ArticleClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR2025
Budget Impact Analysis of Botulinum Toxin Type A for Patients with Severe Blepharospasm in Thailand.
Article in ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: Severe blepharospasm is a disabling neurological condition that significantly affects patients' quality of life. Botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) is considered the standard treatment due to its targeted therapeutic effect and fewer systemic side effects compared to oral medications. However, its high cost poses a barrier to access within Thailand's healthcare system. This study aimed to assess the budget impact of introducing BoNT-A treatment (Onabotulinumtoxin A and Abobotulinumtoxin A) compared with current oral medications for severe blepharospasm in Thailand. Methods: A budget impact model was developed from the perspective of Thailand's healthcare system over a 5-year time horizon. The current scenario (oral medications use) was compared with a new scenario involving BoNT-A treatment. The costs considered included drug acquisition, outpatient visits, and accident-related injuries. The base-case assumed gradual uptake of BoNT-A (30% in year 1, 50% in year 2, and 100% from year 3). Sensitivity analyses explored full uptake from year 1, no dose sharing, and inclusion of injury-related costs. Results: Excluding injury-related costs, the 5-year net budget impact (NBI) was 7.91 million THB (223,040 USD) for onabotulinumtoxin A and 7.27 million THB (205,064 USD) for abobotulinumtoxin A. Including injury-related costs reduced the NBI to 4.20 million THB (118,564 USD) and 3.57 million THB (100,588 USD), respectively. Without dose sharing, the NBI rose significantly, reaching 40.5 million THB (1.14 million USD) for abobotulinumtoxin A. Conclusion: BoNT-A treatment increases healthcare costs, primarily due to drug costs. However, reduced injury costs and dose-sharing strategies may enhance affordability and support BoNT-A's inclusion in Thailand's National List of Essential Medicine.
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.