RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Fremanezumab is an effective treatment for episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients in Japan, but its cost effectiveness remains unknown. The objective of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of fremanezumab compared with standard of care (SOC) in previously treated EM and CM patients from a Japanese healthcare perspective. METHODS: Estimated regression models were implemented in a probabilistic Markov model to inform effectiveness and health-related quality-of-life data for fremanezumab and SOC. The model was further populated with data from the literature. The adjusted Japanese healthcare perspective included productivity losses. The main model outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs (2022 Japanese Yen [¥]), and incremental outcomes including the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Analyses were performed separately for the EM and CM patients and combined. Costs and effects were discounted at an annual rate of 2.0%. RESULTS: The mean QALYs over a 25-year time horizon for the EM and CM populations combined were 13.03 for SOC and 13.15 for fremanezumab. The associated costs were ¥27,550,292 for SOC and ¥28,371,048 for fremanezumab. QALYs were higher and costs lower for EM patients compared with CM patients for both fremanezumab and SOC. The deterministic ICERs of fremanezumab versus SOC were ¥6,334,861 for EM, ¥7,393,824 for CM, and ¥6,530,398 for EM and CM combined. Indirect costs and choice of mean migraine days model distribution had a substantial impact on the ICER. CONCLUSION: Using fremanezumab in a heterogeneous mixture of Japanese EM and CM patients resulted in a reduction of monthly migraine days and thus more QALYs compared with SOC. The cost effectiveness of fremanezumab versus SOC in EM and CM patients resulted in an ICER of ¥6,530,398, from an adjusted Japanese public healthcare perspective.
Fremanezumab is an effective treatment for episodic and chronic migraine patients in Japan, but it is unknown how the costs relate to the health benefits. The current research determined the relation between costs and effects of fremanezumab compared with the current standard of care in Japanese clinical practice, to see if the costs are justified by the health benefits. A model was used to inform the treatment effect of fremanezumab and standard of care. Data on costs, the frequency in which health care was used, and impairment of work due to migraine were also included in the model and obtained from the literature. The main outcomes were the number of years that patients were alive while taking their quality of life into account, costs, and the difference in these outcomes between patients who were treated with fremanezumab and those receiving standard of care. Subsequently, it was estimated how costs and effects related to one another and whether the costs were justified by the health benefits. The outcomes showed that patients treated with fremanezumab had a better quality of life compared with those receiving standard of care, while the costs associated with fremanezumab were higher. Compared with standard of care, the health benefits of treating patients with fremanezumab were justified by the costs within an acceptable range. Taking the absence from work due to illness into account had a substantial impact on the model outcomes.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: As regression approaches have been used more recently to model the effectiveness and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of novel migraine treatments, an example is provided for fremanezumab. The objective is to estimate the distribution of mean monthly migraine days (MMD) as a continuous variable and corresponding migraine-specific utility values as a function of the MMD, to inform health states in a cost-effectiveness model (CEM). METHODS: Three longitudinal regression models (zero-adjusted gamma [ZAGA], zero-inflated beta-binomial [ZIBB], and zero-inflated negative binomial [ZINBI]) were fitted to Japanese-Korean clinical trial data of episodic (EM) and chronic migraine (CM) patients treated with fremanezumab or placebo, to estimate MMD over a period of 12 months. The EQ-5D-5L and the migraine-specific quality-of-life (MSQ), mapped to the EQ-5D-3L, questionnaires were used to measure HRQOL. Migraine-specific utility values were estimated as a function of MMD using a linear mixed effects model. RESULTS: The ZIBB models fitted the data best in estimating the distribution of mean MMD over time. MSQ-derived values were more sensitive than the EQ-5D-5L values for the effect of the number of MMD on HRQOL, with higher values for less MMD and more time on treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Using longitudinal regression models to estimate MMD distributions and linking utility values as a function is an appropriate method to inform CEMs and capture inter-patient heterogeneity. The observed distribution shifts demonstrated fremanezumab's effect at reducing MMD for both EM and CM patients, while treatment effect on HRQOL was captured by MMD and time on treatment.
The current study provides an example of an approach that can be used to estimate the number of migraine days per month and the quality of life of migraine patients. The outcomes of this approach can give an impression of how well a patient reacts to a new migraine treatment called fremanezumab. In this study, different mathematical equations were used to measure the migraine days per month and quality of life over a period of 1 year. The data came from Japanese-Korean patients that participated in clinical trials. The patients reported the number of days that they had migraine and their quality of life was measured with two validated questionnaires. With the gathered data, the quality of life was calculated for the number of migraine days that a patient could have per month. Patients who had the fewest migraine days and were treated the longest with the new treatment reported the best quality of life. The investigated approach is an appropriate method to measure the impact of fremanezumab on the number of monthly migraine days and a patient's quality of life. The measurements of this approach can be linked to other parameters in an economic model to estimate the costs required to reach a certain level of treatment effect with this new migraine treatment.
