Healthcare costs and resource utilization in patients with migraine treated with erenumab: A retrospective, non-interventional study using claims data from the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To assess healthcare costs and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) among adult patients who newly initiated erenumab in the United States. METHODS: This retrospective, non-interventional analysis included adult patients (aged ≥18 years) newly initiating erenumab and who had three consecutive monthly claims for erenumab (11/1/2017-9/1/2019) from the Komodo Health database. Outcomes included migraine-related and all-cause costs, use of other preventive/acute migraine medications, and HCRU. All outcomes were compared during the 180-day pre- versus the 180-day post-index periods. Cost outcomes were also assessed for longer periods including post-index Days 91-270 and monthly mean post-index costs for the longest time of continuous insurance enrollment. RESULTS: Overall, 1839 patients with migraine were included for analysis. Compared to the 180-day pre-index period, an increase in total migraine-related costs (+$2639; p < 0.0001), migraine-related prescription costs (+$3435, p < 0.0001), all-cause total costs (+$2977; p < 0.001), and all-cause prescription costs (+$4102; p < 0.0001) were observed during the 180-day post-index period after adjusting for covariates. Conversely, reduction in migraine-related medical costs (-$896; p < 0.0001), and significantly lower odds of migraine-related emergency room visits (odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.44-0.82; p = 0.001), migraine-related office visits (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.53-0.64; p < 0.0001), and migraine-related neurologist visits (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.63-0.75; p < 0.0001) were observed during the 180-days post-index period. There were significant decreases in the odds of having overall preventive migraine medications (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.87; p < 0.0001), acute-migraine medications (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.85-1.00; p = 0.038), and triptan (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.73-0.85; p < 0.0001) during the 180-day post-index period. Sensitivity analyses on cost outcomes found no statistically significant differences in pre-index migraine-related costs compared to post-index migraine-related costs when assessing longer post-index follow-up periods. CONCLUSION: Initiation of therapy with a novel treatment is often associated with an increase in overall healthcare costs due to the entrance costs associated with novel therapy. For a chronic condition such as migraine, cost versus health benefits should be evaluated over a long period (e.g., ≥2 years) to better understand the true benefits of therapy. Data from this study suggest that the entrance cost for erenumab, the primary driver of the high post-index prescription costs gets mitigated by reduced medical costs over long-term follow-up. The results indicate better disease management in adult patients with migraine, which should be an important consideration for both patients and payors, as these findings have shown an offset between migraine-related prescription and medical costs.

Assessment of the relative effectiveness of erenumab compared with onabotulinumtoxinA for the prevention of chronic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the available clinical and economic evidence of erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA for chronic migraine (CM) and present de-novo indirect treatment comparisons (ITCs) based on available clinical trial data. METHODS: We conducted ITCs based on results from the pivotal 295 trial (NCT02066415) of erenumab vs placebo and published aggregate data from the PREEMPT 1 (NCT00156910) and PREEMPT 2 (NCT00168428) trials of onabotulinumtoxinA vs placebo. ITCs were conducted for CM patients with and without prior administration of onabotulinumtoxinA and among CM patients with ≥3 prior preventive treatment failures. Efficacy was assessed based on responder rates of ≥50% reductions in monthly headache days (MHDs) and monthly migraine days (MMDs) as well as change from baseline in both MHDs and MMDs. RESULTS: Among patients with CM, 140 mg erenumab was associated with a reduction of 1.2 MHD (p = .092) and a reduction of 1.0 MMD (p = .174) compared to onabotulinumtoxinA at Week 12. Among onabotulinumtoxinA-naïve patients, erenumab was associated with a reduction of 1.8 MHD (p = .026) and 1.4 MMD (p = .080) at Week 12. Among patients that had received ≥3 prior preventive treatments, the odds ratios comparing erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA were 1.7 for ≥50% responder rates based on reductions in MHD (p = .155) and 1.7 for ≥50% responder rates based on reductions in MMD (p = .140). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest directional benefits (although not reaching the threshold of statistical significance) associated with erenumab vs onabotulinumtoxinA for the preventive treatment of CM. Evidence from this study may inform healthcare stakeholders in treatment selection and optimization for patients with CM.

Comparing the long-term clinical and economic impact of ofatumumab versus dimethyl fumarate and glatiramer acetate in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis: A cost-consequence analysis from a societal perspective in Germany.

Background: Evidence suggests that early highly efficacious therapy in relapsing multiple sclerosis is superior to escalation strategies. Objective: A cost-consequence analysis simulated different treatment scenarios with ofatumumab (OMB), dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and glatiramer acetate (GA): immediate OMB initiation as first treatment, early switch to OMB after 1 year on DMF/GA, late switch after 5 years or no switch. Methods: An EDSS-based Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was applied. Cycle transitions included EDSS progression, improvement or stabilization, treatment discontinuation, relapse or death. Input data were extracted from OMB trials, a network meta-analysis, published literature, and publicly available sources. Results: The late switch compared to the immediate OMB scenario resulted in a lower proportion of patients with EDSS 0-3 (Δ - 7.5% DMF; Δ - 10.3% GA), more relapses (Δ + 0.72 DMF; Δ + 1.23 GA) and lower employment rates (Δ - 4.0% DMF; Δ - 5.6% GA). The same applies to late versus early switches. No switch scenarios resulted in worse outcomes. Higher drug acquisition costs in the immediate OMB and early switch scenarios were almost compensated by lower costs for patient care and productivity loss. Conclusion: Immediate OMB treatment and an early switch improves clinical and productivity outcomes while remaining almost cost neutral compared to late or no switches.

Real-world migraine-related healthcare resource utilization and costs associated with improved vs. worsened/stable migraine: a panel-based chart review in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the migraine-related healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs among patients with improved vs. worsened/stable migraine. METHODS: This was a follow-up to a retrospective, panel-based chart review conducted in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain among a panel of physicians (neurologists, headache specialists, and pain specialists) who agreed to participate in patient studies and had treated ≥10 migraine patients in 2017. Eligible physicians extracted data for up to five adults with ≥4 monthly migraine days (MMDs) who initiated a preventive treatment on or after 1 January 2013 and received physician care for ≥6 months after the date of the most recent preventive treatment initiation (index date). Based on the trajectory of migraine severity from the 1-month pre-index period to the 6-month post-index period, cohorts were classified as improved (converting from chronic to episodic or from chronic/episodic to <4 MMDs) or stable/worsened (remaining chronic/episodic or transforming from episodic to chronic) migraine. Migraine-related HRU and costs (2017 €) during the 6-month post-index period were compared between patients with improved vs. stable/worsened migraine. RESULTS: Overall, 470 patient charts were analyzed, with 339 classified as improved migraine and 131 classified as stable/worsened migraine. After adjusting for within-physician correlation, country, sex, and presence of comorbidities before the index date, the improved migraine cohort had significantly fewer migraine-related physician office visits (-0.81; p < .001), emergency room/accident & emergency (ER/A&E) visits (-0.67; p < .001), and hospitalizations (-0.12; p < .001) in the 6-month post-index period vs. the stable/worsened migraine cohort. Consistent with HRU patterns, the adjusted migraine-related costs for physician office visits (-€42.23; p < .05), hospitalizations (-€215.56; p < .05), and total costs (-€396.81; p < .01) in the 6-month post-index period were significantly reduced for the improved migraine cohort vs. the stable/worsened migraine cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Over a 6-month period following initiation of preventive migraine treatment, patients with improved migraine had significantly lower migraine-related HRU and costs than those with stable/worsened migraine.