Abstract
ObjectiveTo compare the cost implications of botulinum neurotoxin (BNT) injection to surgery in infantile esotropia (IE) in a public/government funded hospital.Methods and analysisA simple costing comparison was undertaken for a randomised clinical trial in IE. Patients were randomised to receive either BNT or standard surgery. The participants in the BNT arm were further subdivided into subgroups based on their age in months and degree of esotropia in prism dioptres (PD) at presentation: G1 ≤60 PD/24 months, G2 ≤24 months/>60 PD, G3 >24 months/≤60 PD, G4 >24 months/>60 PD. The costs were calculated for each arm from primary treatment to eventual satisfactory outcome defined as orthophoria or microtropia (≤10 PD). A bottom-up costing analysis was done for single and multiple procedures for each arm. Comprehensive variable costs as well as fixed costs were calculated at each point of intervention and expressed in local currency ZAR (US$1=ZAR15.00). Costing was analysed for surgery and BNT subgroups (based on clinical success)ResultsThere were 101 patients enrolled in the trial. 54 in the BNT arm and 47 in the surgery arm. Cost for single surgery and single BNT was ZAR 7743.04 and 1713.14, respectively. A favourable clinical outcome was achieved in 72% of surgery arm and 37% of BNT arm. The mean cost for eventual favourable outcome in BNT arm was ZAR9158.08 and in surgery arm ZAR9124.27 (p=0.26). Mean cost in G1 was ZAR6328.45, in G2 ZAR7197.45, in G3 ZAR11891.93 and G4 ZAR12882.44 (p=0.018).ConclusionBNT has a cost–benefit in IE and is a viable option in the primary treatment of IE in resource constrained regions. Clinical outcomes and economic benefit in smaller angle of esotropia and younger patients are comparable to surgery.