Cost‐effectiveness of botulinum neurotoxin A versus surgery for drooling: a randomized clinical trial

Aim This study compared the cost‐effectiveness of botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT‐A) injections with two‐duct ligation of the submandibular glands as treatment for severe drooling after one treatment cycle. Method The study was part of a larger, partly single‐blinded, randomized clinical trial (trialre...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Developmental medicine and child neurology 2020-11, Vol.62 (11), p.1302-1308
Main Authors: Bekkers, Stijn, Ulsen, Kim J, M M Adang, Eddy, R T Scheffer, Arthur, J A van den Hoogen, Frank
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Botulinum Toxins, Type A - administration & dosage
Botulinum Toxins, Type A - economics
Cerebral Palsy - complications
Cerebral Palsy - economics
Child
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Female
Humans
Male
Neuromuscular Agents - administration & dosage
Neuromuscular Agents - economics
Oral Surgical Procedures - economics
Original
Outcome Assessment, Health Care - economics
Sialorrhea - drug therapy
Sialorrhea - economics
Sialorrhea - etiology
Sialorrhea - surgery
Single-Blind Method
Young Adult
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aim This study compared the cost‐effectiveness of botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT‐A) injections with two‐duct ligation of the submandibular glands as treatment for severe drooling after one treatment cycle. Method The study was part of a larger, partly single‐blinded, randomized clinical trial (trialregister.nl identifier NTR3537). Data were collected between 2012 and 2017. Evaluation was at 32 weeks after one treatment cycle. Fifty‐seven patients with cerebral palsy or other neurological, non‐progressive disorders and severe drooling classified as having a drooling frequency ≥3 or a drooling severity ≥2, in whom conservative treatment was deemed ineffective, were randomized to treatment by BoNT‐A or two‐duct ligation. An incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated using the success rates as the measure of benefit. Treatment success was defined as a decrease ≥50% from baseline to 32 weeks in the subjective visual analogue scale for the severity of drooling or the objective drooling quotient. Results Fifty‐three patients were analysed (22 females, 31 males; mean age 11y, range 8–22y). Average costs for one treatment cycle, which included one BoNT‐A injection, were €1929 (standard error 62) for BoNT‐A and €3155 (standard error 99) for two‐duct ligation. Treatment success was in favour of two‐duct ligation (63% vs 27%; number needed to treat 3). The ICER was €34 per 1% gain in treatment success in favour of two‐duct ligation versus BoNT‐A. Interpretation The additional cost of two‐duct ligation is to some extent offset by a larger treatment success rate compared with BoNT‐A. What this paper adds Botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT‐A) is less expensive per percentage of success than two‐duct ligation. The additional cost of two‐duct ligation over BoNT‐A is offset by greater treatment success. What this paper adds Botulinum neurotoxin A (BoNT‐A) is less expensive per percentage of success than two‐duct ligation. The additional cost of two‐duct ligation over BoNT‐A is offset by greater treatment success. This article is commented on by Shih on page 1234 of this issue.
ISSN:0012-1622
1469-8749
DOI:10.1111/dmcn.14636