Comparative efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA and onabotulinumtoxinA in children with upper limb spasticity: a systematic literature review, indirect treatment comparison, and economic evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare clinical- and cost-effectiveness of type A botulinum toxin (BoNT-A) therapies for management of pediatric upper limb spasticity, including AbobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) and Onabotulinumtoxin A (onaBoNT-A). METHODS: Systematic literature review and indirect treatment comparisons were conducted of randomized controlled trials reporting efficacy and safety outcomes. Efficacy was characterized by Modified Ashworth Scale (MAS) and Ashworth Scale (AS) up to 16-weeks post-injection. Results were used to inform a cost-effectiveness model with a 1-year time horizon, linking response rates with health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) outcomes and costs from a UK perspective. Other data sources included in the cost-effectiveness model were drug unit costs, health care resource utilization based on UK physician survey, and HRQoL impacts of adverse events associated with oral anti-spasticity therapies. Results were characterized as cost per quality-adjusted life year and cost per responder. RESULTS: Six studies were included in evidence syntheses. There was a trend towards greater response rate for aboBoNT-A which resulted in improved HRQoL and lower annual costs compared with onaBoNT-A. Safety outcomes were similar across BoNT-A therapies. In cost-effectiveness analysis, aboBoNT-A was an economically dominant therapy with respect to cost per quality-adjusted life year. The cost per responder at 1 year was estimated to be £39,056 for aboBoNT-A vs. £54,831 for onaBoNT-A. LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: Based on observed safety and efficacy data, aboBoNT-A is estimated to result in higher treatment response and consequently increased quality-of-life and reduced costs, vs. onaBoNT-A in children with upper limb spasticity. Limitations to the study include study heterogeneity limited details available for onaBoNT-A studies (e.g. use of physical therapy), and limited availability of responder data. Where assumptions were required, they were made to be conservative towards aboBoN-A.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".