Abstract Details

Title Economic evaluation of abobotulinumtoxinA vs onabotulinumtoxinA in real-life clinical management of post-stroke upper limb spasticity

Topic Neuro-rehabilitation

Presentation(s) P5 - Poster Session 5 (5:30 PM-6:30 PM)

Poster/Presentation
Number 7-020

Objective

To perform an economic evaluation of abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) versus onabotulinumtoxinA (onaBoNT-A) using data from the ULIS-II study.

Background

Clinical trials demonstrate botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) to be effective in reducing post-stroke upper limb spasticity. However, data from real-life clinical practice and comparative data on the cost and outcome of different BoNT-As are limited. ULIS-II (NCT01020500) is a large, international, prospective cohort study investigating clinical practice and goal attainment in adults with upper limb spasticity following a single BoNT-A injection.

Design/Methods This economic analysis compared clinical and cost outcomes. Clinical outcome: responder rate (achievement of the primary goal from the Goal Attainment Scaling [GAS]) following one injection cycle, adjusted for relevant covariates. Clinical outcome analysis and treatment doses were based on patients from all participating countries. Cost outcomes included drug costs and were assessed using prices from a French perspective, as the largest proportion of patients in the study were from France.

Results The analysis included 419 adults with upper limb spasticity treated with one cycle of aboBoNT-A (n=321) or onaBoNT-A (n=98). Responder rates were 81.9% and 71.4% for aboBoNT-A and onaBoNT-A, respectively (p=0.0255). Mean doses were 748.3 (SD 333.2) units of aboBoNT-A and 207.5 (SD: 87.3) units of onaBoNT-A. Treatment costs for aboBoNT-A and onaBoNT-A were 388 and 427 euros, respectively. Treatment with aboBoNT-A therefore dominated onaBoNT-A in this economic analysis, i.e. lower cost and improved clinical outcome. Average cost-effectiveness ratio (cost per responder) for aboBoNT-A and onaBoNT-A were 474 and 598 euros, respectively.

Conclusions From a French healthcare system perspective, these data, based on real-life clinical management, indicate that treatment with aboBoNT-A may be less costly and lead to improved clinical outcomes when compared with onaBoNT-A. Additional comparative data from larger patient cohorts and more information on cost consequences of improved responder rates would further confirm these findings.

Authors/Disclosures
PRESENTER	No disclosure on file
	No disclosure on file
Andreas Lysandropoulos (Parexel)	Andreas Lysandropoulos has nothing to disclose.
Pascal Maisonobe	Pascal Maisonobe has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of ipsen pharma. Pascal Maisonobe has received personal compensation for serving as an employee of Ipsen.

��ɫ��

��ɫ��