ArticlePloS one2025
Cost-utility analysis of botulinum toxin type A versus oral drug treatment in patients with severe blepharospasm in Thailand.
Article in PloS one, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBlepharospasm is a chronic facial movement disorder affecting a person's ability to work, causing depression, pain, and a reduced quality of life (QoL). Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) treatment can improve these conditions; however, its cost remains a significant barrier for inclusion of this indication into the Thai National List of Essential Medicine.
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (onaBoNT-A) and abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) treatment compared to oral medication treatment in patients with severe blepharospasm from a societal perspective.
methodsA cost-utility analysis using a two-part model was conducted to analyze lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Inputs were mainly obtained from real-world evidence of 159 Thai patients with blepharospasm. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3% annually and presented as 2023 value. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also conducted.
resultsIn comparison to standard oral medication, both onaBoNT-A and aboBoNT-A incurred greater lifetime cost (3,055 USD, 2,889 USD vs 1,926 USD) while gaining additional QALYs (6.94 years, 6.94 years vs 6.53 years). The estimated ICERs were 2,722 USD/QALY for onaBoNT-A and 2,323 USD/QALY for aboBoNT-A. Utility and cost of BoNT-A were important determinants in the sensitivity analysis.
conclusionAmong patients with severe blepharospasm, both onaBoNT-A and aboBoNT-A were considered a cost-effective strategy under the Thai willingness to pay threshold of 4,613 USD/QALY. Having aboBoNT-A was slightly more favorable due to lower cost, using a conversion ratio of 1U of onaBoNT-A: 3U of aboBoNT-A.
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.