Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cost-effectiveness analysis of early versus non-early intervention in acute migraine based on evidence from the ‘Act when Mild’ study

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

In spite of the important progress made in the abortive treatment of acute migraine episodes since the introduction of triptans, reduction of pain and associated symptoms is in many cases still not as effective nor as fast as would be desirable. Recent research pays more attention to the timing of the treatment, and taking triptans early in the course of an attack when pain is still mild has been found more efficacious than the usual strategy of waiting for the attack to develop to a higher pain intensity level.

Objective

To investigate the cost effectiveness of early versus non-early intervention with almotriptan in acute migraine.

Methods

An economic evaluation was conducted from the perspectives of French society and the French public health system based on patient-level data collected in the AwM (Act when Mild) study, a placebo-controlled trial that compared the response to early and non-early treatment of acute migraine with almotriptan. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were determined in terms of QALYs, migraine hours and productive time lost. Costs were expressed in Euros (year 2010 values). Bootstrapping was used to derive cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

Results

Early treatment has shown to lead to shorter attack duration, less productive time lost, better quality of life, and is, with 92% probability, overall cost saving from a societal point of view. In terms of drug costs only, however, non-early treatment is less expensive. From the public health system perspective, the (bootstrap) mean ICER of early treatment amounts to €0.38 per migraine hour avoided, €1.29 per hour of productive time lost avoided, and €14296 per QALY gained. Considering willingness-to-pay values of approximately €1 to avoid an hour of migraine, €10 to avoid the loss of a productive hour, or €30 000 to gain one QALY, the approximate probability that early treatment is cost effective is 90%, 90% and 70%, respectively. These results remain robust in different scenarios for the major elements of the economic evaluation.

Conclusions

Compared with non-early treatment, a strategy of early treatment of acute migraine with almotriptan when pain is still mild is, with high probability, cost saving from the French societal perspective and can be considered cost effective from the public health system point of view.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Fig. 1
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. World Health Organization. The global burden of disease. 2004 update. Geneva, 2008. Available from URL: http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GBD_report_2004update_full.pdf [Accessed 2011 Jan 4]

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sheffield RE. Migraine prevalence: a literature review. Headache 1998; 38: 595–601

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Simon D. Medical consultation for migraine: results from the American Migraine Study. Headache 1998; 38: 87–96

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hazard E, Munakata J, Bigal ME, et al. The burden of migraine in the United States: current and emerging perspectives on disease management and economic analysis. Value Health 2009; 12: 55–64

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Andlin-Sobocki P, Jöhnsson B, Wittchen H, et al. Cost of disorders of the brain in Europe. Eur J Neurol 2005; 12 Suppl. 1: 1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lipton RB, Stewart WF, von Korff M. Burden of migraine: societal costs and therapeutic opportunities. Neurology 1997; 48: S4–9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fishman P, Black L. Indirect costs of migraine in a managed care population. Cephalalgia 1999; 19: 50–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lambert J, Carides GW, Meloche JP, et al. Impact of migraine symptoms on health care use and work loss in Canada in patients randomly assigned in a phase III clinical trial. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 9: 158–64

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Dahlof CGH. Measuring disability and quality of life. Drugs Today 2003; 39 Suppl. D: 17–23

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dodick DW. Acute and prophylactic management of migraine. Clin Cornerstone 2001; 4: 36–52

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ferrari MD, Roon KI, Lipton RB, et al. Oral triptans (serotonin 5-HT1B/1D agonists) in acute migraine treatment: a meta-analysis of 53 trials. Lancet 2001; 358: 1668–75

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ferrari MD, Goadsby PJ, Roon KI, et al. Triptans (serotonin, 5-HT1B/1D agonists) in migraine: detailed results and methods of a meta-analysis of 53 trials. Cephalalgia 2002; 22: 633–58

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Evers S, Áfra J, Frese A, et al. EFNS guideline on the drug treatment of migraine- revised report of an EFNS task force. Eur JNeurol 2009; 16: 968–81

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Goadsby PJ. The ‘Act when Mild’ (AwM) Study: a step forward in our understanding of early treatment in acute migraine. Cephalalgia 2008; 28 Suppl. 2: 36–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Tfelt-Hansen P, Block G, Dahlöf C, et al. Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine: second edition. Cephalalgia 2000; 20: 765–86

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cady RK, Sheftell F, Lipton RB, et al. Effect of early intervention with sumatriptan on migraine pain: retrospective analyses of data from three clinical trials. Clin Ther 2000; 22: 1035–48

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pascual J, Láinez JM, Leira R, et al. Almotriptan in the treatment of migraine attacks in clinical practice: results of the TEA 2000 observational study. Neurologia 2003; 18: 7–17

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Láinez MJ. Clinical benefits of early triptan therapy for migraine. Cephalalgia 2004; 24 Suppl. 2: 24–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Tranche Iparraguirre S, Martínez Eizaguirre JM, Galván Cervera J, et al. Tolerance to almotriptan and its effectiveness in primary care. Aten Primaria 2005; 35: 52–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Klapper J, Lucas C, Rosjo O, et al. Benefits of treating highly disabled migraine patients with zolmitriptan while pain is mild. Cephalalgia 2004; 24: 918–24

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cady R, Martin V, Mauskop A, et al. Efficacy of rizatriptan 10 mg administered early in a migraine attack. Headache 2006; 46: 914–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lantéri-Minet M, Mick G, Allaf B. Early dosing and efficacy of triptans in acute migraine treatment: The TEMPO study. Cephalalgia. Epub 2012 Jan 10

    Google Scholar 

  23. Freitag FG, Finlayson G, Rapoport AM, et al. Effect of pain intensity and time to administration on responsiveness to almotriptan: results from AXERT 12.5 mg Time Versus Intensity Migraine Study (AIMS). Headache 2007; 47: 519–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mathew NT, Finlayson G, Smith TR, et al. Early intervention with almotriptan: results of the AEGIS trial (AXERT® Early Migraine Intervention Study). Headache 2007; 47: 189–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Freitag FG, Smith T, Mathew N, et al. Effect of early intervention with almotriptan vs placebo on migraine associated functional disability: results from the AEGIS Trial. Headache 2008; 48: 341–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Goadsby PJ, Zanchin G, Geraud G, et al. Early vs. non-early intervention in acute migraine -’Act when Mild (AwM)’: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of almotriptan. Cephalalgia 2008; 28: 383–91

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lantéri-Minet M, Diaz-Insa S, Leone M, et al. Efficacy of almotriptan in early intervention for treatment of acute migraine in a primary care setting: the START study. Int J Clin Pract 2010; 64: 936–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Dodick DW. Applying the benefits of the AwM Study in the clinic. Cephalalgia 2008; 28 Suppl. 2: 42–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Valade D. Early treatment of acute migraine: new evidence of benefits. Cephalalgia 2009; 29 Suppl. 3: 15–21

    Google Scholar 

  30. Linde M, Mellberg A, Dahlöf C. The natural course of migraine attacks: a prospective analysis of untreated attacks compared with attacks treated with a triptan. Cephalalgia 2006; 26: 712–21

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. El Hasnaoui A, Vray M, Blin P, et al. Assessment of migraine severity using the MIGSEV scale: relationship to migraine features and quality of life. Cephalalgia 2004; 24: 262–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ng-Mak DS, Cady R, Chen Y, et al. Can migraineurs accurately identify their headaches as “migraine” at attack onset? Headache 2007; 47: 645–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Gendolla A. Early treatment in migraine: how strong is the current evidence? Cephalalgia 2008; 28 Suppl. 2: 28–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. The international classification of headache disorders, 2nd edition. Cephalalgia 2004; 24 Suppl. 1: 1–160

    Google Scholar 

  35. VIDAL. Fiches médicaments [online]. Available from URL: http://www.vidal.fr/fiches-medicaments/ [Accessed 2010 Dec 12]

  36. EUROSTAT. Hourly labour costs — Nace Rev. 2. [online]. Available from URL: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/search_database#/ [Accessed 2011 Mar 18]

  37. Briggs AH, Wonderling DE, Mooney CZ. Pulling cost-effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: a non-parametric approach to confidence interval estimation. Health Econ 1997; 6: 327–40

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Yu J, Goodman MJ, Oderda GM. Economic evaluation of pharmacotherapy of migraine pain: a review of the literature. J Pain Palliat Care Pharmacother 2009; 23: 396–408

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cady RK, Sheftell F, Lipton RB, et al. Economic implications of early treatment of migraine with sumatriptan tablets. Clin Ther 2001; 23: 284–91

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Halpern MT, Lipton RB, Cady RK, et al. Costs and outcomes of early versus delayed treatment with sumatriptan. Headache 2002; 42: 984–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Kwong WJ, Taylor FR, Adelman JU. The effect of early intervention with sumatriptan tablets on migraine-associated productivity loss. J Occup Environ Med 2005; 47: 1167–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Freitag FG. Pharmacoeconomic benefits of almotriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. Expert Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2008; 8: 105–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Martin BC, Pathak DS, Sharfman MI, et al. Validity and reliability of the migraine-specific quality of life questionnaire (MSQ Version 2.1). Headache 2000; 40: 204–15

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Wagner TH, Patrick DL, Galer BS, et al. A new instrument to assess the long-term quality of life effects from migraine: development and psychometric testing of the MSQOL. Headache 1996; 36: 484–92

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Dowson AJ, et al. Development and testing of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) Questionnaire to assess headache-related disability. Neurology 2001; 56 Suppl. 1:S20–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, Bjorner JB, et al. A six-item short-form survey for measuring headache impact: the HIT-6. Qual Life Res 2003; 12: 963–74

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bala MV, Zarkin GA. Are QALYs an appropriate measure for valuing morbidity in acute diseases? Health Econ 2000; 9: 177–80

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Evans KW, Boan JA, Evans JL, et al. Economic evaluation of oral sumatriptan compared with caffeine/ergotamine for migraine. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12: 565–77

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zhang L, Hay JW. Cost-effectiveness analysis of rizatriptan and sumatriptan versus Cafergot® in the acute treatment of migraine. CNS Drugs 2005; 19: 635–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Slof J, Láinez JM, Comas A, et al. Almotriptan vs. ergotamine plus caffeine for acute migraine treatment: a cost-efficacy analysis. Neurología 2009; 24: 147–53

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kaplan R, Anderson JP. A general health policy model: update and applications. Health Serv Res 1988; 23: 203–35

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Ferrari MD. Should we advise patients to treat migraine attacks early? Cephalalgia 2004; 24: 915–7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Bendtsen L, Mattsson P, Zwart J, et al. Placebo response in clinical randomized trials of analgesics in migraine. Cephalalgia 2003; 23: 487–90

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Jacob-Tacken KH, Koopmanschap MA, Meerding WJ, et al. Correcting for compensating mechanisms related to productivity costs in economic evaluations of health care programmes. Health Econ 2005; 14: 435–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Brandes JL, Kudrow D, Cady R, et al. Eletriptan in the early treatment of acute migraine: influence of pain intensity and time of dosing. Cephalalgia 2005; 25: 735–42

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was sponsored by Almirall. The author has no other potential conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departament d’Economia de l’Empresa, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Campus de la UAB - Edifici B, 08193, Bellaterra, Spain

    John Slof

Authors
  1. John Slof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Slof.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

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 10, 201–215 (2012). https://doi.org/10.2165/11630890-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11630890-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation