V P Misra, N Danchenko, P Maisonobe, J Lundkvist, M Hunger
{"title":"肉毒杆菌毒素与肉毒杆菌毒素在实际临床治疗宫颈肌张力障碍中的经济评价。","authors":"V P Misra, N Danchenko, P Maisonobe, J Lundkvist, M Hunger","doi":"10.1186/s40734-020-0083-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This analysis included 356 adult patients with idiopathic CD treated with aboBoNT-A (<i>n</i> = 253) or onaBoNT-A (<i>n</i> = 103) from 38 centres across Europe and Australia (NCT00833196). The clinical outcome measures were treatment responses, changes in TWSTRS scores and changes in health utility scores from baseline to study visit 2 and 3. Health utility score was mapped from the TWSTRS total scale, using a previous publication. Costs included drug cost for France.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":15374,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40734-020-0083-0","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic evaluation of AbobotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA in real-life clinical management of cervical dystonia.\",\"authors\":\"V P Misra, N Danchenko, P Maisonobe, J Lundkvist, M Hunger\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s40734-020-0083-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This analysis included 356 adult patients with idiopathic CD treated with aboBoNT-A (<i>n</i> = 253) or onaBoNT-A (<i>n</i> = 103) from 38 centres across Europe and Australia (NCT00833196). The clinical outcome measures were treatment responses, changes in TWSTRS scores and changes in health utility scores from baseline to study visit 2 and 3. Health utility score was mapped from the TWSTRS total scale, using a previous publication. Costs included drug cost for France.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15374,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/s40734-020-0083-0\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40734-020-0083-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2020/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Movement Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40734-020-0083-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Economic evaluation of AbobotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA in real-life clinical management of cervical dystonia.
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: This analysis included 356 adult patients with idiopathic CD treated with aboBoNT-A (n = 253) or onaBoNT-A (n = 103) from 38 centres across Europe and Australia (NCT00833196). The clinical outcome measures were treatment responses, changes in TWSTRS scores and changes in health utility scores from baseline to study visit 2 and 3. Health utility score was mapped from the TWSTRS total scale, using a previous publication. Costs included drug cost for France.
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: 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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
