RESUMO
Background: For novel migraine therapies, economic evaluations will be required to understand the trade-offs between additional health benefit and additional cost. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review (SLR) to identify previous economic evaluations in migraine from the United Kingdom or Irish perspective to critically appraise these evaluations and to propose, if necessary, a novel modelling approach that can be used for future economic evaluations of migraine therapies.Methods: An SLR was conducted to identify previous economic evaluations of preventive migraine treatments. Key opinion leaders were consulted to determine the criteria for a robust migraine economic evaluation. Economic evaluations identified in the SLR were appraised against these criteria, and a novel cost-effectiveness model structure was then proposed.Results: Eight records reporting on published economic evaluations were identified and critically appraised for general quality. Expert consultation provided 6 recommendations on the ideal model structure for migraine that is both clinically and economically meaningful. A decision-tree plus Markov structure was then developed as a cost-effectiveness model for migraine therapies where each health state is associated with a patient distribution across monthly migraine day (MMD) frequencies.Conclusions: Future migraine economic evaluations should allow for assessments across the full spectrum of migraine, a response-based stopping rule, and the estimation of benefits and resource costs based on MMD frequency. The approach proposed in this paper captures all of the desired elements for an economic evaluation of migraine therapy and is suitable to assess new migraine therapies.
Assuntos
Transtornos de Enxaqueca/tratamento farmacológico , Transtornos de Enxaqueca/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Recursos em Saúde/economia , Serviços de Saúde/economia , Nível de Saúde , Humanos , Irlanda , Cadeias de Markov , Modelos Econômicos , Aceitação pelo Paciente de Cuidados de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade de Vida , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Reino UnidoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To describe the impact of omalizumab on asthma management in patients treated as part of normal clinical practice in the UK National Health Service (NHS). DESIGN: A non-interventional, mixed methodology study, combining retrospective and prospective data collection for 12â months pre-omalizumab and post-omalizumab initiation, respectively. SETTING: Data were collected in 22 UK NHS centres, including specialist centres and district general hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 258 adult patients (aged ≥16â years; 65% women) with severe persistent allergic asthma treated with omalizumab were recruited, of whom 218 (84.5%) completed the study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was change in mean daily dose of oral corticosteroids (OCS) between the 12-month pre-omalizumab and post-omalizumab initiation periods. A priori secondary outcome measures included response to treatment, changes in OCS dosing, asthma exacerbations, lung function, employment/education, patient-reported outcomes and hospital resource utilisation. RESULTS: The response rate to omalizumab at 16â weeks was 82.4%. Comparing pre-omalizumab and post-omalizumab periods, the mean (95% CIs) daily dose of OCS decreased by 1.61 (-2.41 to -0.80)â mg/patient/day (p<0.001) and hospital exacerbations decreased by 0.97 (-1.19 to -0.75) exacerbations/patient (p<0.001). Compared with baseline, lung function, assessed by percentage of forced expiratory volume in 1â s, improved by 4.5 (2.7 to 6.3)% at 16â weeks (p<0.001; maintained at 12â months) and patient quality of life (Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire) improved by 1.38 (1.18 to 1.58) points at 16â weeks (p<0.001, maintained at 12â months). 21/162 patients with complete employment data gained employment and 6 patients lost employment in the 12-month post-omalizumab period. The mean number of A&E visits, inpatient hospitalisations, outpatient visits (excluding for omalizumab) and number of bed days/patient decreased significantly (p<0.001) in the 12-month post-omalizumab period. CONCLUSIONS: These data support the beneficial effects of omalizumab on asthma-related outcomes, quality of life and resource utilisation in unselected patients treated in 'real-world' clinical practice.