[Cost-utility analysis of two formulations of botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of blepharospasm and cervical dystonia in Spain]. / Analisis coste-utilidad de dos formulaciones de toxina botulinica de tipo A en el tratamiento del blefaroespasmo y la distonia cervical en España.

INTRODUCTION: Studies on focal dystonia showed that the formulations of botulinum toxin type A, incobotulinumtoxin-A (Inco-BTA) and onabotulinumtoxin-A (Ona-BTA), have equivalent efficacy and safety. AIM: To carry-out a cost-utility analysis of Inco-BTA administered on flexible intervals vs. Ona-BTA on a fixed interval, in the treatment of blepharospasm and cervical dystonia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A probabilistic Markov model was designed to estimate costs (euros, 2017) and benefits (quality-adjusted life years, QALY), from the Spanish National Health Service perspective and on a 5-year time horizon, of treatment of blepharospasm and cervical dystonia with Inco-BTA (6-12 month flexible intervals) versus Ona-BTA (12-month fixed intervals). It is assumed that symptoms will re-emerge some time later in both options. Result was expressed as incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR). RESULTS: Inco-BTA and Ona-BTA costs were 3,742 and 3,366 euros respectively, in blepharospasm, and 6,673 and 6,419 euros in cervical dystonia. Patients treated with Inco-BTA remained asymptomatic for 22.12, and 21.34 more weeks than those treated with Ona-BTA, leading in 3.040 and 3.012 QALY, respectively, in blepharospasm, and 3.471 and 3.401 QALY, respectively, in cervical dystonia. Differences showed statistical significance in all cases. ICUR was estimated as 13,576 and 4,158 euros/QALY in blepharospasm and cervical dystonia, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of blepharospasm and cervical dystonia with Inco-BTA is a cost-effective therapeutic alternative in Spain, based on the flexibility of their administration.

TITLE: Analisis coste-utilidad de dos formulaciones de toxina botulinica de tipo A en el tratamiento del blefaroespasmo y la distonia cervical en España.Introduccion. Las formulaciones de toxina botulinica de tipo A, incobotulinumtoxinA (Inco-TBA) y onabotulinumtoxinA (Ona-TBA), han demostrado eficacia y seguridad similar en los estudios de distonias focales en los que se han comparado. Objetivo. Realizar un analisis coste-utilidad de Inco-TBA, administrada en intervalos flexibles, frente a Ona-TBA, administrada en intervalos fijos, en el tratamiento del blefaroespasmo y la distonia cervical. Pacientes y metodos. Un modelo de Markov probabilistico estimo, desde la perspectiva del Sistema Nacional de Salud español y en un horizonte de cinco años, el coste (euros, 2017) y el resultado (años de vida ajustados a calidad, AVAC) del tratamiento del blefaroespasmo y la distonia cervical mediante intervalos flexibles con Inco-TBA (6-20 semanas) y fijos con Ona-TBA (12 semanas). Se asume que los sintomas reapareceran despues de un tiempo en ambos. El resultado se expreso como ratio coste-utilidad incremental (RCUI). Resultados. El coste de la Inco-TBA y la Ona-TBA fue, respectivamente, de 3.742 y 3.366 euros en el blefaroespasmo y de 6.673 y 6.419 euros en la distonia cervical. Los pacientes tratados con Inco-TBA permanecieron asintomaticos 22,12 y 21,34 semanas mas que los tratados con Ona-TBA, lo que resulto 3,040 y 3,012 AVAC, respectivamente, en el blefaroespasmo, y 3,471 y 3,401 AVAC, respectivamente, en la distonia cervical. En todos los casos, las diferencias presentaron significacion estadistica. La RCUI fue de 13.576 y 4.158 euros/AVAC, respectivamente. Conclusiones. El tratamiento del blefaroespasmo y la distonia cervical con Inco-TBA, administrada siguiendo un esquema posologico de intervalos flexibles, constituye una alternativa terapeutica eficiente en España.

Cost-Effectiveness of Incobotulinumtoxin-A with Flexible Treatment Intervals Compared to Onabotulinumtoxin-A in the Management of Blepharospasm and Cervical Dystonia.

BACKGROUND: Incobotulinumtoxin-A (Xeomin(®), Merz Pharmaceuticals, Sydney, New South Wales) is a formulation of botulinum neurotoxin type A that is free of complexing proteins. OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of incobotulinumtoxin-A administered with flexible treatment intervals compared to onabotulinumtoxin-A (Botox(®), Sydney, New South Wales) in blepharospasm and cervical dystonia from the perspective of Australian health care providers. METHODS: A Markov state transition model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis to compare the cost and health benefits of incobotulinumtoxin-A to that of onabotulinumtoxin-A. The cost-utility analysis compared incobotulinumtoxin-A treatment, given at minimum intervals of 6 weeks and maximum intervals of 20 weeks, with onabotulinumtoxin-A treatment, given at minimum intervals of 12 weeks and maximum intervals of 20 weeks. The Markov model consisted of three health states and followed patients in weekly cycles for 5 years. Only direct health care costs associated with the acquisition and administration of type A botulinum neurotoxins were included. Utility values were derived from a prospective, open-labeled cohort study. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Incobotulinumtoxin-A was cost-effective compared to onabotulinumtoxin-A in both blepharospasm and cervical dystonia, with an incremental cost/quality-adjusted life-year gained of A$ 25,588 and A$ 23,794, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Incobotulinumtoxin-A administered at flexible treatment intervals determined by the needs of the patient was found to be a cost-effective treatment option when compared to the administration of onabotulinumtoxin-A in the Australian health care system. The option to administer incobotulinumtoxin-A according to the needs of the patient resulted in patients experiencing symptoms for a fewer number of weeks compared to onabotulinumtoxin-A given at minimum 12-week intervals.

A Retrospective, Single-Center Comparative Cost Analysis of OnabotulinumtoxinA and AbobotulinumtoxinA for Cervical Dystonia Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Chemodenervation with botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) is recommended as first-line treatment for the management of cervical dystonia. The choice of BoNT for treatment is subject to the consideration of several factors, including cost. OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs incurred by patients and payers for onabotulinumtoxinA (ONA) or abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) for the treatment of cervical dystonia. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, noninterventional closed cohort study of cervical dystonia patients within a single U.S. private neurological practice. Patient and payer incurred costs from medical billing records for patients satisfying inclusion and exclusion criteria treated from November 1, 2009, through January 1, 2013, were de-identified and included in the analysis. Forty-seven patients initially treated with at least 3 consecutive cycles of ONA, followed by at least 3 consecutive cycles of ABO were included, representing 282 injection cycles available for analysis. Patients were required to have had a positive response to treatment with both agents and no concomitant treatment with BoNT for any other condition during the analysis period. The analysis compared the primary endpoint of median overall payer and patient incurred costs reimbursed to the clinic under each treatment regimen. For the purposes of this cost analysis, comparable clinical outcomes on both therapies was assumed.   RESULTS: Switching from ONA to ABO resulted in an overall incurred reimbursement cost savings for payers and patients. Median costs per injection cycle for ONA were $1,925 ($0-$2,814) compared with $1,214 ($229-$2,899; P less than 0.0001) for ABO, representing an approximate 37% reduction in incurred reimbursement costs inclusive of toxin and procedure. Overall toxin reimbursement costs, patient out-of-pocket toxin costs, and the cost of unavoidable waste were also lower when patients were treated with ABO.  CONCLUSIONS: For patients treated for cervical dystonia, switching from ONA to ABO resulted in payer and patient reimbursement cost reductions in a single U.S. private practice with outcomes assumed to be similar.

Cost-utility analysis of botulinum toxin type A products for the treatment of cervical dystonia.

PURPOSE: A cost-utility analysis of botulinum toxin type A products for the treatment of cervical dystonia (CD) was conducted. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis of botulinum toxin type A products was conducted from the U.S. government perspective using a decision-analysis model with a one-year time horizon. Probabilities of the model were taken from several studies using the three botulinum type A products approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of CD: onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox), abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport), and incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin). The main outcome measurement was successful treatment response with botulinum toxin type A, measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Response was defined as a patient who experienced improvement of CD symptoms without a severe adverse event. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to test robustness of the base-case results. RESULTS: All three botulinum toxin type A agents were cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Xeomin was the most cost-effective with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $27,548 per QALY. Xeomin was dominant over the alternative agents with equivalent efficacy outcomes and lower costs. Dysport had the second lowest cost-effectiveness ratio ($36,678), followed by Botox ($49,337). The probabilistic sensitivity analysis supported the results of the base-case analysis. Dysport was associated with the lowest wastage (2.2%), followed by Xeomin (10%) and Botox (22.9%). CONCLUSION: A cost-utility analysis found that Xeomin was the more cost-effective botulinum toxin type A product compared with Botox and Dysport for the treatment of CD. Wastage associated with the respective products may have a large effect on the cost-effectiveness of the agents.

Assessing the burden of illness from cervical dystonia using the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale scores and health utility: a meta-analysis of baseline patient-level clinical trial data.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to explore the burden of illness associated with cervical dystonia (CD), including possible demographic and humanistic correlates of baseline disease severity. METHODS: The analysis involved the five multinational randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials that had evaluated the efficacy and safety of Dysport® in patients with CD, including assessment using the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS). Patient-level TWSTRS scores from the individual studies were meta-analysed to estimate disease severity at baseline. One of the studies had reported Short Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey quality-of-life measures, and these data were used to investigate whether the severity of CD was associated with humanistic outcomes, as measured by health utility. A generalized regression model was then applied to explore potential correlation between TWSTRS scores and utilities. RESULTS: The estimated pooled mean baseline severity of CD in clinical trial entrants, as measured by TWSTRS score, was 43.23 (95% CI = 39.31-47.15). In general, disease severity was significantly greater in patients aged over 40 years (compared to the reference group aged 18-30 years). However, there was no correlation between disease severity and other demographic characteristics (e.g., weight, height, gender). Higher TWSTRS scores correlated with worse health-related quality of life as perceived by patients and was reflected in health utility (R(2 )= 0.133). CONCLUSIONS: This study was able to define TWSTRS scores in patients with CD in terms of associated utility. This approach could help in capturing the disease's burden through measures that are more tangible than TWSTRS scores to patients, carers, clinicians, and healthcare payers.

Continuation of long-term care for cervical dystonia at an academic movement disorders clinic.

Patients with cervical dystonia (CD) receive much of their care at university based hospital outpatient clinics. This study aimed to describe the clinical characteristics and treatment experiences of patients who continued care at our university based movement disorders clinic, and to document the reasons for which a subset discontinued care. Seventy patients (77% female) were recruited from all patients at the clinic (n = 323). Most (93%) were treated with botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) injection, and onabotulinumtoxinA was initially used in 97%. The average dose of onabotulinumtoxinA was 270.4 U (range 50-500) and the median number of injections was 14 (range: 1-39). Twenty one patients later received at least one cycle of rimabotulinumtoxinB (33%); of those, 10 switched back to onabotulinumtoxinA (48%). The initial rimabotulinumtoxinB dose averaged 11,996 units (range: 3000-25,000 over 1-18 injections). Twenty one patients (30%) discontinued care. Reasons cited included suboptimal response to BoNT therapy (62%), excessive cost (24%), excessive travel burden (10%), and side effects of BoNT therapy (10%). Most patients (76%) did not seek further care after leaving the clinic. Patients who terminated care received fewer treatment cycles (5.5 vs. 13.0, p = 0.020). There were no other identifiable differences between groups in gender, age, disease characteristics, toxin dose, or toxin formulation. These results indicate that a significant number of CD patients discontinue care due to addressable barriers to access, including cost and travel burden, and that when leaving specialty care, patients often discontinue treatment altogether. These data highlight the need for new initiatives to reduce out-of-pocket costs, as well as training for community physicians on neurotoxin injection in order to lessen the travel burden patients must accept in order to receive standard-of-care treatments.

Effect of cervical dystonia on employment: A retrospective analysis of the ability of treatment to restore premorbid employment status.

Using a structured interview method, we sought to address the following questions regarding cervical dystonia (CD) and employment: (1) what is the frequency and severity of job impairment in CD; (2) what are the clinical features that contribute to job impairment; (3) how does the effectiveness of botulinum toxin (BTx) compare to oral medications in restoring employment status. In our population of 155 CD patients, employment was affected by CD in 53.3% (31.2% reduced hours or responsibilities, 3.3% changed to different job, 18.9% loss of employment) and 68.9% of patients reported reduced overall productivity. The likelihood of altered employment (P < 0.0006), reduced productivity (P < 0.0001), and seeking disability benefits (P < 0.003) was significantly associated with the presence of neck pain, but not type of employment, spasmodic head motions, or duration of CD symptoms before treatment with BTx. Treatment with BTx was more likely to improve employment status than oral medications (66.1 vs. 18.5%) and much more likely to restore full employment with normal productivity (12.9 vs. 0.0%). These findings suggest that employment status is frequently affected by CD, particularly in patients withneck pain. BTx is significantly more effective than oral medications in restoring premorbid employment status.

A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of botulinum toxin in the treatment of spasmodic torticollis.

We performed a prospective study in 21 patients to evaluate the cost of treatment of spasmodic torticollis (cervical dystonia) before and after botulinum toxin type A (BTA) treatment and to assess the impact of BTA treatment on quality of life. Data were recorded for the analysis over a period starting 8 months before and ending 7.2 +/- 0.2 months (mean +/- SEM) after the first injection of BTA. All patients received at least two BTA injections (2.9 +/- 0.2 injections per patient). We studied direct medical costs (drugs, outpatient and inpatient visits, diagnostic procedures, physiotherapy), clinical effects of BTA (clinical rating scale and patient's global assessment), quality of life (French version of the Nottingham Health Profile [NHP]), and adverse reactions. Costs associated with the treatment of spasmodic torticollis before the first BTA injection were 479 +/- 143 French Francs (FF)/patient/month (97 +/- 29 US $/pt/mo). During BTA treatment, costs were 1,126 +/- 147 FF/pt/mo (228 +/- 30 US $/pt/mo), including a mean cost of BTA of 771 +/- 131 FF/pt/mo (157 +/- 27 US $/pt/mo). Treatment with BTA significantly decreased clinical symptoms of spasmodic torticollis and improved the emotional, social, and pain-related domains of the quality of life assessment. Botulinum toxin type A treatment increases the cost of treating spasmodic torticollis but improves quality of life in terms of pain, social, and psychologic functioning in patients with spasmodic torticollis.

[Long-term treatment with botulinum toxin: dosage, treatment schedules and costs]. / Langzeitbehandlung mit Botulinum Toxin: Dosierung, Behandlungsabstände und Kosten.

Local injection of botulinum toxin A (BTX) is considered as the treatment of choice for spasmodic torticollis (ST), blepharospasm (BS) and, with certain limitations, for hemifacial spasm (HFS). Long-term data from 89 patients with ST, 39 patients with BS and 15 patients with HFS were evaluated and subgroups of patients who received at least three (60 ST, 17 BS, 9 HFS), six (35 ST, 10 BS, 8 HFS) and nine (26 ST) re-injections were formed. These groups were investigated in regard of increases in the dosage of BTX and in regard of shorter treatment intervals in cases of repeated treatment. Annual drug costs were calculated from these data. Patients treated at least three times were asked to fill out a questionnaire concerning satisfaction and the quality of life after BTX treatment. Furthermore, the patients' "willingness to pay" for BTX treatment was investigated. Our calculations showed neither a significant increase in the dosage of BTX nor a significant reduction in the length of treatment intervals after 3 or 6 treatment sessions. Annual drug costs for BTX for the treatment of ST were 10,542 ATS, of BS 2847 ATS and of HFS 1029 ATS. 86.1% of patients with ST, 88.9% with BS and 100% with HFS were very satisfied or satisfied with the BTX treatment. In all 3 diagnostic groups, a significant mean improvement of quality of life was measured on a visual analogue scale (p < 0.001). We conclude that the injection of botulinum toxin A is a highly effective and cost effective treatment for ST, BS and HFS, and significantly increases the quality of life of all these patients.