Theodoros V Giannouchos1,2, Dimos-Dimitrios Mitsikostas3, Robert L Ohsfeldt4,5, Athanassios Vozikis6, Paraskevi Koufopoulou6,7. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, 212 Adriance Lab Rd, College Station, TX, 77843, USA. tgiannouchos@tamu.edu. 2. Population Informatics Lab, Texas A&M University, 212 Adriance Lab Rd, College Station, TX, 77843, USA. tgiannouchos@tamu.edu. 3. First Neurology Department, Aeginition Hospital, School of Medicine, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 75 Mikras Asias Str., Goudi (2nd Floor), 11527, Athens, Greece. 4. Department of Health Policy and Management, School of Public Health, Texas A&M University, 212 Adriance Lab Rd, College Station, TX, 77843, USA. 5. Population Informatics Lab, Texas A&M University, 212 Adriance Lab Rd, College Station, TX, 77843, USA. 6. Laboratory of Health Economics and Management, Economics Department, University of Piraeus, Karaoli ke Dimitriou 80, 185 34, Pireas, Greece. 7. KAT General Hospital of Attica, Nikis 2, 145 61, Kifisia, Greece.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: H C Diener; D W Dodick; S K Aurora; C C Turkel; R E DeGryse; R B Lipton; S D Silberstein; M F Brin Journal: Cephalalgia Date: 2010-03-17 Impact factor: 6.292
Authors: Stephen H Landy; M Chris Runken; Christopher F Bell; Rachel L Higbie; Lisa S Haskins Journal: J Occup Environ Med Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 2.162
Authors: Daniel Serrano; Aubrey N Manack; Michael L Reed; Dawn C Buse; Sepideh F Varon; Richard B Lipton Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Eric G Campbell; Russell L Gruen; James Mountford; Lawrence G Miller; Paul D Cleary; David Blumenthal Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-04-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elliot Marseille; Bruce Larson; Dhruv S Kazi; James G Kahn; Sydney Rosen Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: H C Maltezou; T V Giannouchos; A Pavli; P Tsonou; X Dedoukou; M Tseroni; K Papadima; D Hatzigeorgiou; N V Sipsas; K Souliotis Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: Hans Christoph Diener; Messoud Ashina; Isabelle Durand-Zaleski; Tobias Kurth; Michel Lantéri-Minet; Richard B Lipton; Daniel A Ollendorf; Patricia Pozo-Rosich; Cristina Tassorelli; Gisela Terwindt Journal: Cephalalgia Date: 2021-01-20 Impact factor: 6.292