BACKGROUND: Common treatments for chronic migraine headaches include injection of corticosteroid and anesthetic agents at local trigger sites. However, the effects of therapy are short term, and lifelong treatment is often necessary. In contrast, surgical decompression of migraine trigger sites accomplishes the same goal yet demonstrates successful long-term elimination of chronic migraines. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to perform a cost-utility analysis to determine which patients would benefit most from available treatment options in a cost-conscious model. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed, taking into consideration costs, probabilities, and health state utility scores of various interventions. RESULTS: Injection therapy offered a minor improvement in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with surgical decompression (QALY Δ = 0.6). However, long-term injection therapy was significantly costlier to society than surgical decompression: injection treatment was estimated to cost $106,887.96 more than surgery. The results of our cost-utility analysis thus conferred a positive incremental cost-utility ratio of $178,163.27 in favor of surgical decompression. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery provides a durable intervention and has been shown in this study to be extremely cost effective despite a very minor QALY deficit compared with injection therapy. If patients are identified who require treatment in the form of injections for less than 8.25 years, they may fall into a group that should not be offered surgery.
BACKGROUND: Common treatments for chronic migraine headaches include injection of corticosteroid and anesthetic agents at local trigger sites. However, the effects of therapy are short term, and lifelong treatment is often necessary. In contrast, surgical decompression of migraine trigger sites accomplishes the same goal yet demonstrates successful long-term elimination of chronic migraines. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to perform a cost-utility analysis to determine which patients would benefit most from available treatment options in a cost-conscious model. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis was performed, taking into consideration costs, probabilities, and health state utility scores of various interventions. RESULTS: Injection therapy offered a minor improvement in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with surgical decompression (QALY Δ = 0.6). However, long-term injection therapy was significantly costlier to society than surgical decompression: injection treatment was estimated to cost $106,887.96 more than surgery. The results of our cost-utility analysis thus conferred a positive incremental cost-utility ratio of $178,163.27 in favor of surgical decompression. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery provides a durable intervention and has been shown in this study to be extremely cost effective despite a very minor QALY deficit compared with injection therapy. If patients are identified who require treatment in the form of injections for less than 8.25 years, they may fall into a group that should not be offered surgery.