Economic evaluation of AbobotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA in real-life clinical management of cervical dystonia.
Botulinum toxin
Cervical dystonia
Economic evaluation
Observational study
Journal
Journal of clinical movement disorders
ISSN: 2054-7072
Titre abrégé: J Clin Mov Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101662043
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
18
11
2019
accepted:
26
01
2020
entrez:
20
2
2020
pubmed:
20
2
2020
medline:
20
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. This analysis included 356 adult patients with idiopathic CD treated with aboBoNT-A ( 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
METHODS
This analysis included 356 adult patients with idiopathic CD treated with aboBoNT-A (
RESULTS
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32071728
doi: 10.1186/s40734-020-0083-0
pii: 83
pmc: PMC7014631
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s). 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsJL, ND and PM are employees of Ipsen. MH is a paid employee of ICON plc, and Ipsen provided funding to ICON plc in connection with this study. VPM reports consultancy for Ipsen.
Références
Eur J Neurol. 2019 Jun;26(6):943-e65
pubmed: 30168896
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009 Mar 31;7:27
pubmed: 19335878
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1998 Jan;64(1):13-7
pubmed: 9436721
Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2010 Jun;16(5):316-23
pubmed: 20359934
Clin Neuropharmacol. 2012 Sep-Oct;35(5):208-14
pubmed: 22948497
J Neurol. 2001 Dec;248(12):1073-8
pubmed: 12013585
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2002 Apr;72(4):459-62
pubmed: 11909903
Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1062-73
pubmed: 19793071
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2015 Feb 15;72(4):301-7
pubmed: 25631837
Clin Neuropharmacol. 2015 Sep-Oct;38(5):170-6
pubmed: 26366966
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2015 Oct;21(10):854-60
pubmed: 26402386
Mov Disord. 2016 Nov;31(11):1649-1657
pubmed: 27653448
Mov Disord. 2015 Feb;30(2):206-13
pubmed: 25476727
J Med Econ. 2014 Nov;17(11):803-9
pubmed: 25155368
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2017 Sep;26(9):1033-1039
pubmed: 28913966
Front Neurol. 2017 Feb 24;8:35
pubmed: 28286494
Clin Ther. 2007 Jul;29(7):1325-37
pubmed: 17825685
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Sep;59(9):920-5
pubmed: 16895814
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1998 Jan;64(1):6-12
pubmed: 9436720
J Neurol. 2000 Oct;247(10):787-92
pubmed: 11127535
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 12;12:CD003633
pubmed: 29230798
BMJ Open. 2012 Jun 14;2(3):
pubmed: 22700836
Mov Disord. 2005 Jul;20(7):783-91
pubmed: 15736159
Funct Neurol. 2018 Jan/Mar;33(1):7-18
pubmed: 29633692
Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2007 Oct;13(7):411-6
pubmed: 17442609
Mov Disord. 1991;6(2):119-26
pubmed: 2057004
J Neurol Sci. 2011 Sep 15;308(1-2):103-9
pubmed: 21764407