Cargando…
Economic evaluation of AbobotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA in real-life clinical management of cervical dystonia
BACKGROUND: Botulinum neurotoxins type A (BoNT-As) are commonly used treatments for cervical dystonia (CD). Clinical trials have demonstrated the benefits of them in these patients, but data from real-life clinical practice as well as comparative data on the cost and outcome of different BoNT-A form...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32071728 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40734-020-0083-0 |
_version_ | 1783496673906917376 |
---|---|
author | Misra, V. P. Danchenko, N. Maisonobe, P. Lundkvist, J. Hunger, M. |
author_facet | Misra, V. P. Danchenko, N. Maisonobe, P. Lundkvist, J. Hunger, M. |
author_sort | Misra, V. P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Botulinum neurotoxins type A (BoNT-As) are commonly used treatments for cervical dystonia (CD). Clinical trials have demonstrated the benefits of them in these patients, but data from real-life clinical practice as well as comparative data on the cost and outcome of different BoNT-A formulations are limited. The aim of this study was to compare abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) and onabotulinumtoxinA (onaBoNT-A) on their clinical outcomes and drug costs in real-life clinical practice. METHODS: This analysis included 356 adult patients with idiopathic CD treated with aboBoNT-A (n = 253) or onaBoNT-A (n = 103) from 38 centres across Europe and Australia (NCT00833196). The clinical outcome measures were treatment responses, changes in TWSTRS scores and changes in health utility scores from baseline to study visit 2 and 3. Health utility score was mapped from the TWSTRS total scale, using a previous publication. Costs included drug cost for France. RESULTS: The aboBoNT-A treated group had 2.06 (95% CI: 1.15 to 3.69) times higher odds of achieving treatment response than the onaBoNT-A treated group. The adjusted mean change in TWSTRS total score from baseline to visit 3 were − 6.42 (95% CI: − 7.52 to − 5.33) for aboBoNT-A and − 3.94 (95% CI: − 5.68 to − 2.2) for onaBoNT-A, with a difference of − 2.48 (95% CI: − 4.57 to − 0.39). The corresponding difference in the adjusted mean change for health utility score was 0.008 (95% CI: 0.001 to 0.014). Mean treatment costs for aboBoNT-A and onaBoNT-A were 314.1 (95% CI: 299.1 to 329.0) and 346.6 (95% CI: 322.9 to 370.4) Euros, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This comparative analysis indicated that treatment with aboBoNT-A may be less costly and lead to improved clinical outcomes when compared with onaBoNT-A, from a French healthcare system perspective. Additional comparative clinical data from larger patient cohorts, as well as more information about cost consequences of an improvement in clinical outcome would be of value to further confirm the findings. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7014631 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70146312020-02-18 Economic evaluation of AbobotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA in real-life clinical management of cervical dystonia Misra, V. P. Danchenko, N. Maisonobe, P. Lundkvist, J. Hunger, M. J Clin Mov Disord Research Article BACKGROUND: Botulinum neurotoxins type A (BoNT-As) are commonly used treatments for cervical dystonia (CD). Clinical trials have demonstrated the benefits of them in these patients, but data from real-life clinical practice as well as comparative data on the cost and outcome of different BoNT-A formulations are limited. The aim of this study was to compare abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) and onabotulinumtoxinA (onaBoNT-A) on their clinical outcomes and drug costs in real-life clinical practice. METHODS: This analysis included 356 adult patients with idiopathic CD treated with aboBoNT-A (n = 253) or onaBoNT-A (n = 103) from 38 centres across Europe and Australia (NCT00833196). The clinical outcome measures were treatment responses, changes in TWSTRS scores and changes in health utility scores from baseline to study visit 2 and 3. Health utility score was mapped from the TWSTRS total scale, using a previous publication. Costs included drug cost for France. RESULTS: The aboBoNT-A treated group had 2.06 (95% CI: 1.15 to 3.69) times higher odds of achieving treatment response than the onaBoNT-A treated group. The adjusted mean change in TWSTRS total score from baseline to visit 3 were − 6.42 (95% CI: − 7.52 to − 5.33) for aboBoNT-A and − 3.94 (95% CI: − 5.68 to − 2.2) for onaBoNT-A, with a difference of − 2.48 (95% CI: − 4.57 to − 0.39). The corresponding difference in the adjusted mean change for health utility score was 0.008 (95% CI: 0.001 to 0.014). Mean treatment costs for aboBoNT-A and onaBoNT-A were 314.1 (95% CI: 299.1 to 329.0) and 346.6 (95% CI: 322.9 to 370.4) Euros, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This comparative analysis indicated that treatment with aboBoNT-A may be less costly and lead to improved clinical outcomes when compared with onaBoNT-A, from a French healthcare system perspective. Additional comparative clinical data from larger patient cohorts, as well as more information about cost consequences of an improvement in clinical outcome would be of value to further confirm the findings. BioMed Central 2020-02-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7014631/ /pubmed/32071728 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40734-020-0083-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Misra, V. P. Danchenko, N. Maisonobe, P. Lundkvist, J. Hunger, M. Economic evaluation of AbobotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA in real-life clinical management of cervical dystonia |
title | Economic evaluation of AbobotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA in real-life clinical management of cervical dystonia |
title_full | Economic evaluation of AbobotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA in real-life clinical management of cervical dystonia |
title_fullStr | Economic evaluation of AbobotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA in real-life clinical management of cervical dystonia |
title_full_unstemmed | Economic evaluation of AbobotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA in real-life clinical management of cervical dystonia |
title_short | Economic evaluation of AbobotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA in real-life clinical management of cervical dystonia |
title_sort | economic evaluation of abobotulinumtoxina vs onabotulinumtoxina in real-life clinical management of cervical dystonia |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014631/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32071728 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40734-020-0083-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT misravp economicevaluationofabobotulinumtoxinavsonabotulinumtoxinainreallifeclinicalmanagementofcervicaldystonia AT danchenkon economicevaluationofabobotulinumtoxinavsonabotulinumtoxinainreallifeclinicalmanagementofcervicaldystonia AT maisonobep economicevaluationofabobotulinumtoxinavsonabotulinumtoxinainreallifeclinicalmanagementofcervicaldystonia AT lundkvistj economicevaluationofabobotulinumtoxinavsonabotulinumtoxinainreallifeclinicalmanagementofcervicaldystonia AT hungerm economicevaluationofabobotulinumtoxinavsonabotulinumtoxinainreallifeclinicalmanagementofcervicaldystonia |