Cost-Effectiveness of Incobotulinumtoxin-A with Flexible Treatment Intervals Compared to Onabotulinumtoxin-A in the Management of Blepharospasm and Cervical Dystonia.

BACKGROUND: Incobotulinumtoxin-A (Xeomin(®), Merz Pharmaceuticals, Sydney, New South Wales) is a formulation of botulinum neurotoxin type A that is free of complexing proteins.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of incobotulinumtoxin-A administered with flexible treatment intervals compared to onabotulinumtoxin-A (Botox(®), Sydney, New South Wales) in blepharospasm and cervical dystonia from the perspective of Australian health care providers.

METHODS: A Markov state transition model was developed to perform a cost-utility analysis to compare the cost and health benefits of incobotulinumtoxin-A to that of onabotulinumtoxin-A. The cost-utility analysis compared incobotulinumtoxin-A treatment, given at minimum intervals of 6 weeks and maximum intervals of 20 weeks, with onabotulinumtoxin-A treatment, given at minimum intervals of 12 weeks and maximum intervals of 20 weeks. The Markov model consisted of three health states and followed patients in weekly cycles for 5 years. Only direct health care costs associated with the acquisition and administration of type A botulinum neurotoxins were included. Utility values were derived from a prospective, open-labeled cohort study. The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS: Incobotulinumtoxin-A was cost-effective compared to onabotulinumtoxin-A in both blepharospasm and cervical dystonia, with an incremental cost/quality-adjusted life-year gained of A$ 25,588 and A$ 23,794, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Incobotulinumtoxin-A administered at flexible treatment intervals determined by the needs of the patient was found to be a cost-effective treatment option when compared to the administration of onabotulinumtoxin-A in the Australian health care system. The option to administer incobotulinumtoxin-A according to the needs of the patient resulted in patients experiencing symptoms for a fewer number of weeks compared to onabotulinumtoxin-A given at minimum 12-week intervals.