Cost-utility analysis of botulinum toxin type A products for the treatment of cervical dystonia.

PURPOSE

A cost-utility analysis of botulinum toxin type A products for the treatment of cervical dystonia (CD) was conducted.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis of botulinum toxin type A products was conducted from the U.S. government perspective using a decision-analysis model with a one-year time horizon. Probabilities of the model were taken from several studies using the three botulinum type A products approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of CD: onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox), abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport), and incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin). The main outcome measurement was successful treatment response with botulinum toxin type A, measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Response was defined as a patient who experienced improvement of CD symptoms without a severe adverse event. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to test robustness of the base-case results.

RESULTS

All three botulinum toxin type A agents were cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY. Xeomin was the most cost-effective with a cost-effectiveness ratio of $27,548 per QALY. Xeomin was dominant over the alternative agents with equivalent efficacy outcomes and lower costs. Dysport had the second lowest cost-effectiveness ratio ($36,678), followed by Botox ($49,337). The probabilistic sensitivity analysis supported the results of the base-case analysis. Dysport was associated with the lowest wastage (2.2%), followed by Xeomin (10%) and Botox (22.9%).

CONCLUSION

A cost-utility analysis found that Xeomin was the more cost-effective botulinum toxin type A product compared with Botox and Dysport for the treatment of CD. Wastage associated with the respective products may have a large effect on the cost-effectiveness of the agents.