OBJECTIVES: To carry out an economic evaluation of the use of botulinum toxin type A (XEOMEEN), also known as incobotulinum toxin type A (INCO), in the treatment of pediatric patients with spasticity from the perspective of the "Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social" (IMSS) and the “Instituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado” (ISSSTE).

METHODS: A systematic review (SR) of the literature was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of INCO, in comparison with onabotulinum toxin type A (ONA) and abobotulinum toxin type A (ABO), in pediatric patients with spasticity. The evaluated outcomes were adverse event (AE) rate, and disability improvement.

With the information obtained, a complete economic evaluation of the cost minimization analysis (AMC) type was carried out. The AMC compared the direct medical costs associated with the use of INCO and its comparators ONA and ABO, contemplating a time horizon of 1 year, since it is the evaluation of a chronic condition.

RESULTS: INCO is an equivalent option in safety in the treatment of pediatric patients with spasticity compared to ONA and ABO. The three botulinum toxin type A are equally efficacious since it is used in clinical practice in this population. INCO is a cost-saving option and, in monetary terms, it represents an average annual savings for the IMSS of $2,288.84 MXN and $3,604.50 MXN for the ISSSTE, per patient under treatment, which in percentage terms translates into 12.75% and 18.71% respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: INCO is comparable in safety and efficacy in the treatment of pediatric patients with spasticity, compared to ONA and ABO. Therefore, the botulinum toxin type A (XEOMEEN) is a cost-saving option for the IMSS and ISSSTE.