RESUMO
Objective Post-stroke spasticity (PSS) is a common complication in stroke survivors, causing severe burden to patients living with it. The aim of this review was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of the treatment of post-stroke spasticity, in adults, with abobotulinumtoxinA compared to the best supportive care, based on results from a systematic literature review. Given that abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) is always accompanied by the best supportive care treatment, the CEA compared aboBoNT-A plus the best supportive care with the best supportive care alone. Methods A systematic literature review in EMBASE (including Medline and PubMed), Scopus, and other sources (Google Scholar) was conducted. Articles of all types, providing information on the costs and/or effectiveness measures for the current treatments of PSS in adults were included. The synthesis of information from the review provided the parameters for the design of a cost-effectiveness analysis of the mentioned treatment of interest. The societal perspective was compared to a perspective where only direct costs were observed. Results In total, 532 abstracts were screened. Full information was revised from 40 papers and 13 of these were selected as core papers for full data extraction. Data from the core publications formed the basis for the development of a cost-effectiveness model. In all the included papers physiotherapy was the best supportive care treatment (SoC)... (AU)
Antecedentes La espasticidad post-ictus es una enfermedad común que afecta a los adultos y causa una carga grave a los pacientes que la padecen. El objetivo de la revisión fue realizar un análisis coste-efectividad (ACE) del tratamiento de la espasticidad post-ictus, en adultos, con abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) en comparación con el tratamiento convencional, basado en los resultados de una revisión sistemática de la literatura. Dado que este tratamiento se proporciona siempre al mismo tiempo que el tratamiento convencional, el ACE se realizó del tratamiento aboBoNT-A con el tratamiento convencional, en comparación con recibir únicamente el tratamiento convencional. Métodos Se realizó una revisión sistemática de la literatura en EMBASE (incluyendo Medline y Pubmed), Scopus y otras fuentes (Google Scholar). Se incluyeron artículos de todo tipo que proporcionaran información sobre los costes y/o las medidas de efectividad de los tratamientos actuales del PSS en adultos. La síntesis de la información de la revisión proporcionó los parámetros para el diseño de un análisis coste-efectividad del mencionado tratamiento de interés. Se comparó la perspectiva social con una perspectiva donde solo se observaron los costes directos del tratamiento. Resultados Se revisaron un total de 532 resúmenes. Se revisó la información completa de 40 artículos y se seleccionaron 13 artículos para la extracción completa de datos. La información de estos documentos se sintetizó y utilizó para desarrollar un modelo de coste-efectividad. En todos los artículos incluidos se identificó el tratamiento con fisioterapia como el tratamiento convencional principal... (AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Adulto , Espasticidade Muscular , Acidente Vascular Cerebral , Análise Custo-Eficiência , Especialidade de Fisioterapia , Revisões Sistemáticas como AssuntoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Post-stroke spasticity is a common complication in stroke survivors, causing severe burden to patients living with it. The aim of this review was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of the treatment of post-stroke spasticity, in adults, with abobotulinumtoxinA compared to the best supportive care, based on results from a systematic literature review. Given that abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) is always accompanied by the best supportive care treatment, the CEA compared aboBoNT-A plus the best supportive care with the best supportive care alone. METHODS: A systematic literature review in EMBASE (including Medline and PubMed), Scopus, and other sources (Google Scholar) was conducted. Articles of all types, providing information on the costs and/or effectiveness measures for the current treatments of post-stroke spasticity in adults were included. The synthesis of information from the review provided the parameters for the design of a CEA of the mentioned treatment of interest. The societal perspective was compared to a perspective where only direct costs were observed. RESULTS: In total, 532 abstracts were screened. Full information was revised from 40 papers and 13 of these were selected as core papers for full data extraction. Data from the core publications formed the basis for the development of a cost-effectiveness model. In all the included papers physiotherapy was the best supportive care treatment. The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that even in the most conservative scenario, assuming the worst case scenario, the probability of a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained below 40,000, for aboBoNT-A together with physiotherapy is above 0.8, and with certainty below 50,000/QALY when either a direct costs, or a societal perspective was taken. On average, the probabilistic model obtains a negative mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of around -15,000 /QALY. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness analyses show that aboBoNT-A together with physiotherapy would be a cost-effective treatment compared with physiotherapy alone, independently of the perspective considered.
Assuntos
Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A , Análise de Custo-Efetividade , Adulto , Humanos , Análise Custo-Benefício , Toxinas Botulínicas Tipo A/uso terapêutico , Modalidades de Fisioterapia , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de VidaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Post-stroke spasticity (PSS) is a common complication in stroke survivors, causing severe burden to patients living with it. The aim of this review was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of the treatment of post-stroke spasticity, in adults, with abobotulinumtoxinA compared to the best supportive care, based on results from a systematic literature review. Given that abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) is always accompanied by the best supportive care treatment, the CEA compared aboBoNT-A plus the best supportive care with the best supportive care alone. METHODS: A systematic literature review in EMBASE (including Medline and PubMed), Scopus, and other sources (Google Scholar) was conducted. Articles of all types, providing information on the costs and/or effectiveness measures for the current treatments of PSS in adults were included. The synthesis of information from the review provided the parameters for the design of a cost-effectiveness analysis of the mentioned treatment of interest. The societal perspective was compared to a perspective where only direct costs were observed. RESULTS: In total, 532 abstracts were screened. Full information was revised from 40 papers and 13 of these were selected as core papers for full data extraction. Data from the core publications formed the basis for the development of a cost-effectiveness model. In all the included papers physiotherapy was the best supportive care treatment (SoC). The cost-effectiveness analysis showed that even in the most conservative scenario, assuming the worst case scenario, the probability of a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained below 40,000, for aboBoNT-A together with physiotherapy is above 0.8, and with certainty below 50,000/QALY when either a direct costs, or a societal perspective was taken. On average, the probabilistic model obtains a negative mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of around -15,000 /QALY. CONCLUSION: The cost-effectiveness analyses show that aboBoNT-A together with physiotherapy would be a cost-effective treatment compared with physiotherapy alone, independently of the perspective considered.
