ArticleBMJ open2025
Botulinum toxin type A for the treatment of patients with post-stroke spasticity in Thailand: cost-utility and budget impact analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Budget Impact Analysis of Botulinum Toxin Type A for Patients with Severe Blepharospasm in Thailand.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the cost-utility of botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) for treating upper limb (UL) and lower limb (LL) post-stroke spasticity.
designUsing 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.
settingTertiary hospitals in Thailand.
participantsCohort of post-stroke patients aged 55 years with UL or LL spasticity and a Modified Ashworth Scale score ≥1+.
interventionsBoNT-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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionBoNT-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.
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.