Pharmacoeconomic analysis of botulinum toxins as treatment for treatment of adult upper limb spasticity

Actuality. A major problem for rehabilitating patients after a stroke, other major cerebrovascular events or trauma (such as traumatic brain injury (TBI)) is increased muscle tone (spasticity) which in turn causes impairments of mobility and formation of pathological postures (which are oft en painful). In cases when it affects upper limb, the decrease in employment ability, capacity for self-service and overall quality of life of the patient becomes exceptionally pronounced. Botulinum toxin type A preparations (BTA) are first-line drug therapy for this type of disorder. Data indicating that different BTA-based drugs have differences in terms of compensation period (period during which the patient does not require re-administration of botulinum toxin) has become available. The pharmacoeconomic effect of this property within context of treating upper limb spasticity in the Russian healthcare system has not yet been investigated. Given the importance of compensation period both for patient well-being and for the burden upon the healthcare system, performing this pharmacoeconomic analysis represents significant interest. Aim. To assess the respective pharmacoeconomic performances of different botulinum toxin preparations as treatments for upper limb spasticity, specifi cally onabotulinumtoxin А (Botox®), incobotulinumtoxin А (Xeomin®), abobotulinumtoxin А (Dysport®) as well as Relatox®, a Russian botulinum toxin. Methodology. The analysis was performed from the perspective of Russian healthcare system in context of government guarantee program for provision of free medical aid. A Markov model was constructed to carry out this analysis. The following forms of analysis were performed based on modeling results: cost-effectiveness analysis, budget impact analysis, and several sensitivity analyses to assess model’s robustness to a number of assumptions as well as price fluctuations. Model accounted for differences between botulinum toxins in terms of compensation period in context of upper limb spasticity, as well as probability of treatment discontinuation for all causes which included severe adverse events and all other possible discontinuation circumstances. Analysis accounted for direct medical costs associated with botulinum toxin administration. The opportunity to optimize Botox use through utilization of diff erently sized vials was accounted for. Modelling horizon was set at one year (due to the way patient treatment discontinuation obtained from literature sources). This modeling horizon was sufficient to account for the disease’s burden upon the healthcare system. The number of patients in each simulated group for cost-effectiveness analysis was set at 1 000 patients, the number of patients for budget impact analysis was estimated based on epidemiological data for Moscow city. Result. The costs per 1 000 within the scope of one year were lowest for abobotulinumtoxin А (Dysport®) and amounted to 58 947 570 rubles. Other drugs had total costs amounting to 94 954 468 rub., 92 049 480 rub, and 97 143 620 rub for onabotulinumtoxin А (Botox®), incobotulinumtoxin А (Xeomin®) and Relatox® respectively. During cost-effectiveness analysis Dysport demonstrated lowest cost-effectiveness ratio and thus is pharmacoeconomically superior. Cost-effectiveness ratio were 316 752 rub for Dysport, 641 584 rub., 619 028 rub., 656 376 rub. for Botox, Xeomin and Relatox respectively. The Dysport superiority within cost-effectiveness amounted to 48.8 %. During budget impact analysis, Dysport as the drug with superior CEA results was compared to Xeomin. Analysis indicated that moving 25 % of patients from Xeomin to Dysport results in 11.7 % reduction of budget burden (which amounts to more than 23 million rubles when epidemiological data for Moscow city is used). Several sensitivity analysis were carried out and confirmed model robustness to price fluctuations of drugs involved up to 25 % as well as alterations of a number of underlying assumptions related to treatment discontinuation curve parameters and Botox dosing regimens. Conclusion. These results indicate that Dysport has pharmacoeconomic advantages when used for treatment of adult upper limb spasticity resulting from stroke and traumatic brain injury within the context of the Russian healthcare system.

onabotulinumtoxin А, incobotulinumtoxin А, abobotulinumtoxin А, botulinum, toxin, upper limb, pharmacoeconomics, spasticity, cost-effectiveness analysis, budget impact analysis

1. Ashford S, Fheodoroff K, Jacinto J, Turner-Stokes L. Common goal areas in the treatment of upper limb spasticity: a multicentre analysis. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2015;30(6):617—622. DOI: 10.1177/0269215515593391

2. Barnes M, Kocer S, Fernandez MM, Balcaitiene J, Fheodoroff K. An international survey of patients living with spasticity. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2017;39(14):1428—1434, DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2016.1198432

3. Bensmail D, Hanschmann A, Wissel J. Satisfaction with botulinum toxin treatment in post-stroke spasticity: results from two cross-sectional surveys (patients and physicians). Journal of Medical Economics. 2014; 17(9):618—625, DOI: 10.3111/13696998.2014.925462

4. Dong Y, Wu T, Hu X, Wang T. Effi cacy and safety of botulinum toxin type A for upper limb spasticity aft er stroke or traumatic brain injury: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Eur. J. Phys. Rehabil. Med. 2017;53:256—267.

5. Fonfria E, Maignel J, Lezmi S, et al. Th e Expanding Th erapeutic Utility of Botulinum Neurotoxins. Toxins (Basel). 2018;10(5):208. DOI.org/10.3390/toxins10050208

6. Ghasemi M, Salari M, Khorvash F, Shaygannejad V. A literature review on the effi cacy and safety of botulinum toxin: an injection in post-stroke spasticity. Int J Prev Med. 2013;4(Suppl 2):S147—S158

7. Gracies JM, O’Dell M, Vecchio M, et al. Eff ects of repeated abobotulinumtoxin A injections in upper limb spasticity. Muscle Nerve 2018;57(2):245—254

8. Gracies JM. Pathophysiology of spastic paresis. II: Emergence of muscle overactivity. Muscle Nerve. 2005;31:552—571

9. Kinnear BZ, Lannin NA, Cusick A, Harvey LA, Rawicki B. Rehabilitation therapies aft er botulinum toxin-A injection to manage limb spasticity: a systematic review. Phys Th er. 2014;94:1569—1581.

10. Lynne Turner-Stokes et al. Time to retreatment with botulinum toxin a in upper limb spasticity management: upper limb International spasticity (ulis)-iii study interim analysis, poster presented in Toxins. 16–19 January, 2019 Denmark, Copenhagen.

11. Naimark DM, Kabboul NN, Krahn MD. Th e half-cycle correction revisited: redemption of a kludge. Med Decis Making. 2013;33(7):961—70. Epub 2013/09/21. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13501558

12. Poltawski L, Allison R, Briscoe S, et al. Assessing the impact of upper limb disability following stroke: a qualitative enquiry using internetbased personal accounts of stroke survivors. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2016;38(10):945—951. DOI:10.3109/09638288.2015.1068383.

13. Poliziani M, Koch M, Liu X. Striving for more good days: patient perspectives on botulinum toxin for the treatment of cervical dystonia. Patient preference and adherence. 2016;10:1601—1608

14. Rychlik R, Kreimendahl F, Schnur N, et al. Quality of life and costs of spasticity treatment in German stroke patients. Health Economics Review. 2016;6:27 DOI:10.1186/s13561-016-0107-5

15. Scaglione F. Conversion ratio between Botox®, Dysport®, and Xeomin® in clinical practice. Toxins. 2016;8(3):65.

16. Schwartz R. Biological Modeling and Simulation: A Survey of Practical Models, Algorithms and Numerical Methods. 2008. Th e MIT Press.

17. Sonnenberg FA, Beck JR. Markov models in medical decision making a practical guide. Medical decision making. 1993;13(4):322—38.

18. Switching Botulinum Toxin A Products f or Patients with Upper Limb Spasticity or Cerv ical Dy stonia: A Rev iew of Clinical Ef fectiveness. Ottawa: CADTH; 2018 Feb. (CADTH rapid response report: summary with critical appraisal).

19. Tardieu G, Lacert P. Le tonus et ses troubles en Clinique. Encyclopédie médico-chirurgicale.1977, Paris: Neurologie.

20. Tilden D, Guarnieri C. Cost-eff ectiveness of incobotulinumtoxin-A with fl exible treatment intervals compare to onabotulinumtoxin-A in the management of blepharospasm and cervical dystonia. Value in Health. 2016;19:145—152.

21. Turner-Stokes L, Ashford S, Jacinto J, et al. Impact of integrated upper limb spasticity management including botulinum toxin A on patient-centred goal attainment: rationale and protocol for an international prospective, longitudinal cohort study (ULIS-III). BMJ Open. 2016;6:e011157. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011157

22. Wissel J, Manack A, Brainin M. Toward an epidemiology of poststroke spasticity. Neurology. 2013. 80(3 Suppl 2): p. S13—9.

23. Аналитическая система БД «Курсор» 2017 г. [Analiticheskaya sistema BD «Kursor» 2017 g. (In Russ).]. [Электронный ресурс]. URL: http://cursor-is.ru/ru/

24. Белоусов Ю.Б., Белоусов Д.Ю. Учебное пособие «Основы фармакоэкономических исследований», — М.: 2000 г. Национальный фонд содействия научным и клиническим исследованиям при РГМУ. [Belousov YuB, Belousov, DYu. Uchebnoe posobie «Osnovy farmakoehkonomicheskih issledovanij». Moscow: 2000 g. Nacional’nyj fond sodejstviya nauchnym i klinicheskim issledovaniyam pri RGMU (In Russ).]

25. Зырянов С.К., Белоусов Д.Ю., Чеберда А.Е. Фармакоэкономический анализ применения препарата Ксеомин для лечения пациентов с фокальной дистонией // Качественная клиническая практика. — 2016. — №2. — С. 14—23. [Zyryanov SK, Belousov DYu, Cheberda AE. Pharmacoeconomic nalysis of Xeomine® for treatment patients with focal dystonia. Kachestvennaya klinicheskaya praktika. 2016;2:14—23. (In Russ).]

26. Куликов А.Ю., Угрехелидзе Д.Т. Фармакоэкономическое исследование применения препаратов ботулинического токсина при терапии постинсультной спастичности верхней конечности // Фармакоэкономика: теория и практика. — 2014. — Т.2. — №3. — С.28—37. [Kulikov AYu, Ugrekhelidze DT. Farmakoekonomicheskoe issledovanie primeneniya preparatov botulinicheskogo toksina pri terapii postinsul’tnoj spastichnosti verhnej konechnosti. Farmakoekonomika: teoriya i praktika. 2014;2(3): 28—37. [(In Russ).]

27. Методические рекомендации ФГБУ “ЦЭККМП” Минздрава России по проведению сравнительной клинико-экономической оценки лекарственного препарата. [Metodicheskie rekomendacii FGBU “CEKKMP” Minzdrava Rossii po provedeniyu sravnitel’noj kliniko-ekonomicheskoj ocenki lekarstvennogo preparata. (In Russ).] [Электронный ресурс]. URL: https://rosmedex.ru/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/MR-KE%60I-23.12.2016.pdf (дата обращения: 08.11.2018)

28. Министерство здравоохранения Российской Федерации Департамент мониторинга анализа и стратегического развития здравоохранения, ФГБУ «Центральный научно-исследовательский институт организации и информатизации здравоохранения» Минздрава России, Заболеваемость взрослого населения России в 2017 году. Статистические материалы. Часть III 2017, Москва. [Ministerstvo zdravoohraneniya Rossijskoj Federacii Departament monitoringa analiza i strategicheskogo razvitiya zdravoohraneniya, FGBU «Central’nyj nauchno-issledovatel’skij institut organizacii i informatizacii zdravoohraneniya» Minzdrava Rossii, Zabolevaemost’ vzroslogo naseleniya Rossii v 2017 godu. Statisticheskie materialy. CHast’ III 2017, Moscow. (In Russ).]

29. Отраслевой стандарт «Клинико-экономические исследования. Общие положения». Приказ Минздрава РФ от 27.05.2002 г. № 163 вместе с ОСТ 91500.14.0001-2002. [Otraslevoj standart «Kliniko-ekonomicheskie issledovaniya. Obshchie polozheniya». Prikaz Minzdrava RF ot 27.05.2002 g. № 163 vmeste s OST 91500.14.0001-2002. (In Russ).]

30. Сайт Государственного реестра лекарственных средств. Инструкция по применению препарата Релатокс®. [Sajt Gosudarstvennogo reestra lekarstvennyh sredstv. Instrukciya po primeneniyu preparata Relatoks®. (In Russ).] [Электронный ресурс] URL: http://grls.rosminzdrav.ru/Grls_View_v2.aspx?routingGuid=8847ed5f-1791-4458-92f5-e7a7c8aa7aa4&t= (дата обращения: 08.11.2018)

31. Сайт Государственного реестра лекарственных средств. Инструкция по применению препарата Ботокс®. [Sajt Gosudarstvennogo reestra lekarstvennyh sredstv. Instrukciya po primeneniyu preparata Botoks®. [Sajt Gosudarstvennogo reestra lekarstvennyh sredstv. Instrukciya po primeneniyu preparata Botoks®. (In Russ).] [Электронный ресурс] URL: http://grls.rosminzdrav.ru/Grls_View_v2.aspx?routingGuid=95e666db-bd29-474b-92a5-d9e06c115be5&t= (дата обращения: 08.11.2018)

32. Сайт Государственного реестра лекарственных средств. Инструкция по применению препарата Ксеомин. [Sajt Gosudarstvennogo reestra lekarstvennyh sredstv. Instrukciya po primeneniyu preparata Kseomin. (In Russ).] [Электронный ресурс] URL: http://grls.rosminzdrav.ru/Grls_View_v2.aspx?routingGuid=9e711a06-84e2-4dab-b68b-d653961ff 91c&t= (дата обращения: 08.11.2018)

33. Сайт Государственного реестра лекарственных средств. Инструкция по применению препарата Диспорт®. [Sajt Gosudarstvennogo reestra lekarstvennyh sredstv. Instrukciya po primeneniyu preparata Disport®. (In Russ). [Электронный ресурс] URL: http://grls.rosminzdrav.ru/Grls_View_v2.aspx?routingGuid=c8a00875-6eb6-4d12-9784-72e2c5e75766&t= (дата обращения: 08.11.2018)

34. Федеральные клинические рекомендации «Диагностика и лечение синдрома спастичности у взрослых пациентов с очаговыми поражениями центральной нервной системы», 2016. [Federal’nye klinicheskie rekomendacii «Diagnostika i lechenie sindroma spastichnosti u vzroslyh pacientov s ochagovymi porazheniyami central’noj nervnoj sistemy», 2016. (In Russ).]

35. Хатькова СЕ, Костенко ЕВ, Похабов ДВ и др. Оценка безопасности и эффективности российского препарата ботулотоксина А Релатокс® в сравнении с Ботоксом® при спастичности руки после ишемического инсульта (мультицентровое рандомизированное исследование) // Неврология, нейропсихиатрия, психосоматика. — 2017. — Т.9. — №1. — С.71—77. [Khatkova SE, Kostenko EV, Pokhabov DV, et al. Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the Russian botulinum toxin-A relatox versus botox in treating arm and hand spasticity aft er ischemic stroke: A multicenter randomized trial. Neurology, neuropsychiatry, psychosomatics. 2017;9(1):71—77. (In Russ).] DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14412/2074-2711-2017-1-71-77

36. Ягудина Р.И., Чибиляев В.А. Использование конечных и суррогатных точек в фармакоэкономических исследованиях // Фармакоэкономика. — 2010. — №2. — С.12—18. [Yagudina RI, Chibulyaev VA. Clinical and Surrogate Endpoints Application in Pharmacoeconomic Researches. Farmakoekonomika. 2010;2:12—18. (In Russ).]

37.