ArticleNeurology and therapy2026
Real-World Treatment Switch Rates, and Healthcare Costs of Botulinum Toxin Type A Among Patients with Cervical Dystonia in the USA: A Retrospective Claims Analysis.
Article in Neurology and 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
introductionReal-world evidence on comparative treatment patterns and cost is limited for botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA) treatments for cervical dystonia (CD). This study aims to evaluate treatment switch rates, healthcare resource utilization (HCRU), and healthcare costs among patients with cervical dystonia initiating BoNTAs in the USA.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed real-world data from Optum's de-identified Clinformatics
resultsOverall, 1756 adults with CD initiated therapy on BoNTAs. OnabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA) (88.6%; 1555/1756) was utilized most, followed by incobotulinumtoxinA (incobotA) (9.3%; 163/1756), and abobotulinumtoxinA (2.2%; 38/1756). As a result of the small sample size of abobotulinumtoxinA, comparative analysis was focused on onabotA and incobotA. Treatment switch was comparable between onabotA and incobotA during 12-month follow-up. Treatment switch at anytime before study period end was lower for onabotA versus incobotA initiators (2.6% vs. 6.8%; P = 0.007). Annual HCRU and costs were comparable between onabotA and incobotA, except CD-related costs and toxin-related costs were lower for onabotA.
conclusionPatients with CD who initiated therapy on onabotA had comparable switch rates at 12 months but were less likely to switch to another BoNTA at anytime and had lower or comparable costs to incobotA.
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.