Cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of wrist and hand disability due to upper-limb post-stroke spasticity in Scotland.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treating upper-limb post-stroke spasticity (ULPSS) with usual care (UC) plus onabotulinumtoxinA versus UC alone in Scotland. METHODS: We developed a model to simulate costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained from treating ULPSS. Efficacy data and health utilities were taken from clinical trials. Unit costs were taken from published Scottish sources. We compared UC plus onabotulinumtoxinA and UC alone in three scenarios: (i) a scenario from the National Health Service perspective, which included differences in onabotulinumtoxinA use, specialist visits and day-hospital visits; (ii) a scenario that only included differences in onabotulinumtoxinA use and specialist visits; and (iii) a scenario from a societal perspective that included differences in onabotulinumtoxinA use, specialist visits and caregiver burden. RESULTS: In the first scenario, the model predicted that UC plus onabotulinumtoxinA produced 0.107 QALYs at an additional cost of £1099 compared with UC alone over 5 years, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £10,271/QALY. In the second scenario, the ICER increased to £27,134/QALY. In the third scenario (societal perspective), UC plus onabotulinumtoxinA produced lower total cost and higher QALYs, and therefore was superior to UC alone. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a model, UC plus onabotulinumtoxinA improved disability, which translated into greater QALYs but also increased direct medical costs compared with UC alone; however, the resulting ICER can be considered cost-effective. Moreover, UC plus onabotulinumtoxinA can be cost-saving if reduction in caregiver burden was included. OnabotulinumtoxinA offers value for money in the management of ULPSS in Scotland.

Thirty-five units of botulinum toxin type A for treatment of axillary hyperhidrosis in female patients.

We present a retrospective audit on efficacy and impact of 35 units of botulinum toxin type A per axilla on quality of life in female patients with axillary hyperhidrosis. This audit shows that 35 units of botulinum toxin type A is a reasonable starting dose and could significantly improve patients' quality of life and reduce the cost of treatment.

[Costs and efficacy of type A botulinum toxin for the treatment of essential blepharospasm and hemifacial spasm]. / Custos e eficácia da toxina botulínica tipo A no tratamento do blefaroespasmo essencial e espasmo hemifacial.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the costs and efficacy of type A botulinum toxin in the treatment of essential blepharospasm and hemifacial spasm. METHODS: Pacients with essential blepharospasm and hemifacial spasm had their files analyzed. All patients were treated with type A botulinum toxin (Dysport) between April 2002 and May 2004 at the Oculoplastic Clinics of "Santa Casa de São Paulo". Twenty-seven patients presented essential blepharospasm and 23 presented hemifacial spasm. Information about the patient's degree of satisfaction after treatment, complaints and personal costs were recorded by a questionnaire, and information about the costs of Dysport treatment were obtained at the administration department of "Santa Casa de São Paulo". Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 1- The annual treatment costs were R Dollars 1,239.32 for essential blepharospasm and R Dollars 661.72 for hemifacial spasm. 2- The patient's annual costs were R Dollars 145.48 for essential blepharospasm and R Dollars 6.07 for hemifacial spasm. 3- The hospital's annual costs for the treatment were R Dollars 1,095.84 for essential blepharospasm and R Dollars 535.65 for hemifacial spasm. 4- Dysport treatment is successful in both essential blepharospasm and hemifacial spasm. CONCLUSIONS: The costs of essential blepharospasm and hemifacial spasm treatment with Dysport are high, mainly because of the toxin price. On economic analysis of health, we can conclude that this procedure has an excellent cost-benefit ratio.

Custos e eficácia da toxina botulínica tipo A no tratamento do blefaroespasmo essencial e espasmo hemifacial / Costs and efficacy of type A botulinum toxin for the treatment of essential blepharospasm and hemifacial spasm

OBJETIVO: Avaliar os custos do tratamento para blefaroespasmo essencial e espasmo hemifacial com toxina botulínica tipo A (Dysport®), correlacionando-os com sua eficácia terapêutica. MÉTODOS: Análise de 50 prontuários de pacientes com blefaroespasmo essencial e espasmo hemifacial, submetidos à terapia com Dysport®, no período de abril de 2002 a maio de 2004 no setor de Oculo-Plástica da Santa Casa de São Paulo. Dos 50 pacientes, 27 apresentavam blefaroespasmo essencial e 23 espasmo hemifacial. Informações sobre grau de satisfação, queixas e custos pessoais foram obtidas mediante questionário. Os custos do medicamento e dos materiais foram pesquisados no almoxarifado e na farmácia da Santa Casa. Quanto ao custo das consultas, utilizou-se a tabela de pagamento do SUS. Para a estatística foram utilizados os testes de Wilcoxon e Mann-Whitney. RESULTADOS: O custo total anual do tratamento foi de R$ 1.239,32 para o blefaroespasmo essencial e R$ 661,72 para o espasmo hemifacial. Para o paciente, o custo anual foi de R$ 145,48 para o blefaroespasmo essencial e R$ 126,07 para o espasmo hemifacial. Para o hospital, o custo anual foi de R$ 1.095,84 para o blefaroespasmo essencial e R$ 535,65 para o espasmo hemifacial. O tratamento com Dysport® promoveu melhora funcional significativa nos dois grupos. CONCLUSÃO: O procedimento tem custo elevado, principalmente devido ao preço da toxina. Entretanto, pela análise econômica da saúde fica demonstrado que o procedimento possui excelente relação custo-benefício.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the costs and efficacy of type A botulinum toxin in the treatment of essential blepharospasm and hemifacial spasm. METHODS: Pacients with essential blepharospasm and hemifacial spasm had their files analyzed. All patients were treated with type A botulinum toxin (Dysport®) between April 2002 and May 2004 at the Oculoplastic Clinics of "Santa Casa de São Paulo". Twenty-seven patients presented essential blepharospasm and 23 presented hemifacial spasm. Information about the patient's degree of satisfaction after treatment, complaints and personal costs were recorded by a questionnaire, and information about the costs of Dysport® treatment were obtained at the administration department of "Santa Casa de São Paulo". Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: 1- The annual treatment costs were R$ 1,239.32 for essential blepharospasm and R$ 661.72 for hemifacial spasm. 2- The patient's annual costs were R$ 145.48 for essential blepharospasm and R$ 6.07 for hemifacial spasm. 3- The hospital's annual costs for the treatment were R$ 1,095.84 for essential blepharospasm and R$ 535.65 for hemifacial spasm. 4- Dysport® treatment is successful in both essential blepharospasm and hemifacial spasm. CONCLUSIONS:. The costs of essential blepharospasm and hemifacial spasm treatment with Dysport® are high, mainly because of the toxin price. On economic analysis of health, we can conclude that this procedure has an excellent cost-benefit ratio.