Economic evaluation of AbobotulinumtoxinA vs OnabotulinumtoxinA in real-life clinical management of cervical dystonia

Table 2 Association between treatment groups (aboBoNT-A versus onaBoNT-A)^a and treatment responses

Treatment Responses	Unadjusted OR (95%CI)	Adjusted OR (95%CI)
Primary Endpoint Analysis ^b	1.64 (0.96, 2.79), p = 0.0700	1.67 (0.97, 2.87)^d, p = 0.0629
Alternative Endpoint Analysis^c	2.12 (1.22, 3.7), p = 0.0076	2.06 (1.15, 3.69) ^e, p = 0.0148

^aReference group is onaBoNT-A
^bResponse is defined as: ≥25% improvement in TWSTRS severity scores at visit 2, at least a 12 week interval between injection and subject report of treatment waning, no report of related severed adverse events a visit 2 or visit 3, and a Clinical Global Improvement (CGI) score equal to either + 2 or + 3 at visit 2
^cResponse is defined as: ≥25% improvement in TWSTRS severity scores at visit 3, and no report of a severe adverse event related to BoNT-A injection at visit 3
^dOdds ratio adjusted for sex and prior treatment with BoNT-A
^eOdds ratio adjusted for age, sex and prior treatment with BoNT-A
OR odds ratio; 95%CI 95% confidence interval; BoNT-A Botulinum Neurotoxin type A

ISSN: 2054-7072