Gracies J M, Nance P, Elovic E, McGuire J, Simpson D M
Department of Neurology, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY 10029, USA.
Muscle Nerve Suppl. 1997;6:S92-120.
Systemic pharmacologic treatments may be indicated in conditions in which the distribution of muscle overactivity is diffuse. Antispastic drugs act in the CNS either by suppression of excitation (glutamate) enhancement of inhibition (GABA, glycine), or a combination of the two. Only four drugs are currently approved by the US FDA as antispactic agents: baclofen, diazepam, dantrolene sodium, and tizanidine. However, there are a number of other drugs available with proven antispastic action. This chapter reviews the pharmacology, physiology of action, dosage, and results from controlled clinical trials on side effects, efficacy, and indications for 21 drugs in several categories. Categories reviewed include agents acting through the GABAergic system (baclofen, benzodiazepines, piracetam, progabide); drugs affecting ion flux (dantrolene sodium, lamotrigine, riluzole; drugs acting on monoamines (tizanidine, clonidine, thymoxamine, beta blockers, and cyproheptadine); drugs acting on excitatory amino acids (orphenadrine citrate); cannabinoids; inhibitory neuromediators; and other miscellaneous agents. The technique, advantages and limitations of intrathecal administration of baclofen, morphine, and midazolam are reviewed. Two consistent limitations appear throughout the controlled studies reviewed: the lack of quantitative and sensitive functional assessment and the lack of comparative trials between different agents. In the majority of trials in which meaningful functional assessment was included, the study drug failed to improve function, even though the antispastic action was significant. Placebo-controlled trials of virtually all major centrally acting antispastic agents have shown that sedation, reduction of global performance, and muscle weakness are frequent side effects. It appears preferable to use centrally acting drugs such as baclofen, tizanidine, and diazepam in spasticity of spinal origin (spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis), whereas dantrolene sodium, due to its primarily peripheral mechanism of action, may be preferable in spasticity of cerebral origin (stroke and traumatic brain injury) where sensitivity to sedating effects is generally higher. Intrathecal administration of antispastic drugs has been used mainly in cases of muscle overactivity occurring primarily in the lower limbs in nonambulatory, severely disabled patients but new indications may emerge in spasticity of cerebral origin. Intrathecal therapy is an invasive procedure involving long-term implantation of a foreign device, and the potential disadvantages must be weighed against the level of disability in each patient and the resistance to other forms of antispastic therapy. In all forms of treatment of muscle overactivity, one must distinguish between two different goals of therapy: improvement of active function and improvement of hygiene and comfort. The risk of global performance reduction associated with general or regional administration of antispastic drugs may be more acceptable when the primary goal of therapy is hygiene and comfort than when active function is a priority.
对于肌肉过度活动分布弥漫的情况,可能需要进行全身性药物治疗。抗痉挛药物在中枢神经系统中起作用的方式包括抑制兴奋(谷氨酸)、增强抑制(γ-氨基丁酸、甘氨酸)或两者结合。目前美国食品药品监督管理局仅批准了四种药物作为抗痉挛剂:巴氯芬、地西泮、丹曲林钠和替扎尼定。然而,还有许多其他药物已被证实具有抗痉挛作用。本章回顾了21种不同类别药物的药理学、作用生理学、剂量以及对照临床试验的副作用、疗效和适应证结果。所回顾的类别包括通过γ-氨基丁酸能系统起作用的药物(巴氯芬、苯二氮䓬类、吡拉西坦、普罗加比);影响离子通量的药物(丹曲林钠、拉莫三嗪、利鲁唑);作用于单胺类的药物(替扎尼定、可乐定、噻吗洛尔、β受体阻滞剂和赛庚啶);作用于兴奋性氨基酸的药物(枸橼酸奥芬那君);大麻素;抑制性神经递质;以及其他杂类药物。还回顾了鞘内注射巴氯芬、吗啡和咪达唑仑的技术、优点和局限性。在所回顾的对照研究中始终存在两个局限性:缺乏定量和敏感的功能评估以及不同药物之间缺乏对比试验。在大多数纳入有意义功能评估的试验中,尽管抗痉挛作用显著,但研究药物未能改善功能。几乎所有主要的中枢性抗痉挛药物的安慰剂对照试验均表明,镇静、整体功能下降和肌肉无力是常见的副作用。对于脊髓源性痉挛(脊髓损伤和多发性硬化症),使用巴氯芬、替扎尼定和地西泮等中枢性药物似乎更为合适,而由于丹曲林钠主要作用于外周机制,对于对镇静作用敏感性通常较高的脑源性痉挛(中风和创伤性脑损伤)可能更为适用。鞘内注射抗痉挛药物主要用于非行走、严重残疾患者主要发生在下肢的肌肉过度活动情况,但脑源性痉挛可能会出现新的适应证。鞘内治疗是一种涉及长期植入外来装置的侵入性操作,必须将潜在的不利因素与每个患者的残疾程度以及对其他形式抗痉挛治疗的耐受性进行权衡。在所有治疗肌肉过度活动的形式中,必须区分两个不同的治疗目标:改善主动功能以及改善卫生状况和舒适度。当治疗的主要目标是卫生状况和舒适度时,与全身性或局部性使用抗痉挛药物相关的整体功能下降风险可能比以主动功能为优先时更容易接受。