Dataset Information

OnabotulinumtoxinA and AbobotulinumtoxinA Dose Conversion: a Systematic Literature Review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This systematic review was performed to elucidate dosing practices, dosing conversions, and related outcomes from randomized controlled trials that directly compared onabotulinumtoxinA (ONA) and abobotulinumtoxinA (ABO) at various dose conversion ratios for therapeutic use in movement disorders.

Methods

A systematic review of 3 medical literature databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE) was performed to identify relevant comparative clinical studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published in the English language between January 1991 and January 2015. Studies that met predefined inclusion criteria were selected for formal data extraction and quality assessment.

Results

A total of 182 manuscripts were identified, of which 4 were included for analysis. Targeted clinical applications included neurological disorders. The studies compared ONA to ABO dose conversion ratios of 1:2.5 (n=1), 1:3 (n=2), and 1:4 (n=2). One study compared both 1:3 and 1:4 ratios. An ONA:ABO conversion factor of 1:2.5 was associated with similar efficacy and side effects. An ONA:ABO ratio of 1:3 provided similar or higher efficacy but an increased rate of adverse effects, and an ONA:ABO ratio of 1:4 was associated with higher efficacy but with an excessive rate of intolerable side effects.

Conclusion

A dose conversion ratio of ONA to ABO between 1:2.5 and 1:3.0 provides comparable safety and efficacy for therapeutic movement disorders chemodenervation procedures.

SUBMITTER: Dashtipour K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4836618 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Botulinum neurotoxins type A (BoNT-As) are commonly used treatments for cervical dystonia (CD). Clinical trials have demonstrated the benefits of them in these patients, but data from real-life clinical practice as well as comparative data on the cost and outcome of different BoNT-A formulations are limited. The aim of this study was to compare abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) and onabotulinumtoxinA (onaBoNT-A) on their clinical outcomes and drug costs in real-life clinical practice. Methods:This analysis included 356 adult patients with idiopathic CD treated with aboBoNT-A (n?=?253) or onaBoNT-A (n?=?103) from 38 centres across Europe and Australia (NCT00833196). The clinical outcome measures were treatment responses, changes in TWSTRS scores and changes in health utility scores from baseline to study visit 2 and 3. Health utility score was mapped from the TWSTRS total scale, using a previous publication. Costs included drug cost for France. Results:The aboBoNT-A treated group had 2.06 (95% CI: 1.15 to 3.69) times higher odds of achieving treatment response than the onaBoNT-A treated group. The adjusted mean change in TWSTRS total score from baseline to visit 3 were?-?6.42 (95% CI: -?7.52 to -?5.33) for aboBoNT-A and?-?3.94 (95% CI: -?5.68 to -?2.2) for onaBoNT-A, with a difference of -?2.48 (95% CI: -?4.57 to -?0.39). The corresponding difference in the adjusted mean change for health utility score was 0.008 (95% CI: 0.001 to 0.014). Mean treatment costs for aboBoNT-A and onaBoNT-A were 314.1 (95% CI: 299.1 to 329.0) and 346.6 (95% CI: 322.9 to 370.4) Euros, respectively. Conclusions:This comparative analysis indicated that treatment with aboBoNT-A may be less costly and lead to improved clinical outcomes when compared with onaBoNT-A, from a French healthcare system perspective. Additional comparative clinical data from larger patient cohorts, as well as more information about cost consequences of an improvement in clinical outcome would be of value to further confirm the findings.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough bDMARDs are effective in the treatment of RA, they are associated with dose-dependent side effects, patient burden, and high costs. Recently, many studies have investigated the possibility of discontinuing or tapering bDMARDs when patients have reached their treatment goal. The aim of this review is to provide a narrative overview of the existing evidence on bDMARD dose reduction and to provide answers to specific dose-reduction-related questions that are of interest to clinicians.MethodsWe systematically searched for relevant studies in four scientific databases. Furthermore, we screened the references of reviews and relevant studies.ResultsOur searches resulted in 45 original studies of bDMARD dose reduction in RA patients (15 RCTs and 30 observational studies). Current evidence shows that bDMARD dose reduction can be considered in all RA patients who achieve stable (e.g., ≥6 months) low disease activity or remission. The best strategies seem to be disease-activity-guided dose optimization and fixed dose reduction, since direct bDMARD discontinuation (without restarting) results in a high flare rate, worse physical functioning, and more joint damage. When tapering the bDMARD treatment of a patient, disease activity should be monitored closely, and if a flare occurs, the dose should be increased to the lowest effective dose. Current evidence shows that restarting bDMARD treatment is effective and safe. Unfortunately, no clear predictors of successful dose reduction have been identified so far.ConclusionThe current evidence and rising healthcare costs urge that dose reduction should be considered for eligible patients. However, the decision to start dose reduction should be made in shared decision-making. Future research should focus not only on a better understanding of the effects of dose reduction on clinical outcomes but also on the perspectives of patients and physicians as well as the implementation of this new treatment principle.