Botulinum toxin type A for the treatment of patients with post-stroke spasticity in Thailand: cost-utility and budget impact analysis.
Abstract
[OBJECTIVES] To evaluate the cost-utility of botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) for treating upper limb (UL) and lower limb (LL) post-stroke spasticity.
[DESIGN] Using a Markov model, adopting a societal perspective and a lifetime horizon with a 3% annual discount rate, the cost-utility analysis was conducted to compare BoNT-A combined with standard of care (SoC) with SoC alone. Costs, utilities, transitional probabilities and treatment efficacy were derived from 5-year retrospective data from tertiary hospitals and meta-analysis. Uncertainty analyses were performed.
[SETTING] Tertiary hospitals in Thailand.
[PARTICIPANTS] Cohort of post-stroke patients aged 55 years with UL or LL spasticity and a Modified Ashworth Scale score ≥1+.
[INTERVENTIONS] BoNT-A (abobotulinumtoxinA: aboBoNT-A, onabotulinumtoxinA: onaBoNT-A or prabotulinumtoxinA: praBoNT-A) combined with SoC versus SoC alone.
[PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES] Expected life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of 160 000 THB (US$4468) per QALY gained.
[RESULTS] The combination of aboBoNT-A and SoC yielded the highest QALYs gained (0.013 for UL and 0.11 for LL), followed by onaBoNT-A and SoC and praBoNT-A and SoC. The additional costs for treating UL and LL cases were highest for onaBoNT-A US$75 and US$95, respectively, followed by aboBoNT-A and praBoNT-A. ICER values for treating UL with aboBoNT-A, onaBoNT-A and praBoNT-A ranged from US$4669 to US$7541 per QALY. For LL treatments, aboBoNT-A and onaBoNT-A had ICER values ranging from US$7072 to US$15 182 per QALY. Integrating BoNT-A treatment delivery into the healthcare system would require a budget outlay of approximately US$413 246-US$966 103 that may vary annually by an additional US$50 260-US$335 064.
[CONCLUSION] BoNT-A effectively reduces focal spasticity and improves quality of life in post-stroke patients. However, its cost-effectiveness in Thailand necessitates price negotiations as a condition for inclusion in the pharmaceutical reimbursement list.
[DESIGN] Using a Markov model, adopting a societal perspective and a lifetime horizon with a 3% annual discount rate, the cost-utility analysis was conducted to compare BoNT-A combined with standard of care (SoC) with SoC alone. Costs, utilities, transitional probabilities and treatment efficacy were derived from 5-year retrospective data from tertiary hospitals and meta-analysis. Uncertainty analyses were performed.
[SETTING] Tertiary hospitals in Thailand.
[PARTICIPANTS] Cohort of post-stroke patients aged 55 years with UL or LL spasticity and a Modified Ashworth Scale score ≥1+.
[INTERVENTIONS] BoNT-A (abobotulinumtoxinA: aboBoNT-A, onabotulinumtoxinA: onaBoNT-A or prabotulinumtoxinA: praBoNT-A) combined with SoC versus SoC alone.
[PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES] Expected life years, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of 160 000 THB (US$4468) per QALY gained.
[RESULTS] The combination of aboBoNT-A and SoC yielded the highest QALYs gained (0.013 for UL and 0.11 for LL), followed by onaBoNT-A and SoC and praBoNT-A and SoC. The additional costs for treating UL and LL cases were highest for onaBoNT-A US$75 and US$95, respectively, followed by aboBoNT-A and praBoNT-A. ICER values for treating UL with aboBoNT-A, onaBoNT-A and praBoNT-A ranged from US$4669 to US$7541 per QALY. For LL treatments, aboBoNT-A and onaBoNT-A had ICER values ranging from US$7072 to US$15 182 per QALY. Integrating BoNT-A treatment delivery into the healthcare system would require a budget outlay of approximately US$413 246-US$966 103 that may vary annually by an additional US$50 260-US$335 064.
[CONCLUSION] BoNT-A effectively reduces focal spasticity and improves quality of life in post-stroke patients. However, its cost-effectiveness in Thailand necessitates price negotiations as a condition for inclusion in the pharmaceutical reimbursement list.
추출된 의학 개체 (NER)
| 유형 | 영어 표현 | 한국어 / 풀이 | UMLS CUI | 출처 | 등장 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 시술 | botulinum toxin
|
보툴리눔독소 주사 | dict | 2 | |
| 해부 | upper limb
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 해부 | lower limb
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 해부 | SoC.
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 약물 | [OBJECTIVES]
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 약물 | [DESIGN]
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 약물 | abobotulinumtoxinA
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 약물 | onabotulinumtoxinA
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 약물 | praBoNT-A
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 약물 | BoNT-A
→ botulinum toxin A
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 약물 | [CONCLUSION] BoNT-A
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 질환 | post-stroke spasticity
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 질환 | post-stroke
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 질환 | spasticity
|
C0026838
Muscle Spasticity
|
scispacy | 1 | |
| 질환 | ICERs
→ incremental cost-effectiveness ratios
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 기타 | Botulinum toxin type A
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 기타 | patients
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 기타 | botulinum toxin A
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 기타 | BoNT-A
→ botulinum toxin A
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 기타 | LL treatments, aboBoNT-A and
|
scispacy | 1 | ||
| 기타 | ICER
|
scispacy | 1 |
MeSH Terms
Humans; Botulinum Toxins, Type A; Muscle Spasticity; Thailand; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Stroke; Quality-Adjusted Life Years; Middle Aged; Male; Female; Neuromuscular Agents; Markov Chains; Retrospective Studies; Upper Extremity
🔗 함께 등장하는 도메인
이 논문이 속한 카테고리와 같은 논문에서 자주 함께 다뤄지는 카테고리들
관련 논문
- Local therapeutic strategies for neurocutaneous dysesthesia: from capsaicin to cannabinoids.
- Comparative efficacy of intralesional therapies for keloid scars: a network meta-analysis.
- Adverse neurological events following botulinum toxin type A: A case series of post-injection seizures and paralysis.
- Decreased utilization of component separation techniques over time in complex abdominal wall reconstruction following introduction of preoperative botulinum toxin A.
- Current Perspectives on Pectoralis Minor Syndrome: A Narrative Review.