↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Cost-effectiveness analysis of abobotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of cervical dystonia in the United Kingdom

Overview of attention for article published in ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
Title
Cost-effectiveness analysis of abobotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of cervical dystonia in the United Kingdom
Published in
ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR, April 2017
DOI 10.2147/ceor.s112254
Pubmed ID
Authors

Madhusubramanian Muthukumar, Kamal Desai, Seye Abogunrin, Timothy Harrower, Sylvie Gabriel, Jerome Dinet

Abstract

Cervical dystonia (CD) involves painful involuntary contraction of the neck and shoulder muscles and abnormal posture in middle-aged adults. Botulinum neurotoxin type A (BoNT-A) is effective in treating CD but little is known about its associated cost-effectiveness. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA for treating CD from the UK payer perspective. A Markov model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of abobotulinum-toxinA versus best supportive care (BSC) in CD, with a lifetime horizon and health states for response, nonresponse, secondary nonresponse, and BSC in patients with CD (mean age: 53 years; 37% male). Clinical improvement measured using Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) was mapped to utility using data from a randomized trial of abobotulinumtoxinA. Health care resource use, costs, and other inputs were from the British National Formulary, Personal Social Services Research Unit, published literature, or expert opinion. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5% per annum. In the base case, the incremental lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from abobotulinumtoxinA arm versus BSC was 0.253 per patient, whereas the incremental cost was £7,160, leading to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £30,468 per QALY. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that these results were sensitive to the proportion of responders to abobotulinumtoxinA at first injection, duration between injections, the number of reinjections allowed among primary nonresponders, and any difference in baseline TWSTRS value between the BSC and abobotulinumtoxinA arms. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that abobotulinumtoxinA was cost-effective 46% and 49% of times at thresholds of £20,000 and £30,000 per QALY, respectively. Scenarios are considered including vial-sharing, productivity losses, secondary response/nonresponse at subsequent injections, 5-year time horizon, and alternative reinjection intervals for BoNT-As produced ICERs ranging from cost-saving to £40,777 per QALY, versus BSC. AbobotulinumtoxinA was found to be cost-effective in treating adults with CD, at acceptable willingness-to-pay thresholds in the UK.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 16%
Other 3 12%
Student > Bachelor 2 8%
Student > Master 2 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 4%
Other 3 12%
Unknown 10 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 8%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 4 16%
Unknown 11 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2017.
All research outputs
#20,294,544
of 25,806,080 outputs
Outputs from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#394
of 527 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,500
of 325,072 outputs
Outputs of similar age from ClinicoEconomics and Outcomes Research: CEOR
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,080 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 527 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.0. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,072 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.