Switching from onabotulinumtoxin-A to abobotulinumtoxin-A in children with cerebral palsy treated for spasticity: A retrospective safety and efficacy evaluation

The cost-effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport) and onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) for managing spasticity of the upper and lower limbs, and cervical dystonia

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the costs and benefits associated with the use of abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) and onabotulinumtoxinA (onaBoNT-A) for lower limb spasticity in children, upper and lower limb spasticity in adults, and cervical dystonia in adults.

METHODS

This pharmacoeconomic analysis compared aboBoNT-A with onaBoNT-A. A decision tree model with a 1-year time horizon was conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective using data from a variety of sources: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), network meta-analyses (NMAs), observational studies, and a physician survey investigating treatment patterns and resource utilization. Four patient populations were included: pediatric patients with lower limb spasticity (PLL), and adults with upper limb spasticity (AUL), lower limb spasticity (ALL), and cervical dystonia (CD). Outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, cost per responder, and incremental cost per QALY gained. The effectiveness of each treatment was evaluated as a response to treatment. The base case assumption was that all patients in the model continued to receive botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) treatments at regular intervals regardless of treatment response status. Scenario analysis evaluated the impact of discontinuing BoNT-A for patients without a response to the first injection.

RESULTS

The model found that aboBoNT-A resulted in greater quality-of-life and lower costs compared with onaBoNT-A for the management of spasticity and CD in all included indications. Across populations, cost savings ranged from £304 to £3,963 and QALYs gained ranged from 0.010 to 0.02 over a 1-year time horizon. Results were robust to scenario analyses and were driven by the impact of treatment response on health-related quality-of-life.

CONCLUSIONS

AboBoNT-A was associated with higher treatment response, improved quality-of-life, and reduced costs in spasticity and CD versus onaBoNT-A. These findings could help deliver more effective and efficient healthcare in the NHS.

AbobotulinumtoxinA Versus OnabotulinumtoxinA in Adults with Upper Limb Spasticity: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover Study Protocol

INTRODUCTION

The safety and efficacy of both abobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA for upper limb spasticity are well established, but head-to-head comparisons are lacking.

METHODS

DIRECTION is an international, randomized, double-blind, crossover study comparing the safety and efficacy of abobotulinumtoxinA with onabotulinumtoxinA in the management of upper limb spasticity at doses at or near maximum recommended in product labelling. Participants (18-75 years) will be randomized (1:1) to either one cycle of abobotulinumtoxinA (900U) followed by onabotulinumtoxinA (360U) or vice versa. To maintain blinding, a fixed volume (3.6 ml) will be injected into the target upper limb muscles (four wrist and finger flexors and biceps brachii). The second treatment cycle will begin at Week 12 if retreatment criteria are fulfilled, and if not, they will be reassessed every 4 weeks until they meet retreatment parameters.

PLANNED OUTCOMES

The primary hypothesis is that there is comparable safety between products; non-inferiority will be tested based on treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) rates from injection to Week 12. A secondary hypothesis is that abobotulinumtoxinA has longer duration of effect than onabotulinumtoxinA. This hypothesis will be tested with secondary efficacy endpoints, including injection cycle duration, Modified Ashworth Scale, Disability Assessment Scale and Physician Global Assessment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT ( http://eudract.ema.europa.eu ): 2021-000161-32 and Clinicaltrials.gov ( http://clinicaltrials.gov ): NCT04936542. Overview of the study protocol by the principal investigator (MP4 185265 KB).

Cost effectiveness and impact on quality of life of abobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of children with lower limb spasticity in Canada

Background: Injectable botulinum neurotoxins are a mainstay of treatment for pediatric spasticity. AbobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA are both injectable toxin therapies used to treat pediatric lower limb (PLL) spasticity in Canada. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA vs. onabotulinumtoxinA in the treatment of PLL spasticity in Canada.Methods: A probabilistic Markov cohort model with a 2-year time horizon was developed, with health states defined by response to therapy, as characterized by the goal attainment scale (GAS). Based on randomized controlled trial evidence, response to therapy was similar or higher for abobotulinumtoxinA relative to onabotulinumtoxinA; uncertainty was incorporated into model parameters, however, as the two therapies have not been compared head-to-head. Canadian resource use and cost data were incorporated.Results: In the base case, abobotulinumtoxinA generated 1.48 quality-adjusted life years over the model time horizon, compared to 1.47 for onabotulinumtoxinA. AbobotulinumtoxinA was associated with cost savings of $123 CAD, reflecting lower costs in both medication acquisition and health services. The estimated improvement to quality of life and reduced costs result in an estimate of economic dominance for abobotulinumtoxinA over onabotulinumtoxinA. This dominant result persisted across probabilistic and scenario analyses.Key points for decision makersBased on a review of available clinical evidence, abobotulinumtoxinA was found to have significant and/or numerical efficacy benefits to onabotulinumtoxinA on functional outcomes (Goal Attainment Scale) and tone (Modified Ashworth Scale) and in the treatment of pediatric lower limb spasticityIn this cost-effectiveness analysis, abobotulinumtoxinA was found to be associated with greater quality-adjusted life years and lower costs than onabotulinumtoxinA (economically dominant)A limitation of this analysis was the uncertainty around key parameters. Specifically, the lack of head-to-head comparison data for the two therapies, and variable data regarding likely onabotulinumtoxinA dosing in PLL in clinical practice. However, across a range of plausible scenarios, the economic dominant result remained.