Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Economic Evaluation of Treatments for Migraine: An Assessment of the Generalizability Following a Systematic Review

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

All health economics reviews on chronic and episodic migraine published to date underline the heterogeneity of results. Currently, the need for the generalizability of economic evaluations across different jurisdictions is considered a key issue to avoid unnecessary overlaps and to minimize the time to reimbursement decisions.

Objective

The aim of this study was to review the economic evaluations on the prophylaxis and treatments for migraine published in the previous 10 years (since 2009) and to perform a critical assessment of their generalizability.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and EconLit databases. Articles underwent a three-stage selection process. To assess the level of generalizability, we used the checklist implemented by Augustovski et al. Studies were classified as: (1) generalizable; (2) transferable; and (3) context specific.

Results

In total, 227 articles were identified after running the search string and 11 studies were included in our review. Overall, none of the studies was judged as generalizable and three were judged transferable according to the established criteria.

Conclusions

Our review suggests that no evidence on the economic value of either acute or prophylactic treatments against migraine is generalizable to different jurisdictions. However, the majority of studies reporting results about prophylactic treatments were found to be transferable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The reports of the checklist used to assess the generalizability of each article included in this review are available in paper format. Thus, they are available under specific request.

References

  1. World Health Organization. World health report 2002: reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rasmussen BK. Epidemiology of headache. Cephalalgia. 1995;15(1):45–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Abu-Arefeh I, Russell G. Prevalence of headache and migraine in schoolchildren. BMJ. 1994;309(6957):765–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Liberman J. Variation in migraine prevalence by race. Neurology. 1996;47(1):52–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Stewart WF, Shechter A, Rasmussen BK. Migraine prevalence: a review of population based studies. Neurology. 1994;44(6 Suppl. 4):S17–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Celentano DD, Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Reed ML. Medication use and disability among migraineurs: a national probability sample survey. Headache. 1992;32(5):223–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Linde M, Gustavsson A, Stovner LJ, Steiner TJ, Barré J, Katsarava Z, et al. The cost of headache disorders in Europe: the Eurolight project. Eur J Neurol. 2012;19(5):703–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Stewart WF, Lipton RB. The economic and social impact of migraine. Eur Neurol. 1994;34(Suppl. 2):12–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. McCrone P, Seed P, Dowson AJ, Clark LV, Goldstein LH, Morgan M, et al. Service use and costs for people with headache: a UK primary care study. J Headache Pain. 2011;12(6):617–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Solomon GD, Price KL. Burden of migraine: a review of its socioeconomic impact. Pharmacoeconomics. 1997;11(Suppl. 1):S1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hu XH, Markson LE, Lipton RB. Burden of migraine in the United States: disability and economic costs. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:813–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dodick DW, Lipsy RJ. Advances in migraine management: implications for managed care organizations. Manag Care. 2004;13:45–51.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Diamond S, Bigal ME, Silberstein S. Patterns of diagnosis and acute and preventive treatment for migraine in the United States: results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study. Headache. 2007;47:355–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mennini FS, Gitto L, Martelletti P. Improving care through health economics analyses: cost of illness and headache. J Headache Pain. 2008;9:199–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lipton RB, Scher AI, Kolodner K. Migraine in the United States: epidemiology and patterns of health care use. Neurology. 2002;58:885–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Latinovic R, Gulliford M, Ridsdale L. Headache and migraine in primary care: consultation, prescription, and referral rates in a large population. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2006;77:385–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Diener HC, Charles A, Goadsby PJ, Holle D. New therapeutic approaches for the prevention and treatment of migraine. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14(10):1010–22.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Goadsby PJ. Emerging therapies for migraine. Nat Clin Pract Neurol. 2007;3(11):610–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Symvoulakis E, Clark L, Dowson A, Jones R, Ridsdale L. Headache: a suitable case for behavioural treatment in primary care. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57:231–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Lofland JH, Nash DB. Oral serotonin receptor agonists: a review of their cost effectiveness in migraine. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23:259–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. McCormack PL, Foster RH. Rizatriptan: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in the acute treatment of migraine. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23:1283–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Yu J, Goodman JM, Gary O. Economic evaluation of pharmacotherapy of migraine pain: a review of the literature. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother. 2009;23:396–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ambrósio EM, Bloor K, Macpherson H. Costs and consequences of acupuncture as a treatment for chronic pain: a systematic review of economic evaluations conducted alongside randomised controlled trials. Complement Ther Med. 2012;20:364–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Sculpher MJ, Pang FS, Manca A, Drummond MF, Golder S, Urdahl H, et al. Generalisability in economic evaluation studies in healthcare: a review and case studies. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8(49):iii–iv, 1–192.

  25. Augustovski F, Iglesias C, Manca A, Drummond M, Rubinstein A, Martí SG. Barriers to generalizability of health economic evaluations in Latin America and the Caribbean region. Pharmacoeconomics. 2009;27(11):919–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Drummond M, Manca A, Sculpher M. Increasing the generalizability of economic evaluations: recommendations for the design, analysis, and reporting of studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(2):165–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ruggeri M, Manca A, Coretti S, Codella P, Iacopino V, Romano F, et al. Investigating the generalizability of economic evaluations conducted in Italy: a critical review. Value Health. 2015;18(5):709–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hens M, Villaverde-Hueso A, Alonso V, Abaitua I, Posada de la Paz M. Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of oral triptan therapy for migraine in four European countries. Eur J Health Econ. 2014;15(4):433–7.

  29. Yu J, Smith KJ, Brixner DI. Cost effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for the prevention of migraine. CNS Drugs. 2010;24(8):695–712.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Batty AJ, Hansen RB, Varon LF, Sepideh JH, Pennington EW, Lipton BR, et al. The cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA for the prophylaxis of headache in adults with chronic migraine in the UK. J Med Econ. 2013;16(7):877–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Ruggeri M. The cost effectiveness of Botox in Italian patients with chronic migraine. Neurol Sci. 2014;35(Suppl. 1):45–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sussman M, Benner J, Neumann P, Menzin J. Cost-effectiveness analysis of erenumab for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine: results from the US societal and payer perspectives. Cephalalgia. 2018;38(10):1644–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lipton RB, Brennan A, Palmer S, Hatswell AJ, Porter JK, Sapra S, et al. Estimating the clinical effectiveness and value-based price range of erenumab for the prevention of migraine in patients with prior treatment failures: a US societal perspective. J Med Econ. 2018;21(7):666–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Mwamburi M, Tenaglia AT, Leibler EJ, Staats PS. Cost-effectiveness of noninvasive vagus nerve stimulation for acute treatment of episodic migraine and role in treatment sequence strategies. Am J Manag Care. 2018;24(24 Suppl.):S527–33.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Slof J. Cost effectiveness analysis of early versus non-early intervention in acute migraine based on evidence from the “Act when mild” study. Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2012;10(3):201–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Hollier-Hann G, Curry A, Onishchenko K, Akehurst R, Ahmed F, Davies B, et al. Updated cost-effectiveness analysis of onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of headache in adults with chronic migraine who have previously received three or more preventive treatments in the UK. J Med Econ. 2019;4:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Giannouchos TV, Mitsikostas DD, Ohsfeldt RL, Vozikis A, Koufopoulou P. Cost-effectiveness analysis of erenumab versus onabotulinumtoxinA for patients with chronic migraine attacks in Greece. Clin Drug Investig. 2019;39(10):979–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Shauly O, Gould DJ, Patel KM. Cost-utility analysis of surgical decompression relative to injection therapy for chronic migraine headaches. Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39(12):NP462–70.

  39. Asseburg C, Peura P, Oksanen T, Turunen J, Purmonen T, Martikainen J. Cost-effectiveness of oral triptans for acute migraine: mixed treatment comparison. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(4):382–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lisotto C, Guidotti M, Zava D, Savi L. Frovatriptan and rizatriptan economic EVAluation: the FREEVA study. J Headache Pain. 2013;11(14):96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Center for HTA, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Via Giano della Bella 34, 00162, Rome, Italy

    Matteo Ruggeri

  2. St. Camillus International University of Health Sciences, Rome, Italy

    Matteo Ruggeri

  3. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy

    Matteo Ruggeri & Costanza Santori

  4. Università “Niccolò Cusano”, Rome, Italy

    Carlo Drago

  5. Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy

    Francesco Rosiello

  6. Università degli Studi “Federico II”, Naples, Italy

    Valentina Orlando

Authors
  1. Matteo Ruggeri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Carlo Drago
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesco Rosiello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Valentina Orlando
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Costanza Santori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Matteo Ruggeri designed the methodology of the study, supervised the assessment process, and wrote the paper. Carlo Drago participated in the design of the methodology, selected the papers according to the inclusion criteria, and administered the final checklist providing his expertise as a statistician. Francesco Rosiello selected the papers according to the inclusion criteria and administered the final checklist providing his expertise as a medical doctor. Valentina Orlando selected the papers according to the inclusion criteria and administered the final checklist providing his expertise as a pharmacist. Costanza Santori selected the papers according to the inclusion criteria and administered the final checklist providing his expertise as a junior health economist.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matteo Ruggeri.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for the conduct of this study or the preparation of this article.

Conflict of interest

Matteo Ruggeri, Carlo Drago, Valentina Orland, Francesco Rosiello, and Costanza Santori have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Appendix

Appendix

Search string used for PubMed database:

“(migraine AND (treatment OR prophylaxis OR prevention)) AND (((economic OR pharmacoeconomic) AND ((assessment OR evaluation OR analysis)) OR cost (minimization OR utility OR benefit OR consequence OR QALY OR (mean AND migraine AND days)))”.

Limits:

Publication date: 10 years

Species: Human

Text availability: Abstract

Article types: Comparative study, English abstract, evaluation studies, journal article

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ruggeri, M., Drago, C., Rosiello, F. et al. Economic Evaluation of Treatments for Migraine: An Assessment of the Generalizability Following a Systematic Review. PharmacoEconomics 38, 473–484 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00879-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-019-00879-1

Search

Navigation