Trends and prescribing patterns of antimigraine medicines in nine major cities in China from 2018 to 2022: a retrospective prescription analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the trends and prescribing patterns of antimigraine medicines in China. METHODS: The prescription data of outpatients diagnosed with migraine between 2018 and 2022 were extracted from the Hospital Prescription Analysis Cooperative Project of China. The demographic characteristics of migraine patients, prescription trends, and corresponding expenditures on antimigraine medicines were analyzed. We also investigated prescribing patterns of combination therapy and medicine overuse. RESULTS: A total of 32,246 outpatients who were diagnosed with migraine at 103 hospitals were included in this study. There were no significant trend changes in total outpatient visits, migraine prescriptions, or corresponding expenditures during the study period. Of the patients who were prescribed therapeutic medicines, 70.23% received analgesics, and 26.41% received migraine-specific agents. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; 28.03%), caffeine-containing agents (22.15%), and opioids (16.00%) were the most commonly prescribed analgesics, with corresponding cost proportions of 11.35%, 4.08%, and 19.61%, respectively. Oral triptans (26.12%) were the most commonly prescribed migraine-specific agents and accounted for 62.21% of the total therapeutic expenditures. The proportion of patients receiving analgesic prescriptions increased from 65.25% in 2018 to 75.68% in 2022, and the proportion of patients receiving concomitant triptans decreased from 29.54% in 2018 to 21.55% in 2022 (both P <  0.001). The most frequently prescribed preventive medication classes were calcium channel blockers (CCBs; 51.59%), followed by antidepressants (20.59%) and anticonvulsants (15.82%), which accounted for 21.90%, 34.18%, and 24.15%, respectively, of the total preventive expenditures. Flunarizine (51.41%) was the most commonly prescribed preventive drug. Flupentixol/melitracen (7.53%) was the most commonly prescribed antidepressant. The most commonly prescribed anticonvulsant was topiramate (9.33%), which increased from 6.26% to 12.75% (both P <  0.001). A total of 3.88% of the patients received combined therapy for acute migraine treatment, and 18.63% received combined therapy for prevention. The prescriptions for 69.21% of opioids, 38.53% of caffeine-containing agents, 26.61% of NSAIDs, 13.97% of acetaminophen, and 6.03% of triptans were considered written medicine overuse. CONCLUSIONS: Migraine treatment gradually converges toward evidence-based and guideline-recommended treatment. Attention should be given to opioid prescribing, weak evidence-based antidepressant use, and medication overuse in migraine treatment.

Pharmaceutically treated comorbidities and associated healthcare costs among triptan users in Switzerland: A pharmacoepidemiological study from a nationwide health insurance database.

PURPOSE: In course of the new migraine drug development on the global market it is important to quantify the current burden of migraine medication. This study aimed to estimate the comorbidity burden and its relation to healthcare costs in patients using triptans in Switzerland by analyzing a large population-based database. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was based on Swiss health insurance claims data (2015/2016). The study sample comprised adult patients with ≥1 triptan prescription in 2015. We evaluated pharmaceutically treated comorbid conditions (CCs) and costs (12 months after index prescription) of patients using triptan. Multivariable linear regression models with log-transformed outcomes were performed to identify the factors related to healthcare costs. RESULTS: From a total of 749 092, we identified 10,090 patients using triptans (1-year prevalence of 1.35%), whereas 58.9% had ≥2 CCs. The most frequent CCs were pain- and rheumatologic-related diseases and psychological disorders. Among triptan users, the mean total healthcare costs were highest in older patients with ≥2 CCs (>64 years: migraine with ≥2 CC "12 331 SFr"). Multivariate regression analyses showed that psychological disorders had the strongest impact on healthcare costs (Coefficient: 1.29; 95%-CI: 1.27-1.31). CONCLUSIONS: The present study provides an overview of comorbidities and its related costs in migraine patients, which helps to quantify the current burden of migraine. This is relevant as the recently licensed CGRP antagonists are likely to change current treatment schemes for migraine, which strongly depends also on the comorbidities. The present study might therefore be helpful for the future development of treatment guidelines.

Treatment patterns and predictors of costs among patients with migraine: evidence from the United States medical expenditure panel survey.

Aim: Within a treated migraine population, to evaluate if the sub-group meeting criteria for high disease-specific total costs is significantly different to the sub-group with medium and/or low-costs, and to identify the associated risk factors. Methods: Data from the Household Component of Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS-HC, 2008-2012), a nationally representative survey of non-institutionalized civilians in the US, were analyzed. Key inclusion criteria were migraine diagnosis (ICD-9 code: 346.XX) and prescribed treatment for migraine. Patients were categorized into high (>top 10th percentile), low (

Cost-Effectiveness of Reclassifying Triptans in Australia: Application of an Economic Evaluation Approach to Regulatory Decisions.

BACKGROUND: Migraine is a common, chronic, disabling headache disorder. Triptans, used as an acute treatment for migraine, are available via prescription in Australia. An Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) committee rejected reclassifying sumatriptan and zolmitriptan from prescription medicine to pharmacist-only between 2005 and 2009, largely on the basis of concerns about patient risk. Nevertheless, pharmacist-only triptans may reduce migraine duration and free up healthcare resources. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of reclassifying triptans from prescription-only to pharmacist-only in Australia. METHODS: The study design included decision-analytic modeling combining data from various sources. Behavior before and after reclassification was estimated using medical practitioner and patient surveys and also administrative data. Health outcomes included migraine frequency and duration as well as adverse events (AEs) discussed by the TGA committee. Efficacy and AEs were estimated using randomized controlled trials and observational studies. RESULTS: Reclassifying triptans will reduce migraine duration but increase AEs. This will result in 337 quality-adjusted life-years gained at an increased cost of A$5.9 million over 10 years for all Australian adults older than 15 years (19.6 million). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated to be A$17 412/quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSIONS: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is likely to be considered cost-effective by Australian decision makers. Serotonin syndrome, a key concern of the TGA committee, had little impact on the results. Further research is needed regarding pharmacist-only triptan use by migraineurs currently using over-the-counter medicines and by nonmigraineurs, the efficacy of triptans, and the risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular AEs and chronic headaches with triptans.

Migraine burden and costs in France: a nationwide claims database analysis of triptan users.

Objectives: To estimate the burden of migraine in the population of French patients identified as specific migraine acute treatment users compared to a control group. Methods: A cross-sectional retrospective analysis was performed on the Echantillon Généraliste des Bénéficiaires claims database, a 1/97 random sample of the French public insurance database. A representative sample of all adults with at least one delivery of triptans, ergot derivatives or acetylsalicylic acid/metoclopramide (all drugs with a specific label in migraine acute treatment - SMAT) in 2014 was selected with a control group matched on age, gender and geographic region. Among triptan users, a sub-group of over-users was defined according to their level of triptan uptake expressed in defined daily doses (DDD - a standard daily dose of treatment of acute migraine) per month over 3 months and more, was also compared with controls. The cost analysis was performed in a societal perspective for direct costs. Sick leave indirect costs were estimated using the human capital approach. Results: In total 8639 SMAT users (mean age: 44.6 years; 78.7% women) were selected representing a crude prevalence rate of 1.7%. The annual per capita total healthcare expenditures were higher by €280 in this group compared to controls (€2463 vs. €2183). Triptans contributed 47.8% to this extra cost. They used significantly (p < .0001) more frequently than controls antidepressants (20.8% vs. 11.0%), anxiolytics (29.4% vs. 18.8%) and analgesics (53.8% vs. 35.8%). The per capita annual productivity loss associated with sick leave was higher by €295 (€1712 vs. €1417). Among triptan users, there were 2.9% over-users. This last group was characterized by substantially higher per capita annual extra direct (+ €1805) and indirect costs (productivity loss +€706) compared to controls. Conclusions: Due to its high prevalence, migraine costs generate a significant societal burden. The group of over-users concentrates high per capita direct and indirect costs.

Burden of migraine and impact of emerging therapies on managed care.

Migraine is a highly prevalent neurological condition with substantial impact on individuals through associated complications, comorbidities, and increased healthcare costs. The burden on society is likewise substantial via increased healthcare costs and greater indirect costs, such as lost productivity. Research about the pathophysiology of migraine has led to the introduction of a new class of drugs, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) inhibitors. Current drugs in this class are biologics, which are often accompanied by high prices. A highly competitive and rapidly evolving market landscape is being shaped by biopharmaceutical manufacturers and managed care payers. With an understanding of the societal impact of migraine and the potential impact of CGRP biologics, healthcare providers and managed care professionals should be prepared to develop policies and procedures to ensure appropriate patient access to new therapies.

Factors Associated with Direct Health Care Costs Among Patients with Migraine.

BACKGROUND: Migraine imposes substantial economic burden on patients and the health care system. Approximately 18% of women and 6% of men suffer from migraine in the United States. This is a heterogeneous group, and little data are available to evaluate factors associated with migraine costs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate characteristics associated with high costs among commercially insured patients with migraine. METHODS: This retrospective analysis identified patients with migraine in the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases between January 2008 and June 2013. Patients were required to have 12 months continuous enrollment before and after migraine diagnoses and/or migraine-specific medications (index date). Patients with costs greater than the top 25th percentile of all-cause costs during the 12-month post-index period were classified into the upper quartile (UQ) cohort. Multiple logistic regression was used to evaluate demographic and clinical factors associated with being in the UQ cohort, and generalized linear models were used to estimate the incremental costs by select factors after controlling for other covariates. RESULTS: In the total population, 857,073 patients (mean [SD] age: 43.2 [12.5] years), were included, with 83.2% females. Average post-index annual all-cause costs were $13,045 (SD = $25,328) with the top 25th percentile of costs at $14,120. Overall, 44.4% and 54.8% of patients had ≥ 1 pre-index claim for opioids and triptans, respectively. Patients with ≥ 2 migraine-related emergency room visits were twice as likely to be in the UQ cohort (OR = 2.13, 95% CI = 2.02-2.25; P < 0.05) and incurred $3,125 incremental all-cause costs compared with those with < 2 visits. Patients who visited a neurologist were 33.0% more likely to be in the UQ cohort and had significantly higher adjusted all-cause costs ($11,794 vs. $9,868, P < 0.05). Opioid users had a 1.5-3 times increased likelihood of being in the UQ cohort (P < 0.05); adjusted all-cause annual costs ranged from $8,888 (95% CI = $8,862-$8,914) for nonusers to $15,210 (95% CI = $15,113-$15,307) for high users (7+ claims). Patients having 7+ triptan claims were 1.2 times as likely to be in the UQ cohort compared with nonusers, with estimated costs of $11,517 (95% CI = $11,438-$11,596) for high users and $10,753 (95% CI = $10,717-$10,790) for nonusers. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that certain modifiable factors, such as increased acute medication use (opioids and triptans) and more migraine-related emergency room visits are associated with higher all-cause health care costs for patients with migraine. These findings could be used to identify patients who require early intervention, enhanced symptoms monitoring, and appropriate disease management. Future studies could examine the effect of disease severity on health resource utilization and costs using survey or medical record data. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Amgen and conducted by Truven Health Analytics. Bonafede, Cappell, and Kim are employees of Truven Health Analytics, which received compensation from Amgen for the overall conduct of the study and preparation of the manuscript. Cai was an employee of Truven Health Analytics at the time of this study. Sapra, Shah, and Desai are employees of Amgen. Katherine Widnell was an employee of Amgen when the manuscript draft was developed. Winner reports receiving research support from Allergan, Amgen, A-Z, Teva, Pfizer, Novartis, and Lilly. Study concept and design were contributed by Bonafede, Sapra, Shah, and Desai, along with Widnell and Winner. Kim and Cai took the lead in data collection, assisted by Bonafede and Cappell. Data interpretation was performed by Widnell and Winter, along with the other authors. All authors contributed to the writing and revision of the manuscript.

Variation in Prescription Drug Coverage for Triptans: Analysis of Insurance Formularies.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze triptan coverage by insurers to examine (1) possible disparities in coverage for different formulations (oral, intranasal, etc) and (2) quantity limits and stepped care requirements to obtain triptans. BACKGROUND: Triptans are FDA approved migraine abortive medications. Patients frequently state that they have difficulty accessing triptans prescribed to them. METHODS: We searched the 2015 drug formularies of commercial and government health insurers providing coverage in NY State. We created a spreadsheet with all of the commercially available triptans and included information about covered formulations, tier numbers and quantity limits for each drug. We then calculated the number of listed plans that cover or do not cover each triptan or triptan formulation, the total number of medications not covered by an insurance provided across all of its plans, as well as the percentage of plans offered by individual companies and across all companies that covered each drug. We also calculated the number and proportion of plans that imposed quantity limits or step therapy for each drug. RESULTS: Of the 100 formularies searched, generic sumatriptan (all formulations), naratriptan, and zolmitriptan tablets were covered by all plans, and rizatriptan tablets and ODTs were covered by 98% of plans. Brand triptans were less likely to be covered: 4/36 Medicaid plans covered brand triptans. Commercial insurers were more likely to cover brand triptans. All plans imposed quantity limits on 1+ triptan formulations, with >80% imposing quantity limits on 14/19 formulations studied. Almost all plans used tiers for cost allocation for different medications. Generic triptans were almost always in Tier 1. Brand triptans were most commonly in Tier 3. Approximately 40% of brand triptans required step therapy, compared with 11% of generic triptans. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial variations in coverage and quantity limits and a high degree of complexity in triptan coverage for both government and commercial plans.

Prescription Patterns and the Cost of Migraine Treatments in German General and Neurological Practices.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyze prescription patterns and the cost of migraine treatments in general practices (GPs) and neurological practices (NPs) in Germany. METHODS: This study included 43,149 patients treated in GPs and 13,674 patients treated in NPs who were diagnosed with migraine in 2015. Ten different families of migraine therapy were included in the analysis: triptans, analgesics, anti-emetics, beta-blockers, antivertigo products, gastroprokinetics, anti-epileptics, calcium channel blockers, tricyclic antidepressants, and other medications (all other classes used in the treatment of migraine including homeopathic medications). The share of migraine therapies and their costs were estimated for GPs and NPs. RESULTS: The mean age was 44.4 years in GPs and 44.1 years in NPs. Triptans and analgesics were the 2 most commonly prescribed families of drugs in all patients and in the 9 specific subgroups. Interestingly, triptans were more commonly prescribed in NPs than in GPs (30.9% to 55.0% vs. 30.0% to 44.7%), whereas analgesics were less frequently given in NPs than in GPs (11.5% to 17.2% vs. 35.3% to 42.4%). Finally, the share of patients who received no therapy was higher in NPs than in GPs (33.9% to 58.4% vs. 27.5% to 37.9%). The annual cost per patient was €66.04 in GPs and €94.71 in NPs. Finally, the annual cost per patient increased with age and was higher in women and in individuals with private health insurance coverage than in men and individuals with public health insurance coverage. CONCLUSION: Triptans and analgesics were the 2 most commonly prescribed drugs for the treatment of migraine. Furthermore, approximately 30% to 40% of patients did not receive any therapy. Finally, the annual cost per patient was higher in NPs than in GPs.

Twenty years of triptans in the United States Medicaid programs: Utilization and reimbursement trends from 1993 to 2013.

OBJECTIVE: After sumatriptan was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1992, triptans became first-line anti-migraine therapies. Rapidly rising triptan expenditures, however, led payers, including Medicaid, to implement cost-containment policies. We describe triptan utilization and reimbursement trends in Medicaid. METHODS: Using national summary files for outpatient drug utilization, utilization and expenditure data from 1993 to 2013 were extracted and summed for all triptan national drug codes reimbursed by Medicaid. Data were collected separately for tablets, injections and sprays. RESULTS: The number of triptan prescriptions increased from 87,348 in 1993 to 0.9 million in 2004; fell to 0.4 million in 2009; rose to 1 million in 2011; and rose 1.2 million in 2013. In 2013, Medicaid spent $96.8 million on triptans: 74.4%, 18.4% and 7.2% for tablets, injections and sprays, respectively. Average reimbursement per prescription was $54 for tablets, $351 for injections and $235 for sprays in 2013. From 1993 to 2013, sumatriptan was the most widely prescribed among the triptans. CONCLUSIONS: The substantial increase in triptan prescriptions from 2009 to 2011, without being convincingly explained by either rising migraine prevalence or rising Medicaid enrollment, is suggestive of reduced access to these medications prior to 2009. Cost-containment policies may have inadvertently prevented Medicaid migraineurs from obtaining appropriate pharmacotherapy. PRIOR PRESENTATIONS: An earlier version of this paper was presented as a poster at the Annual Meeting of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Philadelphia, PA, May 2015, where it received a finalist award.

Reimbursement-Based Economics--What Is It and How Can We Use It to Inform Drug Policy Reform?

BACKGROUND: In Ontario, approximately $3.8 billion is spent annually on publicly funded drug programs. The annual growth in Ontario Public Drug Program (OPDP) expenditure has been limited to 1.2% over the course of 3 years. Concurrently, the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network (ODPRN) was appointed to conduct drug class review research relating to formulary modernization within the OPDP. Drug class reviews by ODPRN incorporate a novel methodological technique called reimbursement-based economics, which focuses on reimbursement strategies and may be particularly relevant for policy-makers. OBJECTIVES: To describe the reimbursement-based economics approach. METHODS: Reimbursement-based economics aims to identify the optimal reimbursement strategy for drug classes by incorporating a review of economic literature, comprehensive budget impact analyses, and consideration of cost-effectiveness. This 3-step approach is novel in its focus on the economic impact of alternate reimbursement strategies rather than individual therapies. RESULTS: The methods involved within the reimbursement-based approach are detailed. To facilitate the description, summary methods and findings from a recent application to formulary modernization with respect to the drug class tryptamine-based selective serotonin receptor agonists (triptans) used to treat migraine headaches are presented. CONCLUSIONS: The application of reimbursement-based economics in drug policy reforms allows policy-makers to consider the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of different reimbursement strategies allowing consideration of the trade-off between potential cost savings vs increased access to cost-effective treatments.

Public Drug Coverage and Its Impact on Triptan Use Across Canada: A Population-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: Public drug coverage for triptan medications varies across jurisdictions in Canada, which may lead to differences in usage patterns and patient risk for medication overuse headache. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional analysis of publicly funded triptan use in seven provinces across Canada from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012. All patients who had filled at least one prescription for a triptan during the study period were included. We defined quantity limits of 6, 12, and 18 triptan units per month to assess the prevalence of high volumes of triptan use, which may place patients at risk for medication overuse headaches, and compared this prevalence between provinces with different funding restrictions. RESULTS: We identified 14,085 publicly funded users of triptans in 2012 in the seven provinces studied, 82.5% of whom were aged less than 65 years (N = 11,631). The prevalence of triptan use ranged substantially by province, from 0.04% in Ontario to a maximum of 1.0% in Manitoba (P < .001). Furthermore, the percentage of patients in each province using more than 6, 12, or 18 units per month differed significantly between provinces (P < .001). In particular, the percentage of patients treated with more than 6 units per month ranged from as low as 2.1% in Saskatchewan to 43.8% in Ontario. CONCLUSIONS: Differing public drug reimbursement criteria for triptans may be one contributing factor that has led to our observation of considerable variation in both prevalence of triptan prescribing and potential overuse of these medications. We offer that monthly quantity limits may be considered as a tool to decrease risks for medication overuse headache.

Triptans use and overuse: A pharmacoepidemiology study from the French health insurance system database covering 4.1 million people.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to estimate and to characterize the actual patterns of triptan use and overuse in France using a drug reimbursement database. METHODS: We included all people covered by the French General Health Insurance System (GHIS) from the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur (PACA) and Corsica administrative areas who had at least one dispensed dose of triptans between May 2010 and December 2011. All dispensed doses of triptans, migraine prophylactic treatment and psychotropic medications were extracted from the GHIS database. Triptan overuse was defined as triptan use >20 defined daily doses (DDD) per month on a regular basis for more than three consecutive months. Risk of overuse was assessed using logistic regression adjusted for gender and age. RESULTS: We included 99,540 patients who had at least one prescription of a triptan over the 20 months of the study. Among them, 2243 patients (2.3%) were identified as overusers and received 20.2% of the total DDD prescribed. Twelve percent of overusers and 6.9% of non-overusers were aged more than 65 years (OR: 1.81). Overusers did not have a greater number of prescribers and pharmacists than non-overusers. They were more frequently prescribed a prophylactic medication for migraine treatment (56.8% vs 35.9%, OR: 2.36), benzodiazepines (69.9% vs 54.7%, OR: 1.93) and antidepressants (49.4% vs 30.2%, OR: 2.33). CONCLUSIONS: This work suggests that triptan overuse may be due to insufficient prescriber awareness of appropriate prescribing. The off-label prescription of triptans among the elderly necessitates investigating their cardiovascular risk profile in this sub-group.

Migraine-related healthcare resource use and costs for subjects prescribed fixed-dose combination sumatriptan/naproxen sodium vs. single-entity oral triptans in a managed care population in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that the efficacy of a fixed-dose single-tablet combination containing sumatriptan and naproxen sodium (S/NS) was greater than either of its individual components. Simplifying drug regimens (e.g., via a fixed-dose combination) has been shown to improve "real-world" outcomes by reducing pill burden and treatment regimen complexity, improving adherence, and reducing healthcare resource use and associated costs; however, no studies assessing such outcomes have been conducted to date for the acute treatment of migraine. OBJECTIVE: To assess migraine-related healthcare resource use and associated costs for subjects prescribed S/NS vs. subjects prescribed single-entity oral triptans (SOTs) within a managed care population in the USA. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from July 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 (IMS LifeLink), subjects meeting the following criteria were selected: one or more pharmacy claim(s) for either S/NS or SOT (index date), aged 18-64 years; at least one migraine diagnosis, and continuous enrollment in the 6 months prior to and post the index date. The study population was subsequently stratified for two analyses: triptan-naïve (triptan naïve in the 6-month period prior to the index date) and triptan-switch (triptan user in the 6-month period prior to the index date and switching to another triptan). Subjects prescribed S/NS were propensity-score matched with subjects prescribed SOT (triptan-naïve analysis: 1:3; triptan-switch analysis: 1:1) to assess differences in healthcare resource use and associated costs (2009 US$) between the S/NS and SOT groups. RESULTS: Results from the triptan-naïve and triptan-switch analyses suggest that subjects prescribed S/NS are likely to have similar healthcare resource use patterns as those either newly initiated on an SOT or switching SOTs, as measured by migraine medication use, migraine-related healthcare resource use, and all-cause healthcare resource use. One exception was the observed increased use of opioids in the SOT group compared with the S/NS group (change in mean number of tablets pre-index vs. post-index, S/NS vs. SOT; triptan-naïve analysis: 8.6 vs.18.3, p = 0.045; triptan-switch analysis: -8.2 vs. 17.7; p = 0.120). Total costs from the triptan-naïve analysis indicated that the S/NS group had lower migraine-related (US$744 vs. US$820; p = 0.067) and all-cause healthcare costs (US$4,391 vs. US$4,870; p = 0.040) when compared with the SOT group, driven by savings in medical costs (migraine-related: US$252 vs. US$380; p = 0.001; all-cause: US$3,023 vs. US$3,599; p = 0.014). However, no significant differences were observed for total costs from the triptan-switch analysis (migraine-related healthcare costs, S/NS vs. SOT: US$1,159 vs. US$1,117; p = 0.929; all-cause healthcare costs: US$5,128 vs. US$4,788; p = 0.381). CONCLUSION: Study results suggest similar healthcare resource use patterns and associated costs when comparing S/NS and SOT across a triptan-naïve and triptan-experienced population. While the current study focuses on direct medical costs, future studies should extend beyond such a perspective to explore functional status, productivity, and health-related quality of life and satisfaction, attributes not captured in administrative claims data, but nonetheless important treatment goals.

Patterns of use and health expenses associated with triptans among adults with migraines.

OBJECTIVES: To determine patterns of use, socioeconomic factors, and the impact on total health expenses associated with triptan therapy among patients with migraines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with migraines were identified from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey household component files (2006 to 2011) and were restricted to those who were 18 years or older and had a migraine diagnosis. The major outcome measures were triptan use during the 2-year period and annualized average total and migraine-related health care expenses and medical utilization. Socioeconomic factors associated with triptan use were analyzed by using logistic regression. The impact of triptan use on total and migraine-related health expenses was assessed by linear regression models with log transformations. RESULTS: Among 1961 patients with a migraine diagnosis (representing 45.6 million individuals in the United States for years 2006 to 2011), 501 received triptans to treat acute migraines (representing 13.1 million individuals in the United States, 28.6%). Patients who were females and had higher income and education levels were more likely to receive triptans to treat migraines. Triptan expense accounted for 49.6% of total migraine-related expenses and 21.9% of total all-cause prescription drug expenses respectively. Compared with nontriptan users, the annualized total health expenses increased by 19.7% in triptan users after adjusting for demographic and health-related variables. DISCUSSION: The study suggested that socioeconomic factors were associated with triptan use in migraineurs. Higher total and migraine-related health expenses were observed in triptan users.

New treatments for headache.

Migraine and cluster headache are primary headache disorders commonly encountered in clinical practice. Despite the profound disability caused by these primary headache disorders, available acute and preventive treatment options are limited. Recent understanding of headache pathophysiology has led to the development of new drug formulations and novel drug targets that are extremely promising. This article will highlight several of the new treatments that are currently under investigation including novel delivery mechanisms of already existing medications, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) receptor antagonists, antibodies to CGRP and its receptor, serotonin receptor agonists, transient receptor potential vanilloid receptor modulators, orexin receptor antagonists, glial cell modulators, and neuromodulation. If data is supportive, these therapies will be welcome additions to the headache specialist's armamentarium.

Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of oral triptan therapy for migraine in four European countries.

AIM: To assess the differences in the cost-effectiveness of oral triptan therapy for migraines among European countries. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis of triptan therapy for migraine was conducted from a health-care payer perspective in four European countries (France, Italy, Spain and the UK). The study included those orally administered triptans available in all of these countries (almotriptan, brand-name sumatriptan, generic sumatriptan, zolmitriptan), and it was performed using a decision-tree model that incorporated costs of the drugs and probabilities associated with the possible events and outcomes. Average cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated in two different scenarios. RESULTS: The average cost-effectiveness ratio showed wide variations across the different countries, these differences being up to 131 % (almotriptan), 77 % (brand-name sumatriptan), 153 % (generic sumatriptan) and 77 % (zolmitriptan). Generic sumatriptan was the most cost-effective drug analysed in the studied countries. CONCLUSIONS: Caution must be taken when trying to transfer conclusions of pharmacoeconomics studies on migraines even in neighbouring countries. This cross-country variability is a concern for decision-makers and also for the elaboration of international recommendations and clinical practice guidelines.

Economic impact of a triptan Rx-to-OTC switch in six EU countries.

INTRODUCTION: Triptans have been safely and effectively used in the management of migraine for more than fifteen years, and it seems reasonable to wonder what would be the economic impact of moving a specific triptan to OTC availability. The objective of this study was then to examine the economic impact of payer policies of a triptan Rx-to-OTC switch in six EU countries (France, UK, Spain, Italy, Germany and Poland). METHODS: A decision model was used to model the budgetary impact of a triptan Rx-to-OTC switch from the third-party payer (TPP) and the societal perspectives, using a one-year timeframe. RESULTS: From the TPP perspective, it is estimated that the current overall direct spending on the management of migraine attacks across the 6 EU Member States is €582 million annually, and that the savings would reach €75 million (13% of the overall direct economic burden of migraine). From the societal perspective, €86 million annually would be added. CONCLUSIONS: Given evidence of effectiveness and safety, and given the potential savings, a triptan Rx-to-OTC switch is a reasonable public policy decision.