Economics of dry needling and botulinum toxin type A for treatment of post-stroke spasticity: a review

Abstract

Stroke is one of the most common causes of disability and exerts a high burden of direct and indirect costs. Stroke may cause spasticity, which limits patients’ abilities and affects their activities of daily living, decreasing their quality of life. Conventional treatments are based on physical therapy, anti-spasticity medication, and botulinum toxin type A (BTX-A). However, recently, non-pharmacological approaches have been used, such as dry needling (DN) of myofascial trigger points. BTX-A and DN are two treatments that aim to decrease spasticity in patients with stroke, but their mode of action, application, and costs differ. Thus, there is a need to determine the comparative economics of post-stroke spasticity treatments. For this purpose, a search for all types of cost-effectiveness studies (randomized controlled trials, matched controls, and cohorts) and models of epidemiological data was performed. Studies were selected if they included economic outcomes in stroke patients treated with BTX-A or DN. As a result, 7 studies of BTX-A and 2 of DN were selected. Similarities were found in the outcomes used to assess the effectiveness of both treatments in most studies, with modifications of the Ashworth Scale [Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS)/Modified Modified Ashworth Scale (MMAS)] and quality-adjusted life year (QALY) being the main indicators of effectiveness. However, both the duration of the studies and the evaluation of costs were highly heterogeneous, making comparison difficult. In conclusion, both BTX-A and DN are cost-effective to treat spasticity in patients with stroke, but there is a need for comparative studies to make direct comparisons of cost-effectiveness with the most frequently used outcomes such as the MMAS and QALYs.