Matteo Ruggeri1,2,3, Carlo Drago4, Francesco Rosiello5, Valentina Orlando6, Costanza Santori7. 1. National Center for HTA, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Via Giano della Bella 34, 00162, Rome, Italy. matteo.ruggeri@iss.it. 2. St. Camillus International University of Health Sciences, Rome, Italy. matteo.ruggeri@iss.it. 3. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy. matteo.ruggeri@iss.it. 4. Università "Niccolò Cusano", Rome, Italy. 5. Università degli Studi di Roma "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy. 6. Università degli Studi "Federico II", Naples, Italy. 7. Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
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.
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.
Authors: Seymour Diamond; Marcelo E Bigal; Stephen Silberstein; Elizabeth Loder; Michael Reed; Richard B Lipton Journal: Headache Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 5.887
Authors: Richard B Lipton; Alan Brennan; Stephen Palmer; Anthony J Hatswell; Joshua K Porter; Sandhya Sapra; Guillermo Villa; Neel Shah; Stewart Tepper; David Dodick Journal: J Med Econ Date: 2018-04-03 Impact factor: 2.448