Insights into real-world treatment of cluster headache through a large Italian database: prevalence, prescription patterns, and costs.

Objective: This study aimed at estimating the treated cluster headache (CH) prevalence and describing prescription patterns and direct costs paid by the Italian National-Health-System.Methods: Through the ReS database (healthcare administrative data collection of a large sample of the Italian population), adults in treatment for CH (acute therapy with sumatriptan/subcutaneous or oxygen, associated with preventive therapy with verapamil or lithium) were selected. A cross-sectional analysis described the prevalence of CH-treated subjects repeated annually in 2013-2017. A longitudinal analysis of patients selected in 2013-2015 and followed for 2 years provided the prescription patterns.Results: The annual prevalence of CH-treated patients increased from 6.4×100,000 adults in 2013 to 6.7 in 2017. In 2013-2015, 570 patients (80.7% M; mean age 46) treated for CH were found. In 50.4%, the identifying CH treatment was sumatriptan/subcutaneous+verapamil. During follow-up, >1/3 changed the preventive drug and interruption was the most frequent modification, although acute treatments were still prescribed. The mean annual cost/patient ranged from €2,956 to €2,267; pharmaceuticals expenditure represented the 56.4% and 57.3%, respectively.Conclusions: This study showed an important unmet need among CH patients, carrying a high economic burden that should be considered in the evaluation of the impact of incoming therapies (e.g. Calcitonin-Gene-Related-Peptide antibodies).

Direct and indirect costs of cluster headache: a prospective analysis in a tertiary level headache centre.

BACKGROUND: Cluster headache (CH) is the most frequent trigemino-autonomic cephalgia. CH can manifest as episodic (ECH) or chronic cluster headache (CCH) causing significant burden of disease and requiring attack therapy and prophylactic treatment. The few data available on the economic burden of CH come from retrospective studies based on questionnaires, population surveys and medical insurance claims database. Although all these studies showed an important economic burden, they provided different estimates depending on variability of CH awareness and management, healthcare systems, available therapies and use of treatments according to different guidelines. METHODS: This prospective study aimed to quantify the total direct and indirect cost of ECH and CCH over a cluster period, both for the patient and for the National Health System (NHS), using data from subjects who consecutively attended an Italian tertiary headache centre between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2018. RESULTS: A total 108 patients (89 ECH, 19 CCH) were included. Mean attack frequency was 2.3 ± 1.4 per day. Mean total cost of a CH bout was €4398 per patient and total cost of CCH was 5.4 times higher than ECH (€13,350 vs. €2487, p <  0.001). Direct costs represented the 72.1% of total cost and were covered for the 94.8% by the NHS. The costs for any item of expense were higher for CCH than for ECH (p <  0.001). Mean indirect costs for a CH bout were €1226 per patient and were higher for CCH compared to ECH (€3.538 vs. €732), but the difference was not significant. Days with reduced productive capacity impacted for the 64.6% of the total indirect costs. The analysis of the impact CH on work showed that 27%% of patients felt that CH had limited their career, 40% had changed their work pattern, 20% had changed their place of employment and 10% had lost a job due to the disease. CONCLUSION: Our results provide a valuable estimate of the direct and indirect costs of ECH and CCH in the specific setting of a tertiary headache centre and confirm the high economic impact of CH on both the NHS and patients.

Health Care Utilization and Direct Costs Among Patients Diagnosed with Cluster Headache in U.S. Health Care Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: Cluster headache (CH) is a rare trigeminal cephalalgia that is associated with extremely painful unilateral headache attacks and autonomic symptoms. Attacks may be episodic or chronic and associated with substantial suffering due to excruciating pain and limited treatment options. Frequent cluster headaches cause substantial burden for patients, resulting in reduced productivity caused by disability, as well as direct costs in some European countries. Less is known, however, about direct costs of recurring health care resource utilization (HCRU) in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To characterize HCRU and direct costs associated with CH in the United States from a third-party payer perspective. METHODS: This retrospective observational study analyzed claims data from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Research Databases from 2009-2014. Two cohorts were compared: CH (> 2 diagnostic CH claims) and controls (nonheadache patients). All patients were enrolled continuously for ± 12 months from date of first CH claim. HCRU and direct costs were examined during 12 months post-index as all-cause and CH-specific. Cost and HCRU differences were compared using propensity score-adjusted bin bootstrapping. RESULTS: CH and control cohorts comprised 6,562 and 143,761 patients (aged ≥ 18 years), respectively. Post-index, 36.9% of CH patients versus 16.2% of controls were admitted to the emergency department (ED), and 14.8% versus 6.1% were hospitalized for any reason, respectively (each P < 0.001). CH patients had a 2- to 3-fold significantly greater number of all-cause mean claims for outpatient visits (26.5 vs. 12.4 visits), hospital visits (0.2 vs. 0.1 visits), and ED visits (1.0 vs. 0.3 visits) versus controls (all P < 0.001). The mean number of all-cause visits with reported radiology and laboratory claims was 1.5- to 2.0-fold greater in CH patients versus controls (each P < 0.001). Mean total direct costs for all-cause claims were more than 2-fold greater in post-index ($16,530) for CH patients versus controls ($7,197, P < 0.0001). Similarly, mean direct all-cause costs attributable to outpatient, inpatient, and pharmacy claims were significantly (2-fold) greater; radiology and ED claims were 3- to 4-fold greater among CH patients versus controls (all P < 0.001). However, CH was cited infrequently as a reason for HCRU, indicating that comorbid conditions may substantially increase HCRU in CH patients. The most common reasons for ED admission in CH patients were gastric ulcer with hemorrhage, sub-arachnoid hemorrhage, and headache symptoms. The most common hospital discharge diagnoses for CH patients not observed in top 10 reasons in controls included cerebral artery occlusion/unspecified with cerebral infarction, headache symptoms, syncope/collapse, and diverticulitis. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that, from a payer perspective, CH patients incur significantly higher health care costs versus controls. However, these high costs were not exclusively headache-related. Extrapolating our cost findings to estimated U.S. prevalence rates, approximate total direct cost for CH is greater than $2.8 billion/year. DISCLOSURES: Eli Lilly and Company was the sole sponsor and funder for this study and was responsible for the study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation of data, and decision to publish the findings. All authors are employees and minor stockholders of Eli Lilly and Company.

Changes in medication cost observed in chronic cluster headache patients treated with sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) stimulation: Analysis based on 1-year data from the Pathway R-1 Registry.

Background On-demand stimulation of the sphenopalatine ganglion (SPG) by means of an implantable neurostimulation system has been shown to be a safe and effective therapy for treatment-refractory cluster headache patients. Our objective was to estimate changes in cluster headache medication cost observed in SPG-treated chronic patients. Methods Detailed patient-level data of 71 chronic patients treated with the Pulsante® SPG Microstimulator System were available from the Pathway R-1 Registry through 12 months' follow-up. We used utilization data of preventive and acute medications reported at baseline, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months to estimate annualized drug costs for SPG-treated patients and compared it to baseline. Cost estimates for all drug/dosage combinations were developed based on German medication prices for 2016. Results In the base case analysis, mean annual acute and preventive medication costs decreased from €14,178 to €6924 (-€7254; -51%), and €559 to €328 (-€231; -41%), respectively, leading to total estimated annual drug cost savings of €7484, 97% of which were attributable to acute medications. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that SPG stimulation for the treatment of chronic cluster headache is associated with pronounced reductions in cluster headache medication usage that might lead to sizable annual savings in medication costs.

Societal burden of cluster headache in the United States: a descriptive economic analysis.

AIM: To estimate direct and indirect costs in patients with a diagnosis of cluster headache in the US. METHODS: Adult patients (18-64 years of age) enrolled in the Marketscan Commercial and Medicare Databases with ≥2 non-diagnostic outpatient (≥30 days apart between the two outpatient claims) or ≥1 inpatient diagnoses of cluster headache (ICD-9-CM code 339.00, 339.01, or 339.02) between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2014, were included in the analyses. Patients had ≥6 months of continuous enrollment with medical and pharmacy coverage before and after the index date (first cluster headache diagnosis). Three outcomes were evaluated: (1) healthcare resource utilization, (2) direct healthcare costs, and (3) indirect costs associated with work days lost due to absenteeism and short-term disability. Direct costs included costs of all-cause and cluster headache-related outpatient, inpatient hospitalization, surgery, and pharmacy claims. Indirect costs were based on an average daily wage, which was estimated from the 2014 US Bureau of Labor Statistics and inflated to 2015 dollars. RESULTS: There were 9,328 patients with cluster headache claims included in the analysis. Cluster headache-related total direct costs (mean [standard deviation]) were $3,132 [$13,396] per patient per year (PPPY), accounting for 17.8% of the all-cause total direct cost. Cluster headache-related inpatient hospitalizations ($1,604) and pharmacy ($809) together ($2,413) contributed over 75% of the cluster headache-related direct healthcare cost. There were three sub-groups of patients with claims associated with indirect costs that included absenteeism, short-term disability, and absenteeism + short-term disability. Indirect costs PPPY were $4,928 [$4,860] for absenteeism, $803 [$2,621] for short-term disability, and $3,374 [$3,198] for absenteeism + disability. CONCLUSION: Patients with cluster headache have high healthcare costs that are associated with inpatient admissions and pharmacy fulfillments, and high indirect costs associated with absenteeism and short-term disability.

Real-world health plan claims analysis of differences in healthcare utilization and total cost in patients suffering from cluster headaches and those without headache-related conditions.

BACKGROUND: According to the World Health Organization, headache disorders are underappreciated by many health systems. These disorders have a substantial impact on quality of life, yet the true correlation between headache conditions and increased total healthcare utilization is not well understood. This study further explores the impact of headache conditions on healthcare utilization. OBJECTIVES: To assess differences in healthcare utilization and total cost in patients suffering from cluster headaches (CH) compared with patients without headache-related conditions. METHODS: Medical and pharmacy claims data from 4 regional health plans were used to evaluate differences in healthcare utilization and cost in patients with a diagnosis code for CH (chronic, episodic, or unspecified) from International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification or International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification compared with a control group of patients without headache-related conditions. Qualifying patients were aged at least 18 years and continuously eligible for their health plan for 3 consecutive years during the study period (January 1, 2009-December 31, 2015). The first date with a diagnosis of CH was considered the index date and the subsequent 3 years of claims data were used for this retrospective analysis. The CH cohort was matched with controls using propensity score matching. Differences between cohorts (CH vs control) were assessed with t test or Fisher's exact test as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 4174 patients with diagnosis codes for CH met the study criteria and were matched 1:1 with controls (gender: 48% male; mean age: 47 years; mean Charlson Comorbidity Index score: 0.30). Mean medical costs per patient in the CH cohort during the 3-year measurement period were 155% higher than those of the control group ($25,805 vs $10,140, respectively). Unique encounters and cost per patient by medical services type for the CH cohort compared with the control group were as follows (encounters [costs]): emergency department: 2151 ($1986) versus 962 ($1268); hospital inpatient: 900 ($7312) versus 253 ($8528); hospital outpatient: 3422 ($12,459) versus 2141 ($7644); physician office: 4113 ($7379) versus 4089 ($3672); home infusion/specialty medications: 817 ($4977) versus 427 ($1720). Visit counts per patient were significantly higher for CH patients in all categories. Mean pharmacy costs per patient for the CH cohort were more than double that of the control group ($9197 vs $4368), with these patients 2.3 times as likely to fill a prescription for an opioid. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this analysis show that CH patients utilize healthcare resources at a significantly higher rate and cost the healthcare system significantly more than similar patients without headache-related conditions. There is an unmet need for new treatment modalities in this patient population to improve outcomes and contain cost.

Prescribing Oxygen for Cluster Headache: A Guide for the Provider.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen is the standard of care for acute treatment of cluster headache. CMS, the US Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, has made the indefensible decision to not cover oxygen for cluster headache for patients with Medicaid and Medicare insurance, despite the evidence and professional guidelines. Commercial insurance generally covers oxygen for cluster headache. OBJECTIVE: This is a "how-to" guide for successfully prescribing oxygen in the US. SUMMARY: Prescription information is provided that can be incorporated as dot phrases, smart sets, or other standard templates for prescribing oxygen for cluster patients. In many states, oxygen is affordable and can be prescribed for Medicaid and Medicare patients who wish to pay cash. Welding or nonmedical grade industrial oxygen is almost the same cost as medical oxygen. However, it is less pure, lacks the same inspection of tanks, and is delivered without regulators to provide appropriate flow rates. Patients who pay cash should be strongly encouraged to buy medical oxygen.

Economics of Inhaled Oxygen Use as an Acute Therapy for Cluster Headache in the United States of America.

BACKGROUND: Cluster headache (CH) is a primary headache disorder associated with low levels of diagnosis and high unmet medical need. The pain attacks, associated anxiety, and fear in anticipation of the attacks are extremely debilitating to a patient with CH. For acute therapy, treatment guidelines recommend inhalation of high flow oxygen during the period of an attack. However, the use of oxygen for treatment of CH remains largely underutilized. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of the study, which covered each of the US states, were to map the current market landscape of medical grade oxygen for use in CH and to develop a cost simulator based on a patient's needs and geography. METHODS: Desk research was undertaken to obtain price lists and product catalogs from wholesale and retail suppliers of medical grade oxygen across all US states. Base case scenarios for chronic and episodic forms of CH were assumed. A cost simulator was used to calculate the cost of oxygen use using inputs including the state in USA, tank size and price, exacerbations per year, duration of exacerbation, attacks per day, flow rate and duration of flow. Information was also collected to determine if healthcare insurers covered the costs of home oxygen use for CH. RESULTS: Out of the 42 US states where pricing information of medical grade oxygen was available from suppliers, in 38 states the annual cost of high-flow oxygen for a patient with episodic CH was estimated to be <$1000. In 39 states, the annual cost of high-flow oxygen for a patient with chronic CH was estimated to be <$5000. Most of the home oxygen suppliers were familiar with CH and stocked the special non-rebreather masks and regulators necessary for this condition. It was found that many of the private commercial healthcare insurance providers reimbursed the cost of oxygen use for CH. However, the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) maintains there is insufficient evidence for coverage and continues to deny coverage for US Medicare and Medicaid patients. CONCLUSIONS: Results from our study showed that the current costs for oxygen use as an acute therapy in CH are not prohibitively expensive for patients and healthcare insurance providers. Apart from CMS, many insurers do reimburse the cost of oxygen use for CH. Our study suggests that further research is needed to determine if a lack of physician awareness about treatments and ways to prescribe are barriers for patients to access the high-flow oxygen treatment.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic cluster headache.

BACKGROUND: Cluster headache (CH) is a debilitating condition that is generally associated with substantial health care costs. Few therapies are approved for abortive or prophylactic treatment. Results from the prospective, randomised, open-label PREVA study suggested that adjunctive treatment with a novel non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) device led to decreased attack frequency and abortive medication use in patients with chronic CH (cCH). Herein, we evaluate whether nVNS is cost-effective compared with the current standard of care (SoC) for cCH. METHODS: A pharmacoeconomic model from the German statutory health insurance perspective was developed to estimate the 1-year cost-effectiveness of nVNS + SoC (versus SoC alone) using data from PREVA. Short-term treatment response data were taken from the clinical trial; longer-term response was modelled under scenarios of response maintenance, constant rate of response loss, and diminishing rate of response loss. Health-related quality of life was estimated by modelling EQ-5D™ data from PREVA; benefits were defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Abortive medication use data from PREVA, along with costs for the nVNS device and abortive therapies (i.e. intranasal zolmitriptan, subcutaneous sumatriptan, and inhaled oxygen), were used to assess health care costs in the German setting. RESULTS: The analysis resulted in mean expected yearly costs of €7096.69 for nVNS + SoC and €7511.35 for SoC alone and mean QALY of 0.607 for nVNS + SoC and 0.522 for SoC alone, suggesting that nVNS generates greater health benefits for lower overall cost. Abortive medication costs were 23 % lower with nVNS + SoC than with SoC alone. In the alternative scenarios (i.e. constant rate of response loss and diminishing rate of response loss), nVNS + SoC was more effective and cost saving than SoC alone. CONCLUSIONS: In all scenarios modelled from a German perspective, nVNS was cost-effective compared with current SoC, which suggests that adjunctive nVNS therapy provides economic benefits in the treatment of cCH. Notably, the current analysis included only costs associated with abortive treatments. Treatment with nVNS will likely promote further economic benefit when other potential sources of cost savings (e.g. reduced frequency of clinic visits) are considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01701245 , 03OCT2012.

Occipital nerve stimulation for intractable chronic cluster headache or migraine: a critical analysis of direct treatment costs and complications.

BACKGROUND: Occipital nerve stimulation (ONS) has been shown to be effective for selected patients with intractable headache disorders. We performed a prospective critical evaluation of complications and direct treatment costs. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with chronic cluster headache (CCH, N = 24) or chronic migraine (CM, N = 3) underwent a trial phase with bilateral ONS and subsequent implantation of a permanent generator (IPG), if responsive to treatment according to predefined criteria. Procedural and long-term complications as well as direct treatment costs of neuromodulation therapy of ONS were recorded over a mean follow-up period of 20 months (range 5-47 months). RESULTS: Twenty-five of 27 patients (93%) responded to treatment. Twenty-one complications in 14 patients were identified, necessitating reoperation in 13 cases. Overall treatment costs were €761,043, including hardware-related costs of €506,019, costs for primary hospital care of €210,496, and complications related to hospitalization costs of €44,528. This results in a per case-based cost of €9445 for hospitalization and €18,741 for hardware costs, totaling €28,186. CONCLUSION: ONS for treatment of refractory CCH and CM is a cost-intensive treatment option with a significant complication rate. Nevertheless, patients with refractory primary headache disorders may experience substantial relief of pain attacks, and headache days, respectively.

Treatment costs and indirect costs of cluster headache: A health economics analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cluster headache (CH) is the most frequent trigemino-autonomic cephalgia. CH can manifest as episodic (eCH) or chronic cluster headache (cCH) causing significant burden of disease and requiring attack therapy and prophylactic treatment. METHODS: Treatment costs (direct costs) due to healthcare utilisation, as well as costs caused by disability and reduction in earning capacity (indirect costs), were obtained using a questionnaire in CH patients treated in a tertiary headache centre based at the University Duisburg-Essen over a 6-month period. RESULTS: A total 179 patients (72 cCH, 107 eCH) were included. Mean attack frequency was 3.5 ± 2.5 per day. Mean direct and indirect costs for one person were €5963 in the 6-month period. Direct costs were positively correlated with attack frequency (r = 0.467, p < 0.001). Burden of disease measured with HIT-6 showed a significant correlation with attack frequency (r = 0.467, p < 0.001). Twenty-four (13.4%) of the participants were disabled and not able to work. CONCLUSION: CH leads to major socioeconomic impact on patients as well as society due to direct healthcare costs and indirect costs caused by loss of working capacity.

[Chronic cluster headache : how much does treatment cost?]. / Chronischer Clusterkopfschmerz : Was kostet die Behandlung?

Chronic cluster headache is a devastating pain condition where invasive methods such as occipital or deep brain stimulation are discussed when the condition is medically intractable. These methods are expensive but may well be economically reasonable if medications such as triptans can be reduced. However, little is known about how much a cluster headache costs, even if only primary parameters such as costs of medication, doctors and diagnostics are considered. We describe a patient with a secondary chronic cluster headache who over the course of 10 years prospectively recorded every single attack as well as all expenses for his condition. In these 10 years he suffered a total of 5,447 attacks and the overall medical expenses amounted to 60,667 EUR, the predominant part of which was caused by costs due to the cluster headache itself (47,030 EUR, 77.5%). The inhalation of oxygen accounted for the lion's share.

Costs of hypothalamic stimulation in chronic drug-resistant cluster headache: preliminary data.

In about 20% of chronic cluster headache (CH) cases, drugs may become ineffective. Under these circumstances, steroids and triptans are frequently employed leading to fearful side effects in one and high costs in the other. The direct costs of drug-resistant chronic CH are mainly due to frequent medical consultations and frequent use of expensive drugs. In recent years, hypothalamic stimulation has been employed to treat drug-resistant chronic CH patients suffering multiple daily attacks and long-term results from different centres show a 60% overall benefit. Nine years since the introduction of this technique, we attempt a preliminary analysis of the direct costs of hypothalamic stimulation based on patients treated at our centre. We estimated the following direct costs as follows: cost of neurosurgery plus cost of equipment (electrode, connection and impulse generator = 25,000 euro), cost of hospital admissions in long-term follow-up (2,000 euro per admission), cost of single sumatriptan injection (25 euro). Number of daily sumatriptan injections in the year before and for each year after hypothalamic implantation was obtained from headache diaries. To estimate the saving due to the reduction in sumatriptan consumption following hypothalamic stimulation, we calculated the following for each year of follow-up after surgery: number of sumatriptan injections in the year before surgery minus number of sumatriptan injections in each year, updated to December 2008. In our 19 implanted patients, the costs of neurosurgery plus cost of equipment were 475,000 euro; the costs of hospital admissions during follow up were 250,000 euro. Reduction in sumatriptan consumption resulted in a total saving of 3,573,125 euro. Hence, in our 19 patients, the sumatriptan saving (3,573,125 euro) minus the direct costs due to operation and follow up hospitalisations (475,000 + 250,000) euro is equal to 2,848,125 euro. These preliminary results indicate that hypothalamic stimulation is associated with marked reduction of direct costs in the management of complete drug-resistant chronic CH.

Deep brain stimulation for cluster headache.

Cluster headache is a severely debilitating disorder that can remain unrelieved by current pharmacotherapy. Alongside ablative neurosurgical procedures, neuromodulatory treatments of deep brain stimulation (DBS) and occipital nerve simulation have emerged in the last few years as effective treatments for medically refractory cluster headaches. Pioneers in the field have sought to publish guidelines for neurosurgical treatment; however, only small case series with limited long-term follow-up have been published. Controversy remains over which surgical treatments are best and in which circumstances to intervene. Here we review current data on neurosurgical interventions for chronic cluster headache focusing upon DBS and occipital nerve stimulation, and discuss the indications for and putative mechanisms of DBS including translational insights from functional neuroimaging, diffusion weighted tractography, magnetoencephalography and invasive neurophysiology.

Why prescribe short-burst oxygen?

In previous reviews of domiciliary oxygen therapy, we have commented on the lack of evidence to justify use of short-burst oxygen therapy, which is expensive and can be difficult to withdraw from patients once they are established on it. For these reasons, we concluded that short-burst oxygen therapy should not be started without objective evidence of benefit for the individual patient, and its use should be under the supervision of a specialist. In February 2006, the supply process for all forms of home oxygen in England and Wales was changed, with the aim of giving patients more appropriate treatment through proper clinical assessment and correct ordering and monitoring of oxygen therapy. Here we reassess the role of short-burst oxygen therapy within these new supply arrangements.

Sumatriptan. An updated review of its use in migraine.

UNLABELLED: Sumatriptan is a selective agonist at serotonin 5-HT1-like receptors, including 5-HT1B/1D subtypes. It is an effective treatment for acute migraine attacks and the injectable form has also shown efficacy in the treatment of cluster headaches. In placebo-controlled clinical trials, sumatriptan, administered subcutaneously, orally, intranasally or rectally was significantly more effective than placebo in relieving migraine headache and in producing resolution or reduction of other symptoms associated with migraine, including nausea, photophobia and phonophobia. Improvements in clinical disability were also significantly greater after sumatriptan than after placebo. Headache recurred in 21 to 57% of patients who received oral or subcutaneous sumatriptan, but most patients responded to a second dose of the drug. Results of comparative trials showed that subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg was significantly more effective than either patients' usual antimigraine treatments or intranasal dihydroergotamine mesylate 1 mg in relieving migraine headache. Subcutaneous sumatriptan 6 mg and subcutaneous dihydroergotamine mesylate 1 mg provided similarly effective migraine relief, but the headache recurrence rate was significantly higher after sumatriptan than after this formulation of dihydroergotamine mesylate. Response rates achieved after oral sumatriptan were similar to those reported after treatment with oral naratriptan, rizatriptan or lysine acetylsalicylate plus metoclopramide. Treatment of acute migraine attacks with oral or subcutaneous sumatriptan leads to less loss of workplace productivity than other antimigraine therapies. Several pharmacoeconomic analyses showed that gains in workplace productivity in sumatriptan recipients ranged from 12.1 to 89.8 hours per patient per year. Significant improvements from baseline in overall health-related quality-of-life scores were also experienced by sumatriptan recipients. Sumatriptan is generally well tolerated. Nausea, vomiting, malaise and fatigue are the most common adverse events with oral sumatriptan. Injection site reactions occur in 10 to 40% of patients receiving the drug subcutaneously. A bitter taste at the back of the mouth occurs frequently after intranasal administration. Serious adverse events occur in about 0.14% of patients with migraine treated with sumatriptan. As the drug is associated with the rare development of cardiovascular effects, it is contraindicated in patients with a history of cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: Despite its relatively high acquisition cost, reductions in lost workplace productivity experienced by patients treated with sumatriptan may result in savings in the overall cost of migraine to society. Thus, sumatriptan is a useful first- or second-line treatment option for patients with moderate or severe migraine.