ArticleAdvances in therapy2026
Real-World Switch Rates, Treatment Patterns, and Healthcare Costs Among Patients With Spasticity Treated With Botulinum Toxins.
Article in Advances in therapy, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionBotulinum toxin type A therapies are FDA-approved for the treatment of adult spasticity and recognized as standard of care; however, comparative real-world data on treatment patterns and costs are limited. This study aimed to compare switch rates, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and costs among patients with spasticity initiating onabotulinumtoxinA, abobotulinumtoxinA, or incobotulinumtoxinA.
methodsAdult patients with spasticity receiving botulinum toxins between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2023, were identified from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics
resultsAmong 1714 eligible patients, 1521 initiated onabotulinumtoxinA (88.7%), 99 initiated abobotulinumtoxinA (5.8%), and 94 initiated incobotulinumtoxinA (5.5%) as index treatment. Switch rates at 12 months post-index were lowest for onabotulinumtoxinA (1.4%) compared with abobotulinumtoxinA (4.0%), and incobotulinumtoxinA (10.6%). OnabotutlinumtoxinA initiators demonstrated lower total all-cause medical costs and fracture-related costs compared with incobotulinumtoxinA and abobotulinumtoxinA, respectively, with comparable healthcare resource utilization and other costs.
conclusionMost patients initiated onabotulinumtoxinA with lower switch rates than those who initiated with incobotulinumtoxinA and abobotulinumtoxinA. Total costs were comparable between treatments, except for all-cause medical costs and fracture-related costs, which were lower among onabotulinumtoxinA initiators.
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.