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.