IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0296340.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone for early treatment of adult lower limb spasticity following an acute event

Author

Listed:
  • Peter Moore
  • Natalya Danchenko
  • Diana Weidlich
  • Alejandra Rodarte Tijerina

Abstract

Objectives: Spasticity is an incurable chronic condition, and patients with spasticity frequently experience symptoms such as muscle stiffness, restricted mobility, fatigue, spasms, and pain. The study objective was to assess the cost-effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone for the early treatment of adult lower limb spasticity following an acute event (e.g. stroke or traumatic brain injury), from an Australian payer perspective. Methods: Using clinical data from published pivotal trials, an economic model based on a Markov model was developed to capture changes in treatment costs, healthcare resource use costs, functional outcomes, and health-related quality of life over a lifetime horizon. Scenario analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the uncertainty in the model parameters and assumptions used in the base case. Results: AbobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care was cost-effective versus best supportive care, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $35,721 per quality-adjusted life year gained. Sensitivity analyses confirm the robustness of the base case, with most results remaining below the commonly acceptable cost-effectiveness willingness-to-pay threshold of $75,000 per quality-adjusted life year for cost-effectiveness in Australia. Inputs and assumptions that produced the top four highest incremental cost-effectiveness ratios include the application of different health resource utilisation source, short time horizon, unweighted regression analyses to determine regression probabilities, and no stopping rule. AbobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care has a 74% probability of being cost-effective compared with best supportive care alone at the willingness to pay threshold. Conclusion: AbobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care treatment is cost-effective in Australia for the management of adult lower limb spasticity in patients treated within 2 years of an acute event.

Suggested Citation

  • Peter Moore & Natalya Danchenko & Diana Weidlich & Alejandra Rodarte Tijerina, 2024. "Cost-effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone for early treatment of adult lower limb spasticity following an acute event," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(2), pages 1-18, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0296340
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0296340
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0296340
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0296340&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0296340?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0296340. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.