Long-term treatment of blepharospasm with botulinum toxin A: a service-based study over a 16-year follow-up in southern China.

OBJECTIVE: To elucidate the effect of long-term treatment with botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) for blepharospasm. Prevalence data and clinical features in southern China and influencing factors for selecting BTX-A treatment were explored. METHODS: We collected data retrospectively from 338 consecutive patients diagnosed with blepharospasm over 16 years to assess prevalence data and clinical features. Thereafter, all patients were classified into BTX-A (n = 135) or non-BTX-A (n = 203) treatment groups according to the patients' requests in order to explore the factors influencing whether BTX-A treatment was chosen. Furthermore, dynamic follow-up data were analyzed to evaluate the long-term efficacy in the BTX-A group. RESULTS: The prevalence was 23.3 per million, with an onset age of 50.3 ± 12.3 years and a female:male ratio of 2.4:1; the most common symptom was excessive blinking (91.2%). The symptom severity and psychological assessment scores were significantly decreased by treatment with BTX-A (p < 0.01), and there was no significant difference in response duration with the prolongation of BTX-A injections. Adverse events occurred 52 times (5.0%) among 1038 injections. The symptom severity and psychological assessment scores and the occurrence of eye-opening difficulty were higher, and medical expenses and the symptom tolerability rate were lower in the BTX-A group than in the non-BTX-A group (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The onset age was earlier than that in Western countries. However, starting BTX-A treatment early is justified, even though a higher dosage was needed to maintain reliable long-term efficacy. Additionally, symptom severity and medical expenses are the primary factors affecting whether patients select BTX-A treatment.

[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.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patient-initiated botulinum toxin treatment model for blepharospasm and hemifacial spasm compared to standard care: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Blepharospasm and hemifacial spasm are debilitating conditions that significantly impact on patient quality of life. Cyclical treatment with botulinum toxin injections offers temporary relief, but the duration of treatment efficacy is variable. The standard model of patient care defines routine fixed-time based scheduled treatment cycles which may lead to unnecessarily frequent treatment for some patients and experience of distressing symptoms in others, if symptoms return before the scheduled follow-up period. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial will compare a patient-initiated model of care, where patients determine botulinum toxin treatment timing, to the standard model of care in which care is scheduled by the clinical team. A sample of 266 patients with blepharospasm or hemifacial spasm will be recruited from Moorfields Eye Hospital (MEH), London. The trial will be accompanied by a mixed-methods evaluation of acceptability of the new service. Patients who meet eligibility criteria will be assessed at baseline and those in the intervention group will be provided with instructions on how to book their own treatment appointments. Patients in both groups will be followed up 3 and 9 months into the trial and all patients will be returned to usual care after 9 months to meet safety protocols. Primary outcome measures include disease severity (questionnaire), functional disability (questionnaire) and patient satisfaction with care (questionnaire). Secondary outcomes include disease-specific quality of life (questionnaire), mood (questionnaire), illness and treatment perceptions (questionnaire and semi-structured interviews), economic impact (questionnaire) and acceptability (questionnaire and semi-structured interviews). DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patient-led care model for botulinum toxin therapy. If the new model is shown to be effective in reducing distress and disability in these populations and is found to be acceptable to patients, whilst being cost-effective, this will have significant implications for service organisation across the NHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN) Portfolio 18660. Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT102577224 (registered 29 October 2015).

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.

[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.

[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.