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

Table 5 Cost-per-responder analysis

Primary Response Analysis^a
	AboBoNT-A (N = 253)	OnaBoNT-A (N = 103)	All Patients (N = 356)
Unadjusted
Mean Total Cost (€)	310.31	355.87	323.49
Mean Response Rate	0.32	0.22	0.29
Mean Cost-Per-Responder	969.23	1593.69	1107.33
Adjusted^b
Mean Total Cost (€)	314.18	346.35
Mean Response Rate	0.32	0.23
Mean Cost-Per-Responder	986.35	1523.77
Alternative Response Analysis^c
	AboBoNT-A (N = 251)	OnaBoNT-A (N = 103)	All Patients (N = 354)
Unadjusted
Mean Total Cost (€)	310.30	355.87	323.56
Mean Response Rate	0.34	0.19	0.30
Mean Cost-Per-Responder	916.30	1832.75	1090.86
Adjusted^b
Mean Total Cost (€)	314.30	346.12
Mean Response Rate	0.34	0.20
Mean Cost-Per-Responder	931.45	1755.83

^aResponse 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
^bAdjusted for age, sex, prior treatment with BoNT-A, and use of EMG at baseline
aboBoNT-A abobotulinumtoxinA; onaBoNT-A onabotulinumtoxinA
^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

ISSN: 2054-7072