ArticleJournal of managed care & specialty pharmacy2015
A Retrospective, Single-Center Comparative Cost Analysis of OnabotulinumtoxinA and AbobotulinumtoxinA for Cervical Dystonia Treatment.
Article in Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of AbobotulinumtoxinA in Adults with Cervical Dystonia: A Systematic Literature Review.Toxins · 2020Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of AbobotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA in real-life clinical management of cervical dystonia.Journal of clinical movement disorders · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChemodenervation with botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) is recommended as first-line treatment for the management of cervical dystonia. The choice of BoNT for treatment is subject to the consideration of several factors, including cost.
objectiveTo compare the costs incurred by patients and payers for onabotulinumtoxinA (ONA) or abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) for the treatment of cervical dystonia.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective, noninterventional closed cohort study of cervical dystonia patients within a single U.S. private neurological practice. Patient and payer incurred costs from medical billing records for patients satisfying inclusion and exclusion criteria treated from November 1, 2009, through January 1, 2013, were de-identified and included in the analysis. Forty-seven patients initially treated with at least 3 consecutive cycles of ONA, followed by at least 3 consecutive cycles of ABO were included, representing 282 injection cycles available for analysis. Patients were required to have had a positive response to treatment with both agents and no concomitant treatment with BoNT for any other condition during the analysis period. The analysis compared the primary endpoint of median overall payer and patient incurred costs reimbursed to the clinic under each treatment regimen. For the purposes of this cost analysis, comparable clinical outcomes on both therapies was assumed.
resultsSwitching from ONA to ABO resulted in an overall incurred reimbursement cost savings for payers and patients. Median costs per injection cycle for ONA were $1,925 ($0-$2,814) compared with $1,214 ($229-$2,899; P less than 0.0001) for ABO, representing an approximate 37% reduction in incurred reimbursement costs inclusive of toxin and procedure. Overall toxin reimbursement costs, patient out-of-pocket toxin costs, and the cost of unavoidable waste were also lower when patients were treated with ABO.
conclusionsFor patients treated for cervical dystonia, switching from ONA to ABO resulted in payer and patient reimbursement cost reductions in a single U.S. private practice with outcomes assumed to be similar.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.