Cost-Effectiveness of Migraine Prevention: The Case of Topiramate in the UK

A systematic review of economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments for adults with chronic migraine

Background and aims

Chronic migraine is a common neurovascular brain disorder with substantial economic costs. We performed a systematic review to identify economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments for adults with chronic migraine.

Methods

We undertook systematic literature searches using terms for migraine/headache and prophylactic drug interventions, combined with economic/cost terms where appropriate. Using inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers independently assessed the citations and abstracts, and full-text articles were retrieved. A review of study characteristics and methodological quality was assessed.

Results

Sixteen citations met the inclusion criteria and were model-based cost-utility studies evaluating: Botox (n = 6); Erenumab (n = 8); Fremanezumab (n = 2); and Galcanezumab (n = 1) as the main treatment. They varied in their use of comparators, perspective, and model type. Botox was cost-effective compared to placebo with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranging between £15,028 (€17,720) and £16,598 (€19,572). Erenumab, Fremanezumab and Galcanezumab when compared to Botox, was associated with ICERs ranging between £59,712 ($81,080) and £182,128 (€218,870), with the ICERs above the most common willingness-to-pay thresholds (WTPs). But they were cost-effective within the commonly used WTPs among the population for whom the previous treatments including Botox were failed. Three studies compared the cost-effectiveness of Erenumab against the placebo and found that Erenumab was dominant. All studies performed sensitivity analyses to check the robustness of their results. None of the findings from the included articles were generalisable and none of the included studies fulfilled all the criteria mentioned in the CHEERS 2022 reporting checklist and Phillips’s checklist for economic models.

Conclusions

Evidence to support the cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments of chronic migraine in the adult population using Botox and Erenumab were identified. Our findings suggest that both Botox and Erenumab, are cost-effective compared to placebo; although Erenumab had more incremental economic benefits compared to Botox, the ICERs were above the most common willingness-to-pay thresholds. Hence, Erenumab might be an acceptable treatment for chronic migraine for patients whom other treatments such as Botox do not work. Further research is needed to help characterise the data to adequately structure and parameterise an economic model to support decision-making for chronic migraine therapies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s10194-022-01492-y.

Economic evaluations in migraine: systematic literature review and a novel approach

Background: For novel migraine therapies, economic evaluations will be required to understand the trade-offs between additional health benefit and additional cost. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify previous economic evaluations in migraine from the United Kingdom or Irish perspective to critically appraise these evaluations and to propose, if necessary, a novel modelling approach that can be used for future economic evaluations of migraine therapies.Methods: An SLR was conducted to identify previous economic evaluations of preventive migraine treatments. Key opinion leaders were consulted to determine the criteria for a robust migraine economic evaluation. Economic evaluations identified in the SLR were appraised against these criteria, and a novel cost-effectiveness model structure was then proposed.Results: Eight records reporting on published economic evaluations were identified and critically appraised for general quality. Expert consultation provided 6 recommendations on the ideal model structure for migraine that is both clinically and economically meaningful. A decision-tree plus Markov structure was then developed as a cost-effectiveness model for migraine therapies where each health state is associated with a patient distribution across monthly migraine day (MMD) frequencies.Conclusions: Future migraine economic evaluations should allow for assessments across the full spectrum of migraine, a response-based stopping rule, and the estimation of benefits and resource costs based on MMD frequency. The approach proposed in this paper captures all of the desired elements for an economic evaluation of migraine therapy and is suitable to assess new migraine therapies.

The impact of external trigeminal nerve stimulator (e-TNS) on prevention and acute treatment of episodic and chronic migraine: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to analyze the effectiveness and safety of the external trigeminal nerve stimulator (eTNS) for the prevention and acute treatment of migraine attacks in episodic and chronic migraine patients.

METHODS

We have conducted a systematic literature search in four databases that yielded 433 citations and additional seven citations were found via hand-search. Two randomised placebo-controlled trials and five prospective case series were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

Concerning prevention, statistically significant differences were found with respect to reduction of migraine attacks (0.67 less migraine attacks per month), migraine days (1.74 less migraine days per month), headache days (2.28 less headache days per month), and acute antimigraine drug intake (4.24 less instances of acute drug intake per month). Concerning acute treatment, statistically significant differences were found with respect to pain reduction on a visual analogue scale at 1/2/24 h post-acute treatment (1.68/1.02/1.08 improvement, respectively). No serious adverse events occurred in any of the studies.

CONCLUSIONS

While e-TNS has the potential to improve migraine symptoms, for its establishment in the standard practice, high quality comparative data, studies with larger sample sizes, and studies with standard and relevant primary outcome parameters are needed.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Erenumab Versus OnabotulinumtoxinA for Patients with Chronic Migraine Attacks in Greece

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, chronic neurovascular brain disorder with non-negligible multifaceted economic costs. Existing preventive treatments involve the selective use of onabotulinumtoxinA, which aims at migraine morbidity reduction for patients who have failed initial preventive treatment with oral agents. Erenumab is a new preventive treatment for migraines.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the differences in costs and outcomes of the preventive treatment with erenumab versus onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with chronic migraines (CM) in Greece to assess the economic value of this treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from both the payer and the societal perspective using a decision-tree analytic model. Outcomes were expressed in migraines avoided and in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We obtained model inputs from the existing literature. The decision path adjusted for variation in the probability of adherence and the resulting differential effectiveness between the two treatments. Direct costs included the cost of the two drugs and administration costs, the costs of acute drugs used under usual care, and the costs of hospitalization, physician, and emergency department visits. Indirect costs for the societal perspective analyses included wages lost on workdays. The time-horizon of the analysis was 1 year and all costs were calculated in 2019 euros (€). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to control for parameter uncertainty and to evaluate the robustness of the findings.

RESULTS

Our results indicate that treatment of CM with erenumab compared to onabotulinumtoxinA resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of €218,870 and €231,554 per QALY gained and €620 and €656 per migraine avoided, from the societal and the payer's perspective, respectively. Using a common cost-effectiveness threshold equal to three times the local gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (€49,000), for the erenumab ICERs to fall below this threshold, the erenumab price would have to be no more than €192 (societal perspective) or €173 (payer perspective).

CONCLUSION

The prophylactic treatment of CM with erenumab in Greece might be cost effective compared to the existing alternative of onabotulinumtoxinA from both the payer and the societal perspective, but only at a highly discounted price. Nevertheless, erenumab could be considered a therapeutic option for patients who fail treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA.

Health state utilities associated with attributes of migraine preventive treatments based on patient and general population preferences

Purpose

While previous studies have estimated health state utilities associated with migraine severity and frequency, migraine treatments vary in other ways that may have an impact on patients’ quality of life, preference, and utility. The purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with migraine treatment attributes including route of administration and treatment-related adverse events (AEs).

Methods

In time trade-off interviews, migraine patients and general population participants in the UK valued health state vignettes drafted based on literature, medication labels, and clinician interviews. All respondents valued migraine health states varying in route of administration. Each participant also valued eight health states (randomly selected from a total of 15) that added the description of an AE to a migraine health state.

Results

A total of 400 participants completed interviews (200 general population [49.0% female; mean age = 43.6 years]; 200 migraine patients [74.5% female; mean age = 45.8 years]). In the general population sample, mean utilities of health states without aura were 0.79 with daily oral medication, 0.78 with one injection per month, and 0.72 with 31–39 injections once every 3 months. The greatest disutilities (i.e., decreases in utility) were for AEs associated with oral medications (e.g., − 0.060 [fatigue] and − 0.098 [brain fog]). Differences among health states followed the same pattern in the patient sample as in the general population sample.

Conclusions

Utilities estimated from the general population sample may be used to represent route of administration and AEs in cost-utility models. Results from the patient sample indicate that these treatment characteristics have an impact on patient preference.

Migraine day frequency in migraine prevention: longitudinal modelling approaches

Background

Health economic models are critical tools to inform reimbursement agencies on health care interventions. Many clinical trials report outcomes using the frequency of an event over a set period of time, for example, the primary efficacy outcome in most clinical trials of migraine prevention is mean change in the frequency of migraine days (MDs) per 28 days (monthly MDs [MMD]) relative to baseline for active treatment versus placebo. Using these cohort-level endpoints in economic models, accounting for variation among patients is challenging. In this analysis, parametric models of change in MMD for migraine preventives were assessed using data from erenumab clinical studies.

Methods

MMD observations from the double-blind phases of two studies of erenumab were used: one in episodic migraine (EM) (NCT02456740) and one in chronic migraine (CM) (NCT02066415). For each trial, two longitudinal regression models were fitted: negative binomial and beta binomial. For a thorough comparison we also present the fitting from the standard multilevel Poisson and the zero inflated negative binomial.

Results

Using the erenumab study data, both the negative binomial and beta-binomial models provided unbiased estimates relative to observed trial data with well-fitting distribution at various time points.

Conclusions

This proposed methodology, which has not been previously applied in migraine, has shown that these models may be suitable for estimating MMD frequency. Modelling MMD using negative binomial and beta-binomial distributions can be advantageous because these models can capture intra- and inter-patient variability so that trial observations can be modelled parametrically for the purposes of economic evaluation of migraine prevention. Such models have implications for use in a wide range of disease areas when assessing repeated measured utility values.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0664-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of erenumab for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine: Results from the US societal and payer perspectives

Objectives

To assess the cost-effectiveness of erenumab 140 mg (“erenumab”) for the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine and chronic migraine.

Study design

A hybrid Monte Carlo patient simulation and Markov cohort model was constructed to compare erenumab to no preventive treatment or onabotulinumtoxinA among adult ( ≥ 18 years) patients with episodic migraine and chronic migraine who failed prior preventive therapy from the US societal and payer perspectives.

Methods

Patients entered the model one at a time and were assigned to a post-treatment monthly migraine day category based on baseline monthly migraine days and treatment effect. Using monthly cycles, patients were followed for 2 years and accumulated costs and utilities associated with their post-treatment monthly migraine days. The primary outcome included the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio presented as cost per quality-adjusted life year gained.

Results

With an annual drug price of erenumab of $6900, treatment with erenumab in the societal perspective ranges from a dominant strategy versus no preventive treatment among chronic migraine patients to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $122,167 versus no preventive treatment among episodic migraine patients. When excluding indirect costs (i.e. payer perspective), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are cost-effective among chronic migraine patients ($23,079 and $65,720 versus no preventive treatment and onabotulinumtoxinA, respectively), but not among episodic migraine patients ($180,012 versus no preventive treatment). Model results were sensitive to changes in monthly migraine days, health utilities, and treatment costs.

Conclusion

The use of erenumab may be a cost-effective approach to preventing monthly migraine days among patients with chronic migraine versus onabotulinumtoxinA and no preventive treatment in the societal and payer perspectives, but is less likely to offer good value for money for those with episodic migraine, unless lost productivity costs are considered.

New Pharmacological Agents to Aid Smoking Cessation and Tobacco Harm Reduction: What Has Been Investigated, and What Is in the Pipeline?

A wide range of support is available to help smokers to quit and to aid attempts at harm reduction, including three first-line smoking cessation medications: nicotine replacement therapy, varenicline and bupropion. Despite the efficacy of these, there is a continual need to diversify the range of medications so that the needs of tobacco users are met. This paper compares the first-line smoking cessation medications with (1) two variants of these existing products: new galenic formulations of varenicline and novel nicotine delivery devices; and (2) 24 alternative products: cytisine (novel outside Central and Eastern Europe), nortriptyline, other tricyclic antidepressants, electronic cigarettes, clonidine (an anxiolytic), other anxiolytics (e.g. buspirone), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, supplements (e.g. St John's wort), silver acetate, Nicobrevin, modafinil, venlafaxine, monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), opioid antagonists, nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) antagonists, glucose tablets, selective cannabinoid type 1 receptor antagonists, nicotine vaccines, drugs that affect gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) transmission, drugs that affect N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors, dopamine agonists (e.g. levodopa), pioglitazone (Actos; OMS405), noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors and the weight management drug lorcaserin. Six 'ESCUSE' criteria-relative efficacy, relative safety, relative cost, relative use (overall impact of effective medication use), relative scope (ability to serve new groups of patients) and relative ease of use-are used. Many of these products are in the early stages of clinical trials; however, cytisine looks most promising in having established efficacy and safety with low cost. Electronic cigarettes have become very popular, appear to be efficacious and are safer than smoking, but issues of continued dependence and possible harms need to be considered.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of interventions for migraine in four low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

Evidence of the cost and effects of interventions for reducing the global burden of migraine remains scarce. Our objective was to estimate the population-level cost-effectiveness of evidence-based migraine interventions and their contributions towards reducing current burden in low- and middle-income countries.

METHODS

Using a standard WHO approach to cost-effectiveness analysis (CHOICE), we modelled core set intervention strategies for migraine, taking account of coverage and efficacy as well as non-adherence. The setting was primary health care including pharmacies. We modelled 26 intervention strategies implemented during 10 years. These included first-line acute and prophylactic drugs, and the expected consequences of adding consumer-education and provider-training. Total population-level costs and effectiveness (healthy life years [HLY] gained) were combined to form average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. We executed runs of the model for the general populations of China, India, Russia and Zambia.

RESULTS

Of the strategies considered, acute treatment of attacks with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) was by far the most cost-effective and generated a HLY for less than US$ 100. Adding educational actions increased annual costs by 1-2 US cents per capita of the population. Cost-effectiveness ratios then became slightly less favourable but still less than US$ 100 per HLY gained for ASA. An incremental cost of > US$ 10,000 would have to be paid per extra HLY by adding a triptan in a stepped-care treatment paradigm. For prophylaxis, amitriptyline was more cost-effective than propranolol or topiramate.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-management with simple analgesics was by far the most cost-effective strategy for migraine treatment in low- and middle-income countries and represents a highly efficient use of health resources. Consumer education and provider training are expected to accelerate progress towards desired levels of coverage and adherence, cost relatively little to implement, and can therefore be considered also economically attractive. Evidence-based interventions for migraine should have as much a claim on scarce health resources as those for other chronic, non-communicable conditions that impose a significant burden on societies.

Economic impact of a triptan Rx-to-OTC switch in six EU countries

INTRODUCTION

Triptans have been safely and effectively used in the management of migraine for more than fifteen years, and it seems reasonable to wonder what would be the economic impact of moving a specific triptan to OTC availability. The objective of this study was then to examine the economic impact of payer policies of a triptan Rx-to-OTC switch in six EU countries (France, UK, Spain, Italy, Germany and Poland).

METHODS

A decision model was used to model the budgetary impact of a triptan Rx-to-OTC switch from the third-party payer (TPP) and the societal perspectives, using a one-year timeframe.

RESULTS

From the TPP perspective, it is estimated that the current overall direct spending on the management of migraine attacks across the 6 EU Member States is €582 million annually, and that the savings would reach €75 million (13% of the overall direct economic burden of migraine). From the societal perspective, €86 million annually would be added.

CONCLUSIONS

Given evidence of effectiveness and safety, and given the potential savings, a triptan Rx-to-OTC switch is a reasonable public policy decision.

Public health and prevention in Europe: is it cost-effective?

Objectives

In the public debate surrounding public health and prevention, it is sometimes assumed that preventive interventions are by definition cost-effective. This paper aims to explore whether preventive pharmaceutical interventions are more cost-effective than a curative approach to diseases.

Methods

A descriptive study identified European economic evaluations in the Tufts Medical Center Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry between 2000 and 2007. Data were extracted on publication year, target population, intervention, patient sample, disease, prevention stage and incremental cost-utility ratio of each economic evaluation. Preventive interventions were defined as measures preventing disease onset. Curative interventions related to measures identifying patients with risk factors or preclinical disease or interventions limiting disability after harm has occurred. Results were expressed in terms of costs (valued in Euros at 2008 prices) per quality-adjusted life year. The association between incremental cost-utility ratios and prevention stage was examined by means of the Mann–Whitney U test.

Key findings

The analysis included 231 studies that reported information about 608 incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Preventive interventions included interventions that were more effective and less expensive than comparators (41% of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios), and interventions that improved outcomes and increased costs (59%). Both preventive and curative interventions covered the full range of cost-effectiveness results. However, preventive interventions had a significantly lower median ratio of €6255 per quality-adjusted life year and were thus more cost-effective than curative interventions (€12 917 per quality-adjusted life year) (P=0.002).

Conclusions

Although the cost-effectiveness of preventive interventions varies substantially, preventive interventions tended to be more cost-effective than curative interventions.

Economic evaluation of pharmacotherapy of migraine pain: a review of the literature

This paper reviews the economic evaluation literature on pharmacotherapy for migraine and identifies important trends and gaps in the literature. Given the tremendous economic burden of migraine and the availability of various therapies for migraine treatment, economic evaluation of alternative therapies plays a critical role in identifying the most cost-effective therapy to optimize health care resource allocation and clinical decisions. Particularly, physicians and clinical administrators are expected to take an active role in resource allocation decisions at the clinical level. Thus, it is important for them to be familiar with the economic evaluation in migraine pain management, and most importantly, methodologies of economic analyses and the associated shortcomings of published estimates. In this paper, the methodological characteristics of these studies are examined and their results are compared and interpreted. Alternative treatment and health outcome measures are defined and data sources described while methods for assessing the direct and indirect costs are explored. Directions for future research are identified and discussed.

The effect of migraine prophylaxis on migraine-related resource use and productivity

In the US, it is estimated that up to 10% of men and 25% of women, particularly those aged 25-55 years, experience debilitating migraines, such that the condition presents an enormous economic burden for patients, health systems, employers and society. Migraine headache is a particularly prevalent condition associated with major reductions in patients' quality of life. From a payer perspective, the implementation of relevant programmes of migraine prophylaxis is highly desirable. Consistent evidence exists, from several randomized, controlled studies, of the efficacy of amitriptyline, divalproex sodium, propranolol, timolol and topiramate in migraine prophylaxis. Considering resource utilization, various studies suggest that migraine prophylaxis with antiepileptics, antidepressants, beta-blockers or calcium channel antagonists markedly reduces triptan use and visits to physician offices and emergency departments (EDs), without compromising quality of care or treatment outcomes. Over recent years, the effects of topiramate in reducing resource utilization in patients with migraine have been relatively widely studied. In US claims database analyses involving >4000 patients with migraine, topiramate significantly reduced triptan use by up to 20% in the 12-month period after starting treatment. Reductions were also noted in the numbers of ED visits, diagnostic procedures, hospital admissions and migraine-related hospitalization days. These long-term benefits of topiramate manifested without any increase in overall headache-related costs. Furthermore, in detailed modelling analyses based on UK and US data, topiramate-induced savings in acute medical services were estimated to offset about one-quarter of the monthly per patient cost of the topiramate regimen, which was shown to be a dominant cost-effective intervention relative to no preventive therapy: cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated as pound 5728 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) [2005 costings] and $US10 888 per QALY (2002 costings), respectively. Overall, there is a need to improve quality of care in migraine, and prophylactic therapy appears to be an effective option, particularly with respect to decreasing resource use and improving productivity. For both health-plan payers and employers, topiramate appears to be a cost-effective intervention for preventing migraine.

Migraine frequency and health utilities: findings from a multisite survey

OBJECTIVES

Assess the relationship between migraine frequency and health utility.

METHODS

Patients aged >/=18 years diagnosed with episodic migraine were enrolled at three US sites representing varied models of health-care delivery. All subjects completed a questionnaire that included demographic and clinical information, a migraine-specific disability questionnaire, and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3). The HUI3 is a generic health status and health-related quality-of-life measure. HUI3 health status data are translated into utility scores anchored by 0 (dead) and 1 (perfect health).

RESULTS

The study enrolled 150 patients. The mean age was 44 years and 87% were female. Mean (+/-SD) monthly migraine frequency was 4.4 +/- 3.6, with 34% reporting </=2 migraines per month and 20% reporting >6 migraines per month. The mean (+/-SD) HUI3 score was 0.62 +/- 0.26. After controlling for study center, demographics, comorbidities, migraine characteristics, and level of migraine disruptiveness, migraine frequency was found to be significantly (P < 0.05) and negatively associated with HUI3 scores. Subjects with >6 migraines per month had an adjusted mean HUI3 score of 0.41; the corresponding mean for those reporting </=2 migraines per month was 0.67. Migraine frequency was positively associated with higher levels of disability for the emotion, cognition, and pain components of the HUI3.

CONCLUSIONS

Among this group of care-seeking patients, migraineurs' health utilities were inversely related to headache frequency. Although these data may not be generalizable to the entire migraine population, they may be useful in assessing the comparative cost-effectiveness of preventive migraine therapies.

Topiramate for migraine prophylaxis

Topiramate is one of several antiepileptic drugs that are used in the prevention of migraine, but the only one licensed for use in the UK. Topiramate has an extensive evidence base provided by double-blind, placebo-controlled trials to show that it is a safe, effective and well tolerated drug in the management of migraine. It has also been shown to have a role in the management of chronic migraine, which represents a challenge to primary care clinicians as well as headache specialists. Studies have demonstrated that topiramate can also be effective in preventing migraine in childhood and adolescence, although this is unlicensed in the UK. It has been shown in models both in the US and the UK to offer a cost benefit when direct and indirect costs are evaluated by reducing work loss, improving quality of life and reducing the use of increasingly scarce health resources.