Patient-reported benefits from nabiximols treatment in multiple sclerosis-related spasticity exceed conventional measures.

Aim: This prospective, multicenter, open-label, noninterventional 12-week study investigated the effectiveness and tolerability of add-on nabiximols oromucosal spray (Sativex®) in the real-world setting in Germany. Patients & methods: The main analysis set comprised 51 adult patients (49 nabiximols responders) with multiple sclerosis (MS) spasticity. Results: The mean overall goal attainment scale score (primary outcome measure) increased by 46% from baseline to week 12 (35.2 vs 51.4; p < 0.001). Mean gait speed was improved by 23% at 4 and 12 weeks. Clinically meaningful improvements in mean 0-10 numerical rating scale scores for spasticity, pain, sleep quality and urinary bladder dysfunction were recorded at 4 and 12 weeks. Conclusion: Nabiximols is a useful therapeutic option for patients with MS spasticity.

People with multiple sclerosis (MS) spasticity experience a variety of symptoms and have individual expectations about a new treatment. This study investigated patients' perceptions about the effectiveness and tolerability of nabiximols oromucosal spray (Sativex^®) when added to current medications for spasticity. Common treatment goals for patients (n = 51) were less pain, better walking and improved sleep. After 12 weeks of treatment, 62% of selected treatment goals were achieved 'as expected' or 'better than expected' and 65% of patients considered their spasticity to be 'much improved'. Meaningful improvements were recorded in spasticity-related symptoms of pain, sleep quality and bladder problems. Few side effects were reported. Nabiximols may be useful for MS patients with a poor response to usual spasticity medications.

Effects of SativexⓇ on cognitive function in patients with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is a common manifestation of multiple sclerosis (MS). OBJECTIVE: To assess by systematic review and meta-analysis available evidence regarding the impact of nabiximols oromucosal spray on cognition in patients with MS. METHODS: A systematic literature search of clinical studies (all types, any comparator) that measured cognitive function in patients with MS spasticity treated with nabiximols. Meta-analysis for cognitive endpoints was not possible due to heterogenous measurement instruments and outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed for adverse events (AEs) of special interest (cognition disorders) reported in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of nabiximols versus placebo in patients with MS (with or without spasticity). Certainty of evidence and risk of bias were assessed. RESULTS: Seven clinical studies (three RCTs) directly assessing cognitive function were included in the qualitative analysis. There was no consistent evidence to suggest that nabiximols causes cognitive impairment as assessed by a range of specific psychometric instruments across cognitive domains. Thirteen double-blind, placebo-controlled RCTs (nabiximols, n = 964; placebo, n = 904) were included in the meta-analysis of cognitive AEs. Most cognitive AEs (30 of 32 events, 93.8%) reported with nabiximols in MS patients occurred with not in-label use, i.e., dosage >12 sprays per day and/or not administered primarily for treatment of spasticity. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the review, we can conclude that no detrimental effects of nabiximols on cognitive function were observed in patients with MS spasticity during up to 12 months follow-up and that cognitive AEs were rare and occurred only when nabiximols was not used according to its approved label.

Efficacy and safety/tolerability of pridinol: a meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials in adult patients with muscle pain.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate analgesic efficacy and safety/tolerability of the nonbenzodiazepine antispasmodic pridinol (PRI) in patients with muscle-related pain. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) according to PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane recommendations. Data sources included Google Scholar, Embase, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Registry, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, and product manufacturer archives from inception to 31 January 2022. Eligibility criteria for study selection were randomized, placebo-controlled trials with PRI in adults (≥18 years) with muscle-related pain. Data extraction, synthesis, and analysis carried out by two reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Categorial global response rates (number of patients) based on clinical judgement of study physicians (as primary efficacy endpoint), and response on pain at rest, pain at movement, stiffness, tenderness, and movement restriction (as secondary efficacy endpoints), as well as the number of patients with drug-related adverse events (DRAEs) were meta-analytically evaluated using the Review Manager Software version 5.4.1. RESULTS: In total, 38 records were identified, but only two placebo-controlled studies (with 342 patients with mild to moderate acute muscle pain [55.3% female, age 50.6 ± 16.6 years], of whom 173 received PRI and 169 placebo, each as monotherapy) proved to be suitable for quantitative and qualitative analysis. Treatment with PRI was (irrespective of its mode of administration as oral tablet or intramuscular injection) associated with a significantly higher global response rate compared to placebo (74.0 vs. 49.7%; OR 2.86, 95%-CI: 1.82-4.51; p < .00001; Cohen´s h: 0.506, NNT: 4.1; Chi2 for heterogeneity 1.41 (p = .24], I2  = 29%), and significantly higher response rates were also found for all secondary efficacy endpoints. The safety of PRI was comparable to that of placebo: DRAEs were only seen in one of the two studies and reported for 13 vs. 10 patients (OR: 0.76 95%-CI: 0.32-18.1; p = .54, NNH: 62.6), and related discontinuations were reported for four vs. one patient (2.3 vs. 0.6%; p = .231). CONCLUSIONS: The results from this meta-analysis as based on two placebo-controlled studies in adult patients with mild to moderate acute muscle pain demonstrate that a 3-week monotherapy with PRI showed a comparable safety profile, but significantly better analgesic effects and improvements of related impairments such as stiffness, tenderness, and movement restrictions compared with placebo - irrespective of its mode of administration.

Muscle pain is one of the most common pain problems worldwide.In the majority of cases, muscle pain is temporary, transient, and benign in nature. However, people affected may still experience severe pain and significant pain-related disabilities in daily life activities that may require temporary drug treatment ­ also in order to be able to undertake the non-drug treatment measures necessary to prevent recurrence.Current treatment recommendations for muscle pain are largely ´non-specific´ and limited to symptomatic pain-relieving measures (e.g. non-steroidal anti-inflammatories), while muscle relaxants ­ such as pridinol (PRI), which has been reapproved in Germany in 2017 and first time approved in the United Kingdom, Spain, and Poland in 2020 ­ are currently not recommended (primarily due to insufficient efficacy data from controlled clinical trials) but nevertheless frequently prescribed.Due to our systematic literature research of double-blind randomized and placebo-controlled trials, a 3-week monotherapy with PRI vs. placebo proved to be comparably tolerated, but significantly more effective in patients with muscle pain ­ irrespective of the mode of administration (oral or as intramuscular injection).These outcomes confirm already available real-world evidence on the beneficial efficacy and tolerability of PRI in daily practice. However, more recent RCTs or numerically larger comparative real-world evidence analyses are needed to evaluate the efficacy of PRI in comparison to currently recommended first-line therapies for patients with muscle pain.

Comparison of the Effectiveness and Tolerability of Nabiximols (THC:CBD) Oromucosal Spray versus Oral Dronabinol (THC) as Add-on Treatment for Severe Neuropathic Pain in Real-World Clinical Practice: Retrospective Analysis of the German Pain e-Registry.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness and tolerability of add-on treatment with nabiximols (NBX: delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol: cannabidiol) oromucosal spray or oral dronabinol (DRO: synthetic tetrahydrocannabinol) in patients with severe neuropathic pain poorly responsive to established treatments. METHODS: An analysis was conducted of anonymized, propensity score-matched real-world data from the German Pain e-Registry, using a sequential non-inferiority superiority approach, for adult outpatients with neuropathic pain who had initiated treatment with NBX or DRO between 10 March 2017 and 31 December 2019. The primary effectiveness variable was percent change from baseline in a 9-factor aggregated symptom relief (ASR-9) score, a composite index of nine distinct pain- and health-related parameters assessed using validated patient-reported instruments. Safety was assessed by the incidence of physician-confirmed treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), and TRAEs leading to discontinuation. RESULTS: Propensity score-matched data were analyzed for 337 patients treated with NBX and 337 patients treated with DRO. Mean (standard deviation) THC dose over the 24-week evaluation period was 16.6 (6.5) mg for NBX and 17.2 (7.6) mg for DRO (p<0.001). Median (standard error) improvement relative to baseline in the ASR-9 composite score was 55.4% (0.5) for NBX and 40.5% (0.5) for DRO (least squares mean difference, 14.0 (0.7), 95% confidence interval 12.6-15.4; p<0.001), and incidences of TRAEs (21.1 vs 35%) and TRAE-related discontinuations (5.9 vs 14.8%) were significantly lower with NBX than DRO (p<0.001 for both), collectively indicating pre-specified non-inferiority and superiority of NBX. More NBX- than DRO-treated patients discontinued non-cannabinoid background pain medications and rescue analgesics, especially opioid analgesics (p<0.001 for both). CONCLUSION: Add-on treatment with cannabinoids is effective for treatment of severe neuropathic pain with inadequate response to established treatments. In daily practice, NBX had superior effectiveness and tolerability compared to DRO. The results emphasize the importance of combining CBD with THC in this patient population.

Prevalence of drug-induced constipation and severity of associated biopsychosocial effects in patients with nonmalignant pain: a cross-sectional review of depersonalized data from the German Pain e-Registry.

BACKGROUND: Drug-induced constipation (DIC) is a well-known comorbidity of cancer pain, however, data on its prevalence in nonmalignant pain (NMP) and its biopsychosocial effects are few. OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence and impact of DIC in patients with NMP. METHODS: Exploratory noninterventional, retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of depersonalized routine data of the German Pain e-Registry on 150,488 NMP patients (EUPAS identifier: 42286). RESULTS: DIC affects 33.5% of NMP patients. The most prevalent risk factors were the use of strong opioid analgesics and analgesic polymedication. Patients with DIC presented with significantly worse biopsychosocial scores as well as significantly higher percentages of individuals with severe deterioration of pain, daily life activities, physical and mental quality of life, mood, and overall wellbeing. Among patients with DIC, those who reported constipation as a clinical symptom and who documented bowel-function index (BFI) scores above the reference range were significantly more affected compared to those who either reported only constipation as an adverse event or elevated BFI scores. 55.9% of patients with DIC reported the use of laxatives, mostly over-the-counter preparations (43.6%), whereas prescription laxatives were taken by only 29.3%. CONCLUSIONS: DIC is a frequent comorbidity of pain management and affects around one-third of patients with NMP. It interferes significantly with pain-related biopsychosocial effects and has to be addressed specifically to improve the overall burden in affected patients. However, the use of laxatives was significantly less frequent than recommended indicating significant room for improvement.

Effectiveness, Safety, and Tolerability of Nabiximols Oromucosal Spray vs Typical Oral Long-Acting Opioid Analgesics in Patients with Severe Neuropathic Back Pain: Analysis of 6-Month Real-World Data from the German Pain e-Registry.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of add-on nabiximols (NBX) oromucosal spray vs typical oral long-acting opioid (LAO) analgesics in patients with severe (± chronic) peripheral neuropathic back pain poorly responsive to other treatments. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of anonymized, propensity score-matched data from the German Pain e-Registry of adult outpatients who initiated NBX or LAO between March 2017 and March 2020. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from propensity score-matched patients treated with NBX (n = 655) or LAO (n = 655): mean age ≈51 years; 57% female; mean pain duration ≈2.6 years; chronic pain 61%; severe dysfunctional pain 93%. At 6 months, NBX was noninferior to LAO for overall symptom relief, based on the least-squares mean difference between cohorts in change from baseline in patient-reported, pain-related aggregated nine-item scale scores (-27.84%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -29.71 to -25.96; P < 0.001) and individual pain-related scale scores. Subsequent prespecified superiority analysis of the primary endpoint showed that NBX was superior to LAO: all secondary endpoints measuring symptoms of pain and physical function improved significantly with NBX and LAO, with between-group differences favoring NBX (all P < 0.001). Fewer patients treated with NBX than LAO experienced treatment-related adverse events (25.5% vs 76.0%; P < 0.001) or discontinued treatment because of treatment-related adverse events (7.9% vs 29.3%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Within study limitations (e.g., observational design, all potential biases), add-on NBX was superior to and better tolerated than add-on treatment with typical oral LAO analgesics in patients with neuropathic back pain inadequately controlled by recommended/established systemic therapies.

Nabiximols in Chronic Neuropathic Pain: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: Pooled analysis of nabiximols and placebo in randomized controlled studies (RCTs) of chronic neuropathic pain. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted to identify double-blind placebo-controlled RCTs of nabiximols for chronic neuropathic pain. The clinical endpoint of interest was change from baseline in mean pain score on 11-point numerical rating scales. Mean difference (MD) and standardized mean difference (SMD, Hedges' g) were calculated using fixed effect (FE) and random effects (RE) models. Strength of evidence was assessed using the Cochrane Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2). RESULTS: Nine RCTs with 1289 participants were included. Quality of evidence (GRADE) was moderate. One study had a high risk of bias (RoB 2) and five had some concerns. For the pooled endpoint of change from baseline in mean pain score, nabiximols was superior to placebo, with a MD of -0.40 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -.59 to -.21; FE, P < .0001) or -0.44 (95% CI: -.70 to -.19; RE, P = .0006). A SMD of -0.21 (95% CI: -.32 to -.10; FE) or -0.26 (95% CI: -.42 to -.10; RE) indicated an incremental benefit over background analgesia. Results in favor of nabiximols were maintained in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Nabiximols was superior to placebo for reduction of chronic neuropathic pain, with a small effect size. Larger RCTs designed to assess the effect of nabiximols in neuropathic pain are required to reach more definitive conclusions.

Tetrahydrocannabinol and cannabidiol oromucosal spray in resistant multiple sclerosis spasticity: consistency of response across subgroups from the SAVANT randomized clinical trial.

Objective: To determine whether differences in disability status, spasticity severity, and spasticity duration at treatment start in patients with resistant multiple sclerosis (MS) spasticity might influence response to add-on tetrahydrocannabinol:cannabidiol (THC:CBD) oromucosal spray (nabiximols) versus further re-adjustment of optimized first-line antispasticity medication.Methods: Using the database from the Sativex® as Add-on therapy Vs. further optimized first-line ANTispastics (SAVANT) study, this post hoc analysis evaluated spasticity severity (0-10 numerical rating scale [NRS] scores) and pain severity (0-10 NRS scores) evolution from randomization (baseline) to week 12 (end of double-blind treatment) in defined subgroups: Expanded disability status scale [EDSS] score subgroups (<6 and ≥6); spasticity severity 0-10 NRS score subgroups (4 to ≤6 and >6), and spasticity duration subgroups (<5 and ≥5 years).Results: THC:CBD oromucosal spray (nabiximols) halved mean severity scores for spasticity and pain in all subgroups. Active treatment significantly improved mean spasticity severity scores versus placebo from week 4 onwards in both EDSS subgroups, in the severe spasticity subgroup, and in both spasticity duration subgroups. Active treatment significantly improved mean pain severity scores versus placebo in the ≥6 EDSS subgroup, in the severe spasticity subgroup and in both spasticity duration subgroups.Conclusion: Add-on THC:CBD oromucosal spray (nabiximols) consistently relieves resistant spasticity across subgroups defined by baseline EDSS score, spasticity severity NRS score and spasticity duration. Patients with moderate resistant MS spasticity benefit numerically from treatment; patients with severe resistant spasticity achieve significant therapeutic gains. Spasticity-associated pain often improves similarly in the same subgroups.

Effectiveness and tolerability of THC:CBD oromucosal spray as add-on measure in patients with severe chronic pain: analysis of 12-week open-label real-world data provided by the German Pain e-Registry.

Objective: To evaluate effectiveness, tolerability and safety of an oromucosal spray containing Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD), as add-on treatment in patients with severe chronic pain (SCP). Methods: Exploratory analysis of anonymized 12-week routine/open-label data provided by the German Pain e-Registry (GPR) on adult SCP patients treated with THC:CBD oromucosal spray in 2017. Results: Among those 30.228 cases documented in the GPR in 2017, 800 (2.6%; 57% female, mean ± SD age: 46.3±9.7 years) received a treatment with THC:CBD. All patients fulfilled the legislative preconditions for a treatment with cannabis as medicine as defined by the German Act Amending Narcotics and Other Regulations. THC:CBD-treatment was followed by an aggregated nine-factor symptom relief (ASR-9) improvement at end of week 12 vs baseline of 39.0±26.5% (95%-CI: 36.9-41.1, median: 42, range -41 to 85). A full ASR-9 response (ie, a 50%-improvement in all 9 factors) was found for 123 patients (15.4%), while 488 patients (56.0%) presented with an ≥50% improvement in at least 5 of 9 ASR factors. With a 54.9±17.2% (median: 56%, range: -6 to 85) improvement was significantly superior in the neuropathic pain subgroup (n=497, 62.1%) vs those with mixed (n=249, 31.1%; ASR-9: 18.2±12.0, median: 19, range: -12 to 42%) or nociceptive pain (n=54, 6.8%; ASR-9: -11.9±10.5, median: -11, range: -41% to 12%; p<0.001 for each). 159 patients (19.9%) reported at least one of 206 TEAEs, most of them of mild intensity (n=81.6%). Most frequently reported TEAEs were increased appetite (n=50, 6.3%) and dysgeusia (n=23, 2.9%). TEAE-related discontinuations were reported for 32 patients (4.0%). 113 (14.1%) patients discontinued due to inadequate pain relief, most of them with nociceptive pain (n=40, 74.1%), least with neuropathic pain (n=1, 0.2%; p<0.001). Conclusion: THC:CBD oromucosal spray proved to be an effective and well-tolerated add-on treatment for patients with elsewhere refractory chronic pain - especially of neuropathic origin.

Daily Practice Managing Resistant Multiple Sclerosis Spasticity With Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol: Cannabidiol Oromucosal Spray: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Spasticity is one of the most common symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Conventional anti-spasticity agents have limitations in their efficacy and tolerability. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol: cannabidiol (THC:CBD) spray, a cannabinoid-based medicine, is approved as an add-on therapy for MS spasticity not adequately controlled by other anti-spasticity medications. The results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have demonstrated a reduction in the severity of spasticity and associated symptoms. However, RCTs do not always reflect real-life outcomes. We systematically reviewed the complementary evidence from non-interventional real-world studies. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted to identify all non-RCT publications on THC:CBD spray between 2011 and 2017. Data on study design, patient characteristics, effectiveness, and safety outcomes were extracted from those publications meeting our inclusion criteria. RESULTS: In total, we reviewed 14 real-world publications including observational studies and treatment registries. The proportion of patients reaching the threshold of minimal clinical important difference (MCID), with at least a 20% reduction of the spasticity Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) score after 4 weeks ranged from 41.9% to 82.9%. The reduction in the mean NRS spasticity score after 4 weeks was maintained over 6-12 months. The average daily dose was five to six sprays. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol: cannabidiol was well tolerated in the evaluated studies in the same way as in the RCTs. No new or unexpected adverse events or safety signals were reported in everyday clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The data evaluated in this systematic review provide evidence for the efficacy and safety of THC:CBD in clinical practice and confirm results obtained in RCTs.

Sativex® as add-on therapy vs. further optimized first-line ANTispastics (SAVANT) in resistant multiple sclerosis spasticity: a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial.

Purpose/aim: To evaluate the efficacy of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC):cannabidiol (CBD) oromucosal spray (Sativex®) as add-on therapy to optimised standard antispasticity treatment in patients with moderate to severe multiple sclerosis (MS) spasticity. METHODS: Sativex® as add-on therapy vs. further optimised first-line ANTispastics (SAVANT) was a two-phase trial. In Phase A, eligible patients received add-on THC:CBD spray for 4 weeks to identify initial responders [≥20% improvement from baseline in spasticity 0-10 numerical rating scale (NRS) score]. Following washout, eligible initial responders were randomised to receive THC:CBD spray or placebo for 12 weeks (double-blinded, Phase B). Optimisation of underlying antispasticity medications was permitted in both groups across all study periods. RESULTS: Of 191 patients who entered Phase A, 106 were randomised in Phase B to receive add-on THC:CBD spray (n = 53) or placebo (n = 53). The proportion of clinically relevant responders after 12 weeks (≥30% NRS improvement; primary efficacy endpoint) was significantly greater with THC:CBD spray than placebo (77.4 vs. 32.1%; p < 0.0001). Compared with placebo, THC:CBD spray also significantly improved key secondary endpoints: changes in mean spasticity NRS (p < 0.0001), mean pain NRS (p = 0.0013), and mean modified Ashworth's scale (p = 0.0007) scores from Phase B baseline to week 12. Adverse events, when present, were mild/moderate and without new safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Add-on THC:CBD oromucosal spray provided better and clinically relevant improvement of resistant MS spasticity compared with adjusting first-line antispasticity medication alone.

Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of an oral enzyme combination vs diclofenac in osteoarthritis of the knee: results of an individual patient-level pooled reanalysis of data from six randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To compare efficacy, safety, and tolerability of an oral enzyme combination (OEC) containing proteolytic enzymes and bioflavonoid vs diclofenac (DIC), a nonselective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an individual patient-level pooled reanalysis of patient-reported data from prospective, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group studies in adult patients with moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis of the knee treated for at least 3 weeks with OEC or DIC. Appropriate trials were identified with a systemic literature and database search. Data were extracted from the original case-report forms and reanalyzed by a blinded evaluation committee. The primary end point was the improvement of the Lequesne algofunctional index (LAFI) score at study end vs baseline. Secondary end points addressed LAFI response rates, treatment-related pain-intensity changes, adverse events, and laboratory parameters. RESULTS: Six trials were identified that enrolled in total 774 patients, of whom 759 had post-baseline data for safety analysis, 697 (n=348/349 with OEC/DIC) for intent to treat, 524 for per protocol efficacy analysis, and 500 for laboratory evaluation. LAFI scores - the primary efficacy end point - decreased comparably with both treatments and improved with both treatments significantly vs baseline (OEC 12.6±2.4 to 9.1±3.9, DIC 12.7±2.4 to 9.1±4.2, effect size 0.9/0.88; P<0.001 for each). In parallel, movement-related 11-point numeric rating-scale pain intensity improved significantly (P<0.001) and comparably with both treatments from baseline (6.4±1.9/6.6±1.8) to study end (3.8±2.7/3.9±2.5). Overall, 55/81 OEC/DIC patients of the safety-analysis population (14.7%/21.1%, P=0.022) reported 90/133 treatment-emergent adverse events, followed by premature treatment discontinuations in 22/39 patients (5.9%/10.2%, P=0.030). Changes in laboratory parameters were significantly less with OEC vs DIC: on average 18.8% vs 86.3% of patients presented a decrease with respect to hemoglobin, hematocrit, or erythrocyte count (P<0.001), and 28.2% vs 72.6% showed an increase in AST, ALT, or GGT (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: When compared with DIC, OEC showed comparable efficacy and a superior tolerability/safety profile associated with a significantly lower risk of treatment-emergent adverse events, related study discontinuations, and changes in laboratory parameters.

Burden of disease in multiple sclerosis patients with spasticity in Germany: mobility improvement study (Move I).

OBJECTIVES: To describe the current management patterns of multiple sclerosis (MS) patients with spasticity in Germany and the impact of MS spasticity on quality of life (QoL) and associated costs. METHODS: Non-interventional, multicentre, cross-sectional and retrospective burden-of-disease study including 414 MS patients with spasticity (age from 25 to 80 years) from 42 clinical practices across Germany. All patients were diagnosed with MS-related spasticity based on neurological examination at least 12 months before inclusion in the study. Three different forms were completed on different aspects of the disease: the patient questionnaire, the chart documentation form and the physician questionnaire. RESULTS: Mild, moderate and severe spasticity were found in 27.3, 44.0 and 28.7 % of patients, respectively. Associated symptoms and QoL scores were worse in patients with higher degrees of spasticity. In particular, higher mean scores for sleep impairment (mild vs. severe, 2.1 vs. 4.3), mean spasm count (3/day vs. 10.1/day), mean WEIMuS fatigue score (15.8 vs. 19.8), increased walking time (9.6 vs. 20.2 s) and lower mean QoL scores (MSQoL-54 physical subscale, 54.9 vs. 39.5; EQ-5D, 0.60 vs. 0.30) were reported in patients with severe spasticity in comparison to patients with mild spasticity. Patient management mainly comprised physiotherapy (mild vs. severe, 65.5 vs. 85.7 %) and medication (84.2 vs. 64.8 %) with baclofen. The average cost for patients with mild spasticity was €2,268/year, increasing to €8,688/patient/year for patients with severe spasticity. The health insurance costs showed the same trend. CONCLUSIONS: MS patients with spasticity suffer a significant burden because of resulting disabilities and reduced QoL, especially in cases of severe spasticity. Moreover, spasticity causes high costs that increase with increasing severity.

Memantine (Ebixa) in clinical practice - results of an observational study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In a post-marketing observational study, the efficacy and tolerability of memantine were examined in patients with moderate to severe Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: The patients were treated with 20 mg/day of memantine for a 6-month period. The efficacy of memantine was evaluated using the Mini-Mental State Examination, the Nurses' Observation Scale for Geriatric Patients (NOSGER) and the Explorationsmodul Demenz (EMD) scale. In addition, a global assessment was made by the physician. RESULTS: After 6 months of open-label treatment with memantine, the patients' cognitive function, ability to perform daily activities and global performance all showed a marked improvement. In the overall evaluation by the physician, improvement or stabilisation had been achieved by 78.8% of patients after 6 months of therapy. Memantine also demonstrated an excellent tolerability profile. CONCLUSION: The results of this naturalistic study support the significant efficacy and tolerability of memantine that has been previously demonstrated in randomised, controlled clinical Alzheimer's disease trials.