Evidence Hub

A 4-week comparison of capillaroscopy changes, healing effect, and cost-effectiveness of botulinum toxin-A vs prostaglandin analog infusion in refractory digital ulcers in systemic sclerosis

Shenavandeh S, Sepaskhah M, Dehghani S, Nazarinia M

Clinical rheumatology, 2022

26 participants · 23 citations

Abstract

Introduction: Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a systemic multi-organ disease. Raynaud's phenomenon (RP) and digital ulcers (DUs) in SSc patients can be resistant to usual treatments. We studied the clinical benefits, capillaroscopy changes, and cost-effectiveness of local injection of botulinum toxin-A (BTX-A) and intravenous prostaglandin analogs (iloprost/alprostadil) in patients with SSc with resistant DUs.

Method: In a clinical trial study, we evaluated 26 patients fulfilling the ACR/EULAR SSc criteria with resistant DUs. Visual analog scale of pain and RP, skin color and type of ulcers, and capillaroscopy were assessed before and 1 month after treatment. In the first group, 20 units of BTX-A was injected at the base of each involved fingers by a dermatologist. In the second group, 20 µg iloprost or 60 µg alprostadil was infused daily. The cost of these treatments was compared.

Result: In 26 patients (43 fingers), there were 16 patients (22 fingers) in the BTX-A and 10 patients (21 fingers) in the prostaglandin group. In 95.5% of the BTX-A and 90.5% of the prostaglandin group, the ulcers were healed. In both groups, a significant decrease in pain was seen (p < 0.0001). Capillaroscopy patterns in both groups were not changed although the microhemorrhages disappeared significantly (p value: BTX-A: 0.03 and prostaglandin: 0.002). The cost was significantly lower in the BTX-A injection group (p < 0.0001).

Conclusion: Both BTX-A and prostaglandins helped in the healing and pain…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 26 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free