diagnose CRPS; thus, the relationship between treatment effectiveness and disease presentation was difficult to assess. Third, three papers [23,25,29] did not report the mean disease duration before BoNT treatment. This information is important because acute and chronic CRPS respond differently to conventional treatments [11]. Fourth, only two studies [25,27] have verified that no treatment modifications occurred during the trial, making it difficult to exclude the possibility of interference resulting from adjustments to the baseline medication. Fifth, two articles did not mention the commercial forms of BoNT adopted in their trials [25,27]. Studies have previously revealed that each BoNT formula has different properties, which are not interchangeable because of the disparity in manufacturing processes and bioassay methods for defining potency [46,47,48]. Future trials should clarify the commercial form of BoNT used in the trials to increase the reproducibility of the results. Sixth, six trials [23,24,25,27,28,29] included pain as an outcome measure, but only two [27,29] followed up on pain until it returned to baseline. The other experiments reported improvements in pain after intervention, but the follow-up time was relatively short, ranging from 4 weeks to 3 months. The long-term efficacy of such treatments requires further investigation. Seventh, no standard protocol for administering a BoNT injection to patients with CRPS currently exists; three different methods including intramuscular, subcutaneous or intradermal, and combined with a lumbar block, were identified in the literature. The high heterogeneity made it difficult to compare the treatment effects between studies, which may decrease the generalizability of our meta-analysis results. Eighth, four of the seven papers included in this review were case series. The lack of a control group makes it difficult to preclude a placebo effect [49]. Finally, the adverse events reported so far were temporary. However, the number of participants was relatively low, and recognizing serious adverse events may therefore be difficult [50].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, BoNT may be effective and safe for alleviating pain in patients with CRPS. However, we could not draw definite conclusions due to small sample size and high between-study heterogeneity, such as treatment protocols, optimal injection dosage and timing of BoNT interventions. The limited number of participants may conceal the possibility of serious adverse events. Further large-scale randomized controlled trials are warranted to delineate the role of BoNT in CRPS.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/life12122037/s1, File S1: PRISMA checklist and search strategies for meta-analysis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.-C.S.; methodology, Y.-C.S. and Y.-H.G.; software, Y.-H.G.; validation, Y.-C.S., Y.-H.G., P.-C.H. and Y.-C.L.; formal analysis, Y.-C.S.; investigation, Y.-H.G.; resources, P.-C.H.; data curation, Y.-C.S.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.-C.S.; writing—review and editing, Y.-C.L.; visualization, Y.-C.S.; supervision, Y.-C.L.; project administration, Y.-C.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by National Cheng Kung University Hospital, grant number NCKUH-11102035.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Harden, R.N.; Bruehl, S.; Stanton-Hicks, M.; Wilson, P.R. Proposed new diagnostic criteria for complex regional pain syndrome. Pain Med. 2007, 8, 326–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Taylor, S.S.; Noor, N.; Urits, I.; Paladini, A.; Sadhu, M.S.; Gibb, C.; Carlson, T.; Myrcik, D.; Varrassi, G.; Viswanath, O. Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Comprehensive Review. Pain Ther. 2021, 10, 875–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Schwartzman, R.J.; Kerrigan, J. The movement disorder of reflex sympathetic dystrophy. Neurology 1990, 40, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. van Hilten, J.J.; van de Beek, W.J.; Vein, A.A.; van Dijk, J.G.; Middelkoop, H.A. Clinical aspects of multifocal or generalized tonic dystonia in reflex sympathetic dystrophy. Neurology 2001, 56, 1762–1765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Borchers, A.T.; Gershwin, M.E. Complex regional pain syndrome: A comprehensive and critical review. Autoimmun. Rev. 2014, 13, 242–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bussa, M.; Guttilla, D.; Lucia, M.; Mascaro, A.; Rinaldi, S. Complex regional pain syndrome type I: A comprehensive review. Acta Anaesthesiol. Scand. 2015, 59, 685–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Harden, R.N.; Oaklander, A.L.; Burton, A.W.; Perez, R.S.; Richardson, K.; Swan, M.; Barthel, J.; Costa, B.; Graciosa, J.R.; Bruehl, S. Complex regional pain syndrome: Practical diagnostic and treatment guidelines, 4th edition. Pain Med. 2013, 14, 180–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Shim, H.; Rose, J.; Halle, S.; Shekane, P. Complex regional pain syndrome: A narrative review for the practising clinician. Br. J. Anaesth. 2019, 123, e424–e433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vescio, A.; Testa, G.; Culmone, A.; Sapienza, M.; Valenti, F.; Di Maria, F.; Pavone, V. Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in Children and Adolescents: A Structured Literature Scoping Review. Children 2020, 7, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Wie, C.; Gupta, R.; Maloney, J.; Pew, S.; Freeman, J.; Strand, N. Interventional Modalities to Treat Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. Curr. Pain Headache Rep. 2021, 25, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Żyluk, A.; Puchalski, P. Complex regional pain syndrome: Observations on diagnosis, treatment and definition of a new subgroup. J. Hand Surg. Eur. Vol. 2013, 38, 599–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Bruehl, S. Complex regional pain syndrome. BMJ 2015, 351, h2730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Mittal, S.O.; Safarpour, D.; Jabbari, B. Botulinum Toxin Treatment of Neuropathic Pain. Semin. Neurol. 2016, 36, 73–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Moore, C.; Hulsopple, C.; Boyce, B. Utilization of Botulinum Toxin for Musculoskeletal Disorders. Curr. Sport. Med. Rep. 2020, 19, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hehr, J.D.; Schoenbrunner, A.R.; Janis, J.E. The Use of Botulinum Toxin in Pain Management: Basic Science and Clinical Applications. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 2020, 145, 629e–636e. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Munnikes, R.J.; Muis, C.; Boersma, M.; Heijmans-Antonissen, C.; Zijlstra, F.J.; Huygen, F.J. Intermediate stage complex regional pain syndrome type 1 is unrelated to proinflammatory cytokines. Mediat. Inflamm. 2005, 2005, 366–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Alexander, G.M.; van Rijn, M.A.; van Hilten, J.J.; Perreault, M.J.; Schwartzman, R.J. Changes in cerebrospinal fluid levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines in CRPS. Pain 2005, 116, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Uçeyler, N.; Eberle, T.; Rolke, R.; Birklein, F.; Sommer, C. Differential expression patterns of cytokines in complex regional pain syndrome. Pain 2007, 132, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Parkitny, L.; McAuley, J.H.; Di Pietro, F.; Stanton, T.R.; O’Connell, N.E.; Marinus, J.; van Hilten, J.J.; Moseley, G.L. Inflammation in complex regional pain syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology 2013, 80, 106–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Piotrowska, A.; Popiolek-Barczyk, K.; Pavone, F.; Mika, J. Comparison of the Expression Changes after Botulinum Toxin Type A and Minocycline Administration in Lipopolysaccharide-Stimulated Rat Microglial and Astroglial Cultures. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2017, 7, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kumar, R. Therapeutic use of botulinum toxin in pain treatment. Neuronal. Signal. 2018, 2, Ns20180058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Dressler, D. Botulinum toxin for treatment of dystonia. Eur. J. Neurol. 2010, 17 (Suppl. S1), 88–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Lessard, L.; Bartow, M.J.; Lee, J.; Diaz-Abel, J.; Tessler, O.E.S. Botulinum Toxin A: A Novel Therapeutic Modality for Upper Extremity Chronic Regional Pain Syndrome. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. Glob. Open 2018, 6, e1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Safarpour, D.; Salardini, A.; Richardson, D.; Jabbari, B. Botulinum Toxin A for Treatment of Allodynia of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Pilot Study. Neurology 2011, 76, A193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kharkar, S.; Ambady, P.; Venkatesh, Y.; Schwartzman, R.J. Intramuscular botulinum toxin in complex regional pain syndrome: Case series and literature review. Pain Physician 2011, 14, 419–424. [Google Scholar]
  26. Schilder, J.C.; van Dijk, J.G.; Dressler, D.; Koelman, J.H.; Marinus, J.; van Hilten, J.J. Responsiveness to botulinum toxin type A in muscles of complex regional pain patients with tonic dystonia. J. Neural Transm. 2014, 121, 761–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Carroll, I.; Clark, J.D.; Mackey, S. Sympathetic block with botulinum toxin to treat complex regional pain syndrome. Ann. Neurol. 2009, 65, 348–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Cordivari, C.; Misra, V.P.; Catania, S.; Lees, A.J. Treatment of dystonic clenched fist with botulinum toxin. Mov. Disord. 2001, 16, 907–913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Lee, Y.; Lee, C.J.; Choi, E.; Lee, P.B.; Lee, H.-J.; Nahm, F.S. Lumbar Sympathetic Block with Botulinum Toxin Type A and Type B for the Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. Toxins 2018, 10, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sistrom, C.; Mergo, P. A Simple Method for Obtaining Original Data from Published Graphs and Plots. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2000, 174, 1241–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Higgins, J.P.T.; Altman, D.G.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Jüni, P.; Moher, D.; Oxman, A.D.; Savović, J.; Schulz, K.F.; Weeks, L.; Sterne, J.A.C. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011, 343, d5928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Ma, L.L.; Wang, Y.Y.; Yang, Z.H.; Huang, D.; Weng, H.; Zeng, X.T. Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: What are they and which is better? Mil. Med. Res. 2020, 7, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Catalá-López, F.; Tobías, A. Meta-analysis of randomized trials, heterogeneity and prediction intervals. Med. Clin. 2014, 142, 270–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. van Enst, W.A.; Ochodo, E.; Scholten, R.J.P.M.; Hooft, L.; Leeflang, M.M. Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: A meta-epidemiological study. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2014, 14, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Peters, J.L.; Sutton, A.J.; Jones, D.R.; Abrams, K.R.; Rushton, L. Comparison of Two Methods to Detect Publication Bias in Meta-analysis. JAMA 2006, 295, 676–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Guyatt, G.H.; Oxman, A.D.; Vist, G.; Kunz, R.; Brozek, J.; Alonso-Coello, P.; Montori, V.; Akl, E.A.; Djulbegovic, B.; Falck-Ytter, Y.; et al. GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence—Study limitations (risk of bias). J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2011, 64, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yoo, Y.; Lee, C.S.; Kim, J.; Jo, D.; Moon, J.Y. Botulinum Toxin Type A for Lumbar Sympathetic Ganglion Block in Complex Regional Pain Syndrome: A Randomized Trial. Anesthesiology 2022, 136, 314–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kelly, A.M. Does the clinically significant difference in visual analog scale pain scores vary with gender, age, or cause of pain? Acad. Emerg. Med. 1998, 5, 1086–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Park, J.; Chung, M.E. Botulinum Toxin for Central Neuropathic Pain. Toxins 2018, 10, 224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Zúñiga, C.; Piedimonte, F.; Díaz, S.; Micheli, F. Acute treatment of trigeminal neuralgia with onabotulinum toxin A. Clin. Neuropharmacol. 2013, 36, 146–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Lin, Y.C.; Wu, W.T.; Hsu, Y.C.; Han, D.S.; Chang, K.V. Comparative effectiveness of botulinum toxin versus non-surgical treatments for treating lateral epicondylitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Rehabil. 2018, 32, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Dodick, D.W.; Turkel, C.C.; DeGryse, R.E.; Aurora, S.K.; Silberstein, S.D.; Lipton, R.B.; Diener, H.C.; Brin, M.F. OnabotulinumtoxinA for treatment of chronic migraine: Pooled results from the double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phases of the PREEMPT clinical program. Headache 2010, 50, 921–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Chang, C.; McDonnell, P.; Gershwin, M.E. Complex regional pain syndrome—False hopes and miscommunications. Autoimmun. Rev. 2019, 18, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Williams, G.; Howard, R. The Pharmacological Management of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome in Pediatric Patients. Pediatr. Drugs 2016, 18, 243–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Brin, M.F.; James, C.; Maltman, J. Botulinum toxin type A products are not interchangeable: A review of the evidence. Biologics 2014, 8, 227–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Lin, Y.C. Botulinum toxin injection for post-stroke spasticity. Muscle Nerve 2014, 49, 932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lin, Y.C. Predicting the response to botulinum toxin treatment in children with cerebral palsy. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2015, 96, 760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Turner, J.A.; Deyo, R.A.; Loeser, J.D.; Von Korff, M.; Fordyce, W.E. The importance of placebo effects in pain treatment and research. JAMA 1994, 271, 1609–1614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tsang, R.; Colley, L.; Lynd, L.D. Inadequate statistical power to detect clinically significant differences in adverse event rates in randomized controlled trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2009, 62, 609–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Life 12 02037 g001 550
Figure 1. Literature screening process and results.
Figure 1. Literature screening process and results.
Life 12 02037 g001
Life 12 02037 g002 550
Figure 2. Summary graph for risk of bias of randomized controlled trials.
Figure 2. Summary graph for risk of bias of randomized controlled trials.
Life 12 02037 g002
Life 12 02037 g003 550
Figure 3. Summary graph for risk of bias of quasi-experimental studies.
Figure 3. Summary graph for risk of bias of quasi-experimental studies.
Life 12 02037 g003
Life 12 02037 g004 550
Figure 4. Forest plot of the weighted mean difference in the reduction of VAS scores 3 weeks to 1 months after treatment. Squares were individual studies, lines were 95% confidence intervals, and the diamond was the summary effect size.
Figure 4. Forest plot of the weighted mean difference in the reduction of VAS scores 3 weeks to 1 months after treatment. Squares were individual studies, lines were 95% confidence intervals, and the diamond was the summary effect size.
Life 12 02037 g004
Life 12 02037 g005 550
Figure 5. Funnel plot of the weighted mean difference in the reduction of VAS scores 3 weeks to 1 months after treatment. Dots indicate individual studies, and the diamond indicates the summary effect size.
Figure 5. Funnel plot of the weighted mean difference in the reduction of VAS scores 3 weeks to 1 months after treatment. Dots indicate individual studies, and the diamond indicates the summary effect size.
Life 12 02037 g005
Life 12 02037 g006 550
Figure 6. Forest plot of the weighted mean difference in the reduction of VAS scores 2 months to 3 months after treatment. Squares were individual studies, lines were 95% confidence intervals, and the diamond was the summary effect size.
Figure 6. Forest plot of the weighted mean difference in the reduction of VAS scores 2 months to 3 months after treatment. Squares were individual studies, lines were 95% confidence intervals, and the diamond was the summary effect size.
Life 12 02037 g006
Life 12 02037 g007 550
Figure 7. Forest plot of the risk of adverse events after treatment. Squares were individual studies, lines were 95% confidence intervals, and the diamond was the summary effect size.
Figure 7. Forest plot of the risk of adverse events after treatment. Squares were individual studies, lines were 95% confidence intervals, and the diamond was the summary effect size.
Life 12 02037 g007
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of enrolled articles.
Table 1. Characteristics of enrolled articles.
ResearchCountryStudy DesignAge (Mean, Years)Number of Cases of CRPS Type 1/2Mean of Disease Duration (Years)Gender (Male/Female)Last Follow-UpOther Treatments Besides Intervention
Cordivari et al., 2001 [28]United KingdomUncontrolled longitudinal study (case series)42NR5.20/4NRNR
Carroll et al., 2009 [27]United statesCrossover, randomized controlled trial517/02.71/6300 daysContinue medication started before the trial, no new therapy started in trial
Kharkar et al., 2011 [25]United statesUncontrolled longitudinal study (case series)NR26/11NR2/354 weeksNo significant change
Safarpour et al., 2011 [24]United statesRandomized controlled trial47NR5.53/52 monthsNR
Schilder et al., 2014 [26]NetherlandsUncontrolled longitudinal study (case series)4217/011.82/155 weeksNR
Lee et al., 2018 [29]KoreaRetrospective cohortBoNT-A: 26
BoNT-B: 23		18/0NRBoNT-A: 5/0
BoNT-B: 10/3		56 daysAll patients show over 50% reduction in pain after LSB with ropivacaine before.
Lessard et al., 2018 [23]CanadaUncontrolled longitudinal study (case series)50NRNR12/812 monthsPain refractory to 2 or more treatments
Yoo et al., 2022 [38]KoreaRandomized controlled trialIntervention: 44.8
Control: 43.7		Intervention: 20/3
Control: 22/2		Intervention: 2.225
Control: 2.1		Intervention: 12/11
Control: 12/12		3 monthsPain duration of at least 6 months despite conventional pain management; confirmed temperature increase during the screening lumbar sympathetic ganglion block
BoNT-A: botulinum neurotoxin type A; BoNT-B: botulinum neurotoxin type B; NR: not reported.
Table
Table 2. Extracted data from enrolled articles.
Table 2. Extracted data from enrolled articles.
ResearchTreatment SessionsInterval of InterventionCommercial FormsInjection Dose (Unit)Injection SiteTool for Injection GuidanceOutcomes
Cordivari et al., 2001 [28]7.4 (mean)3–6 (month)abobotulinumtoxinA450–1200IntramuscularElectromyographyPain, dystonia, function, posture
Carroll et al., 2009 [27]1NRIntervention: BoNT-A with bupivacaine; Control: bupivacaine75LSBFluoroscopyPain, adverse events
Kharkar et al., 2011 [25]1NRBoNT-A100IntramuscularElectromyographyPain, adverse events
Safarpour et al., 2011 [24]1NRIntervention: onabotulinumtoxinA; Control: normal saline40–200Intradermal/subcutaneousNRPain
Schilder et al., 2014 [26]1NRonabotulinumtoxinA20IntramuscularNRCMAP
Lee et al., 2018 [29]1NRonabotulinumtoxinA; rimabotulinumtoxinBBoNT-A: 100; BoNT-B: 5000LSBFluoroscopyPain, adverse events
Lessard et al., 2018 [23]8.9 (mean)1 (month)onabotulinumtoxinABelow 100SubcutaneousNRPain
Yoo et al., 2022 [38]1NRIntervention: BoNT-A (Nabota) with levobupivacaine; Control: levobupivacaine75LSBFluoroscopyTemperature, pain, velocity of popliteal artery, cold intolerance questionnaire, patient’s global impression of change, adverse events
BoNT-A: botulinum neurotoxin type A; BoNT-B: botulinum neurotoxin type B; CMAP: compound muscle action potential; LSB: lumbar sympathetic block; NR: not reported.
Table
Table 3. Summary of data extracted from included studies.
Table 3. Summary of data extracted from included studies.
Quality AssessmentSummary of Findings, WMD/OR (95% CI)
Number of Participants (Studies)Risk of BiasInconsistencyIndirectnessImprecisionPublication BiasControlBotulinum NeurotoxinCertainty of Evidence
Pain 3 weeks to 1 months: 62 (3)Serious limitation aNo serious limitationNo serious limitation cSerious limitation dUndetectable- eWMD −1.036 (−1.673, −0.400)Low ⨁⨁◯◯ f
Pain 2 to 3 months: 52 (2)Serious limitation aSerious limitation bNo serious limitation cSerious limitation d- e- eWMD −0.895 (−2.249, 0.458)Very Low ⨁◯◯◯ f
Risk of adverse events: 54 (2)Serious limitation aNo serious limitationNo serious limitation cSerious limitation d- e- eOR 0.698 (0.136, 3.581)Low ⨁⨁◯◯ f
CI: confidence interval; WMD: weighted mean difference. a Only one randomized controlled trial included scored all low risk of bias. b The I2 was >50%. c No indirectness was noted. d The upper and lower limit of 95% CI pointed in opposite directions or fell on different sides of the clinical significant cutoff point. e There were insufficient data available so far. f ⨁◯◯◯ means very low, ⨁⨁◯◯ means low.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Su, Y.-C.; Hsieh, P.-C.; Guo, Y.-H.; Lin, Y.-C. Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness and Safety of Botulinum Toxin in the Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. Life 2022, 12, 2037. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12122037

AMA Style

Su Y-C, Hsieh P-C, Guo Y-H, Lin Y-C. Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness and Safety of Botulinum Toxin in the Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. Life. 2022; 12(12):2037. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12122037

Chicago/Turabian Style

Su, Yu-Chi, Pei-Chun Hsieh, Yao-Hong Guo, and Yu-Ching Lin. 2022. "Meta-Analysis of Effectiveness and Safety of Botulinum Toxin in the Treatment of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome" Life 12, no. 12: 2037. https://doi.org/10.3390/life12122037

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop