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.

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.

[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.

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.