Focal dystonia is a large group of diverse neurological syndromes characterized by significant muscular contractions, spasms, repetitive movements, and persistent pathological poses (which in turn often causes pain syndrome). Blepharospasm (BSP) and cervical dystonia (CD) are two focal dystonias that have a particularly strong impact upon patient’s quality of life (QoL) and work performance. The most effective treatment for these syndromes is injection of botulinum toxin into the affected muscles. Currently there are three notable botulinum toxin drugs on the market - onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox®), incobotulinumtoxinA (Xeomin®), abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport®). Their notable similarity in terms of safety and effectiveness, as well as severity of impact BSP and CD have on patient’s QoL confer considerable importance to performing proper pharmacoeconomic assessment of the relative benefits of these drugs, which is the subject of current effort. Aim. To perform the pharmacoeconomic analysis (PHe) of therapy using onabotulinumtoxinA, incobotulinumtoxinA, abobotulinumtoxinA of patients suffering from BSP or CD within context of Russian healthcare. Methodology. This PHe research effort is conducted perspective of Russian Healthcare system, as well as generalized budgetary interest (including GDP impact of the disease). The time horizon for this research was 5 years. Comparator drugs were Xeomin®, Dysport®, Botox®. Randomized controlled clinical trials investigating safety and efficacy of these were used as data source on safety and efficacy. Each simulated cohort consisted of 1 000 patients. A complex PHe model consisting of a “decision tree” (break cohorts down into subgroups depending on estimated duration of therapeutic effect) was developed. The subgroups were then directed into a Markov model for evaluating treatment outcomes proper was constructed. Cycle length for the Markov component of the model was set at 1 week. Length of time patients spend in state of clinical remission was chosen as effectiveness criterion because this endpoint is both most clinically relevant and constitutes the main social impact of investigated medical intervention. The results of this modelling effort were used to perform cost-minimization analysis (CMA), budget impact analysis (BIA). Result stability was confirmed by performing sensitivity analysis (SA). Result. Reduction in direct costs by 1 patient on average over 1 year of therapy using Xeomin® has been 26,5% and 19,7% compare Botox® and Dysport® respectively. Xeomin® has demonstrated significant benefit during CMA for both indications (CD and BSP), dominating against Botox® (the savings over 5 years by 1 patient 123 180 rub. (9,7%) and 64 107 rub. (6,1%), respectively) and against Dysport® (84 019 rub. (6,8%) and 43 726 rub. (4,2%), respectively). SA confirms result robustness. To perform BIA a complex analytical scenario was constructed. Within that scenario, market fraction of Dysport® was reduced gradually over the course of 2 years and the patients discontinuing Dysport® were moved to Xeomin® (ratio 3:1). This scenario has indicated that a move to Xeomin® is associated with reduction in budgetary burden, with most significant budget economy happening when patients suffering from CD are moved to Xeomin® (according to BIA the savings from moving to Xeomin® constituted 1,37% thus exceeding 71 million rub.). Conclusion. Use of Xeomin® is associated with reduction in direct costs for Russian healthcare system. Analysis indicates that discontinuing Dysport® in favor of Xeomine within context of governmental healthcare would result in reduction of budgetary burden. These results suggest that Xeomine® is highly pharmacoeconomically expedient within context of Russian healthcare system.