Comparative efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA in children with upper limb spasticity: a systematic literature review, indirect treatment comparison, and economic evaluation

Abstract

Objective The objective of this study was to compare clinical- and cost-effectiveness of type A botulinum toxin (BoNT-A) therapies for management of pediatric upper limb spasticity, including AbobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) and Onabotulinumtoxin A (onaBoNT-A). Methods Systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparisons were conducted of randomized controlled trials reporting efficacy and safety outcomes. Efficacy was characterized by Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) and Ashworth Scale (AS) up to 16-weeks post-injection. Results were used to inform a cost-effectiveness model with a 1-year time horizon, linking response rates with health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes and costs from a UK perspective. Other data sources included in the cost-effectiveness model were drug unit costs, health care resource utilization based on UK physician survey, and HRQoL impacts of adverse events associated with oral anti-spasticity therapies. Results were characterized as cost per quality-adjusted life year and cost per responder. Results Six studies were included in evidence syntheses. There was a trend towards greater response rate for aboBoNT-A which resulted in improved HRQoL and lower annual costs compared with onaBoNT-A. Safety outcomes were similar across BoNT-A therapies. In cost-effectiveness analysis, aboBoNT-A was an economically dominant therapy with respect to cost per quality-adjusted life year. The cost per responder at 1 year was estimated to be £39,056 for aboBoNT-A vs. £54,831 for onaBoNT-A. Limitations and conclusions Based on observed safety and efficacy data, aboBoNT-A is estimated to result in higher treatment response and consequently increased quality-of-life and reduced costs, vs. onaBoNT-A in children with upper limb spasticity. Limitations to the study include study heterogeneity limited details available for onaBoNT-A studies (e.g. use of physical therapy), and limited availability of responder data. Where assumptions were required, they were made to be conservative towards aboBoN-A.