Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T23:30:36.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF ORAL TRIPTANS FOR ACUTE MIGRAINE: MIXED TREATMENT COMPARISON

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2012

Christian Asseburg ,
Piia Peura ,
Tuija Oksanen ,
Juha Turunen ,
Timo Purmonen  and
Janne Martikainen
Christian Asseburg
Affiliation:
ESiOR Oy; School of Pharmacy, University of Eastern Finland email: christian.asseburg@esior.fi
Piia Peura
Affiliation:
School of Pharmacy, University of Eastern Finland; Finnish Medicines Agency (Fimea)
Tuija Oksanen
Affiliation:
School of Pharmacy, University of Eastern Finland
Juha Turunen
Affiliation:
School of Pharmacy, University of Eastern Finland; Farenta Oy
Timo Purmonen
Affiliation:
School of Pharmacy, University of Eastern Finland; Oy Medfiles Ltd.
Janne Martikainen
Affiliation:
ESiOR Oy; School of Pharmacy, University of Eastern Finland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: The cost-effectiveness of triptans in the treatment of migraine has not been assessed since generic sumatriptan entered the Finnish market in 2008.

Methods: Using systematic review and mixed treatment comparison, the effectiveness of triptans was estimated with regard to 2-hour response, 2-hour pain-free, recurrence, and any adverse event, using published clinical data. Direct and indirect costs (2010 EUR, societal perspective) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were evaluated over one acute migraine attack using a decision-tree model.

Results: The meta-analysis combined data from fifty-six publications. The highest probability of achieving the primary outcome, “sustained pain-free, no adverse event” (SNAE), was estimated for eletriptan 40 mg (20.9 percent). Sumatriptan 100 mg was the treatment with lowest estimated costs (€20.86), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of eletriptan 40 mg compared with sumatriptan 100 mg was €43.65 per SNAE gained (€19,659 per QALY gained).

Conclusion: Depending on the decision-maker's willingness-to-pay threshold, either sumatriptan 100 mg or eletriptan 40 mg is likely to be cost-effective.

Keywords

TriptansMigraine disordersComparative effectiveness researchCost-benefit analysisMeta-analysis
Type
ASSESSMENTS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , October 2012 , pp. 382 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Arends, LR, Vokó Z, Stijnen T. Combining multiple outcome measures in a meta-analysis: An application. Stat Med. 2003;22:1335–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Arulmozhi, DK, Veeranjaneyulu, A, Bodhankar, SL. Migraine: Current concepts and emerging therapies. Vascul Pharmacol. 2005;43:176–187.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Borenstein, M, Hedges, L, Rothstein, H. Fixed effect vs random effects model. In: Borenstein, M, Hedges, L, Rothstein, H, eds. Introduction to meta-analysis. www.meta-analysis.com 2007:86-115.Google Scholar
4.Buscemi, N, Hartling, L, Vandermeer, B, Tjosvold, L, Klassen, TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:697–703.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Ferrari, MD, Goadsby, PJ, Roon, KI, Lipton, RB. Triptans (serotonin, 5-HT1B/1D agonists) in migraine: Detailed results and methods of a meta-analysis of 53 trials. Cephalalgia. 2002;22:633–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Goadsby, PJ, Sprenger, T. Current practices and future directions in the prevention and acute management of migraine. Lancet Neurol. 2010;9:285–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Goldberg, LD. The cost of migraine and its treatment. Am J Manag Care. 2005;11:S62–67.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Higgins, JPT, Thompson, SG, Spiegelhalter, DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. J R Statist Soc A Stat Soc. 2009;172:137–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Liberati, A, Altman, DG, Tetzlaff, J, et al.The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;W65–94.Google ScholarPubMed
10.Loder, E. Triptan therapy in migraine. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:63–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Lu, G, Ades, AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23:3105–3124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Martikainen, J, Färkkilä, M, Kallela, M. Migreenin aiheuttama haitta ja lääkehoidon kustannukset Suomessa (“The burden of migraines and medication costs in Finland”). Suomen Lääkärilehti. 2003;58:379–383.Google Scholar
13.Martikainen, Jet al., Finnish medicines agency. Triptaanien kustannusvaikuttavuus akuutin migreenikohtauksen hoidossa (“Cost-effectiveness of triptans for the treatment of acute migraine attacks”). http://www.fimea.fi/ajankohtaista/ajankohtaista_uutissivu/1/0/ensimmainen_laakehoitojen_arviointiraportti_valmistui_migreenipotilaiden_triptaanilaakityksesta (accessed February 24, 2012).Google Scholar
14.Asseburg, C, Peura, P, Oksanen, Tet al., Sponsorship-related outcome selection bias in published economic studies of triptans: Systematic review. Med Decis Making. 2012;32:237–245.Google Scholar
15.R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2010.Google Scholar
16.Ramsberg, J, Henriksson, M. The cost-effectiveness of oral triptan therapy in Sweden. Cephalalgia. 2007;27:54–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Sutton, A, Ades, AE, Cooper, N, Abrams, K. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26:753–767.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Thomas, A, O'Hara, B, Ligges, U, Sturtz, S. Making BUGS open. R News. 2006;6:12–17.Google Scholar
19.Thompson, M, Gawel, M, Desjardins, B, Ferko, N, Grima, D. An economic evaluation of rizatriptan in the treatment of migraine. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23:837–850.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Xu, R, Insinga, RP, Golden, W, Hu, XH. EuroQol (EQ-5D) health utility scores for patients with migraine. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:601–608.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Asseburg et al. supplementary material

Supplementary data

Download Asseburg et al. supplementary material(File)
File 37.4 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Asseburg et al. supplementary material

Supplementary figure 1

Download Asseburg et al. supplementary material(Image)
Image 12.3 KB
Supplementary material: File

Asseburg et al. supplementary material

Supplementary data

Download Asseburg et al. supplementary material(File)
File 45.6 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Asseburg et al. supplementary material

Supplementary figure 3

Download Asseburg et al. supplementary material(Image)
Image 17.7 KB
Supplementary material: File

Asseburg et al. supplementary material

Supplementary Table 1

Download Asseburg et al. supplementary material(File)
File 32.3 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Asseburg et al. supplementary material

Supplementary figure 2

Download Asseburg et al. supplementary material(Image)
Image 13.4 KB
Supplementary material: File

Asseburg et al. supplementary material

Supplementary table 2

Download Asseburg et al. supplementary material(File)
File 38.9 KB