Health care resource utilization and direct costs incurred over 24 months after initiating galcanezumab or standard-of-care preventive migraine treatments in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Health care resource utilization (HCRU) and direct costs incurred over 12 months following initiation of galcanezumab (GMB) or standard-of-care (SOC) preventive migraine treatments have been evaluated. However, a gap in knowledge exists in understanding longer-term HCRU and direct costs. OBJECTIVE: To compare all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs in patients with migraine initiating GMB or SOC preventive migraine treatments over a 24-month follow-up. METHODS: This retrospective study used Optum deidentified Market Clarity Data. The study included adults diagnosed with migraine, with at least 1 claim for GMB or SOC preventive migraine therapy (September 2018 to March 2020), with continuous enrollment for 12 months before and 24 months after (follow-up) the index date (date of first GMB or SOC claim). Propensity score (PS) matching (1:1) was used to balance cohorts. All-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs for GMB vs SOC cohorts were reported as mean (SD) per patient per year (PPPY) over a 24-month follow-up and compared using a Z-test. Costs were inflated to 2022 US$. RESULTS: After PS matching, 2,307 patient pairs (mean age: 44.4 years; female sex: 87.3%) were identified. Compared with the SOC cohort, the GMB cohort had lower mean (SD) PPPY all-cause office visits (17.9 [17.7] vs 19.1 [18.7]; P = 0.023) and migraine-related office visits (2.6 [3.3] vs 3.0 [4.7]; P = 0.002) at follow-up. No significant differences were observed between cohorts in other all-cause and migraine-related events assessed including outpatient visits, emergency department (ED) visits, inpatient stays, and other medical visits. The mean (SD) costs PPPY were lower in the GMB cohort compared with the SOC cohort for all-cause office visits ($4,321 [7,518] vs $5,033 [7,211]; P < 0.001) at follow-up. However, the GMB cohort had higher mean (SD) PPPY all-cause total costs ($24,704 [30,705] vs $21,902 [28,213]; P = 0.001) and pharmacy costs ($9,507 [12,659] vs $5,623 [12,605]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. Mean (SD) costs PPPY were lower in the GMB cohort for migraine-related office visits ($806 [1,690] vs $1,353 [2,805]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. However, the GMB cohort had higher mean (SD) PPPY migraine-related total costs ($8,248 [11,486] vs $5,047 [9,749]; P < 0.001) and migraine-related pharmacy costs ($5,394 [3,986] vs $1,761 [4,133]; P < 0.001) compared with the SOC cohort. There were no significant differences between cohorts in all-cause and migraine-related costs for outpatient visits, ED visits, inpatient stays, and other medical visits. CONCLUSIONS: Although total costs were greater for GMB vs SOC following initiation, changes in a few categories of all-cause and migraine-related HCRU and direct costs were lower for GMB over a 24-month follow-up. Additional analysis evaluating indirect health care costs may offer insights into further cost savings incurred with preventive migraine treatment.

Healthcare Costs due to Dizziness/Vertigo in Korea: Analyses Using the Public Data of Health Insurance Review & Assessment Service.

BACKGROUND: Dizziness/vertigo is one of the most common symptoms for which people seek healthcare. However, the healthcare expenditure attributable to dizziness/vertigo in South Korea remains poorly understood. We investigated the healthcare costs due to six major disorders causing dizziness/vertigo using claims data. METHODS: The healthcare costs were evaluated using all the claims data submitted to the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service from January 1 to December 31, 2022. The six major vestibular disorders included for analysis were benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), psychogenic/persistent postural perceptual dizziness (PPPD), vascular vertigo/dizziness (VVD), vestibular migraine (VM), Meniere's disease (MD), and vestibular neuritis (VN). RESULTS: During the 1-year study period, 4.1% of adults aged 20 or older visited hospitals due to dizziness/vertigo in South Korea. Compared to the general population, the patients with dizziness/vertigo were more often elderly, female, and residents of small towns. The total healthcare cost for the six major vestibular disorders was ₩547.8 billion (approximately $406.5 million). BPPV incurred the highest annual healthcare cost (₩183.5 billion, 33.5%), followed by VVD (₩158.8 billion, 29.0%), MD (₩82.2 billion, 15.0%), psychogenic/PPPD (₩60.3 billion, 11.0%), VN (₩32.9 billion, 6.0%), and VM (₩30.1 billion, 5.5%). The mean healthcare cost per hospital visit due to dizziness/vertigo was ₩96,524 (95% confidence interval, ₩96,194-₩96,855), 30% higher than the average (₩73,948) of the overall healthcare cost per hospital visit over the same period. CONCLUSION: Owing to higher healthcare costs for dizziness/vertigo and increased prevalence of dizziness/vertigo in the aged population, healthcare costs due to dizziness/vertigo will increase rapidly in South Korea. Thus, a guideline for cost-effective management of dizziness/vertigo should be established to reduce the healthcare costs due to these common symptoms.

A Dutch cost-effectiveness analysis of fremanezumab versus best supportive care in patients with chronic migraine and inadequate response to prior preventive therapy.

BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine (CM) is the most severe and burdensome subtype of migraine. Fremanezumab is a monoclonal antibody that targets the calcitonin gene-related peptide pathway as a migraine preventive therapy. This study aimed to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis of fremanezumab from a societal perspective in the Netherlands, using a Markov cohort simulation model. METHODS: The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis adhered to the Netherlands Authority guidelines. Fremanezumab was compared with best supportive care (BSC; acute migraine treatment only) in patients with CM and an inadequate response to topiramate or valproate and onabotulinumtoxinA (Dutch patient group [DPG]). A supportive analysis was conducted in the broader group of CM patients with prior inadequate response to 2-4 different classes of migraine preventive treatments. One-way sensitivity, probabilistic sensitivity, and scenario analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Over a lifetime horizon, fremanezumab is cost saving compared with BSC in the DPG (saving of €2514 per patient) and led to an increase of 1.45 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). In the broader supportive analysis, fremanezumab was cost effective compared with BSC, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €2547/QALY gained. Fremanezumab remained cost effective in all sensitivity and scenario analyses. CONCLUSION: In comparison to BSC, fremanezumab is cost saving in the DPG and cost effective in the broader population.

A 3-year follow-up study of outcomes associated with patterns of traditional acute and preventive migraine treatment: An administrative claims-based cohort study in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To describe treatment patterns and direct healthcare costs over 3 years following initiation of standard of care acute and preventive migraine medications in patients with migraine in the United States. BACKGROUND: There are limited data on long-term (>1 year) migraine treatments patterns and associated outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study using US claims data from the IBM® MarketScan® Research Database (January 2010-December 2017). Adults were included if they had a prescription claim for acute migraine treatments (AMT) or preventive migraine treatments (PMT) in the index period (January 2011-December 2014). The AMT cohort was categorized as persistent, cycled, or added-on subgroups; the PMT cohort was categorized PMT-persistent, switched without gaps, or cycled with gaps. Migraine-specific annual direct costs (2017 US$) across AMT and PMT cohort subgroups were summarized at baseline through 3 years from index (follow-up). RESULTS: During the index period, 20,778 and 42,259 patients initiated an AMT and a PMT, respectively. At the 3-year follow-up, migraine-specific direct costs were lower in the persistent subgroup relative to the non-persistent subgroups in both AMT (mean [SD]: $789 [$1741] vs. $2847 [$8149] in the added-on subgroup and $862 [$5426] for the cycled subgroup) and PMT cohorts (mean [SD]: $1817 [$5892] in the persistent subgroup vs. $4257 [$11,392] in the switched without gaps subgroup and $3269 [$18,540] in the cycled with gaps subgroup). Acute medication overuse was lower in the persistent subgroup (1025/6504 [27.2%]) vs. non-persistent subgroups (11,236/58,863 [32.2%] in cycled with gaps subgroup and 1431/6504 [39.4%] in the switched without gaps subgroup). Most patients used multiple acute (19,717/20,778 [94.9%]) or preventive (38,494/42,259 [91.1%]) pharmacological therapies over 3 years following treatment initiation. Gaps in preventive therapy were common; an average gap ranged from 85 to 211 days (~3-7 months). CONCLUSION: Migraine-specific annual healthcare costs and acute migraine medication overuse remained lowest among patients with persistent AMT and PMT versus non-persistent treatment. Study findings are limited to the US population. Future studies should compare costs and associated outcomes between newer preventive migraine medications in patients with migraine.

Cost Effectiveness of Fremanezumab in Episodic and Chronic Migraine Patients from a Japanese Healthcare Perspective.

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.

Cost-effectiveness of rimegepant oral lyophilisate compared to best supportive care for the acute treatment of migraine in the UK.

AIMS: Migraine is the most common disabling headache disorder and is characterized by recurrent throbbing head pain and symptoms of photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and vomiting. Rimegepant 75 mg, an oral lyophilisate calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonist, is the first treatment approved for both the acute and preventative treatment of migraine, and the first acute therapy approved in over 20-years. The objective was to assess the cost-utility of rimegepant compared with best supportive care (BSC) in the UK, for the acute treatment of migraine in the adults with inadequate symptom relief after taking at least 2 triptans, or for whom triptans are contraindicated or not tolerated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A de novo model was developed to estimate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), structured as a decision tree followed by Markov model. Patients received rimegepant or BSC for a migraine attack and were assessed for response (pain relief at 2-h). Responders and non-responders followed different pain trajectories over 48-h cycles. Non-responders discontinued treatment while responders continued treatment for subsequent attacks, with a proportion discontinuing over time. Data sources included a post-hoc pooled analysis of the phase 3 acute rimegepant trials (NCT03235479, NCT03237845, NCT03461757), and a long-term safety study (NCT03266588). The analysis was conducted from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services over a 20-year time horizon. RESULTS: Rimegepant resulted in an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of £10,309 per QALY gained vs BSC, which is cost-effectiveness at a willingness to pay threshold of £30,000/QALY. Rimegepant generated +0.44 incremental QALYs and higher incremental lifetime costs (£4,492). Improved QALYs for rimegepant were a result of less time spent with severe and moderate headache pain. CONCLUSION: This study highlights the economic value of rimegepant which was found to be cost-effective for the acute treatment of migraine in adults unsuitable for triptans.

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.

Utilization, Expenditure, and Treatment Patterns Associated With Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies Reimbursed Subject to a Managed Access Protocol in Ireland.

OBJECTIVES: Calcitonin gene-related peptide monoclonal antibodies (CGRP mAbs) are novel high-cost treatments for the prevention of migraine. This study presents data on utilization, expenditure, and treatment patterns with CGRP mAbs available under a managed access protocol in Ireland, to a cohort of treatment refractory patients (failed 3 or more previous treatments) with chronic migraine. METHODS: Data were extracted from the Primary Care Reimbursement Service High Tech claims database and special drug request online system and analyzed using Microsoft Excel and SAS. Treatment persistence was evaluated by refill patterns, and adherence was evaluated using the proportion of days covered method. Expenditure data were extracted directly from the database. RESULTS: Between September 1, 2021 and April 30, 2023, 1517 applications for reimbursement approval for a CGRP mAb were received; 1458 (96.1%) were approved for reimbursement. Total expenditure on CGRP mAbs in year 1 (September 1, 2021 to August 31, 2022) was €3.2 million. The majority of patients initiated treatment with fremanezumab (60.8%) or erenumab (37.1%). Almost 90% of patients were considered adherent, and treatment persistence was high, with more than 75% of patients receiving more than 12 months of treatment in our 18-month study time frame. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the importance of active health technology management, after reimbursement, in enabling cost-effective use of high-cost treatments while providing budget certainty for the healthcare payer. High levels of adherence and persistence suggest that treatment is successfully targeted in situations which unmet clinical need is greatest.

Impact of headache frequency and preventive treatment failure on quality of life, disability, and direct and indirect costs among individuals with episodic migraine in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate unmet needs among individuals with episodic migraine (EM) in the United States (US). BACKGROUND: Data are limited on the impact of headache frequency (HF) and preventive treatment failure (TF) on the burden of migraine in the US. METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of 2019 National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS) data was conducted from an opt-in online survey that identified respondents (aged ≥18 years) in the US with self-reported physician-diagnosed migraine. Participants were stratified by HF (low: 0-3 days/month; moderate-to-high: 4-14 days/month) and prior preventive TF (preventive naive; 0-1 TF; ≥2 TFs). Comparisons were conducted between preventive TF groups using multivariable regression models controlling for patient demographic and health characteristics. RESULTS: Among individuals with moderate-to-high frequency EM, the NHWS identified 397 with ≥2 TFs, 334 with 0-1 TF, and 356 as preventive naive. The 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (version 2) Physical Component Summary scores were significantly lower among those with ≥2 TFs, at a mean (standard error [SE]) of 41.4 [0.8] versus the preventive-naive 46.8 [0.9] and 0-1 TF 44.5 [0.9] groups; p < 0.001 for both). Migraine Disability Assessment Scale scores were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs, at a mean (SE) of 37.7 (3.9) versus preventive-naive 26.8 (2.9) (p < 0.001) and 0-1 TF 30.1 (3.3) (p = 0.011) groups. The percentages of time that respondents experienced absenteeism (mean [SE] 21.6% [5.5%] vs. 13.4% [3.6%]; p = 0.022), presenteeism (mean [SE] 55.0% [8.3%] vs. 40.8% [6.5%]; p = 0.015), overall work impairment (mean [SE] 59.4% [5.6%] vs. 45.0% [4.4%]; p < 0.001), and activity impairment (mean [SE] 56.8% [1.0%] vs. 44.4% [0.9%]; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs versus preventive-naive group. Emergency department visits (preventive-naive, p = 0.006; 0-1 TF, p = 0.008) and hospitalizations (p < 0.001 both) in the past 6 months were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs group. Direct and indirect costs were significantly higher in the ≥2 TFs (mean [SE] $24,026 [3460]; $22,074 [20]) versus 0-1 TF ($10,897 [1636]; $17,965 [17]) and preventive-naive ($11,497 [1715]; $17,167 [17]) groups (p < 0.001 for all). Results were similar in the low-frequency EM group. CONCLUSIONS: In this NHWS analysis, individuals with more prior preventive TFs experienced significantly higher humanistic and economic burden regardless of HF.

Efficacy of a pediatric headache infusion center: A single-center experience.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a pediatric headache infusion center (HIC) in alleviating the symptoms and preventing future visits to the emergency department (ED). BACKGROUND: Headache is a common reason for visits to the pediatric ED. ED visits are associated with inordinate costs of care and are conceived by parents to be avoidable if adequate alternatives are available. An infusion center for acute treatment of intractable headache in children with chronic migraine may be an effective alternative to an ED visit. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of data from a single-center cohort of patients with a known history of chronic migraine, presenting to Dayton Children's HIC with an acute migraine from June 1, 2017 to June 1, 2020. Patients were treated according to established protocols divided into two pathways. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, pre- and postinfusion pain scores, ED visits and inpatient admissions within 2 weeks of HIC visit, and ED visits 1 year prior and 1 year after the HIC visit were noted. RESULTS: A total of 297 HIC visits were analyzed from 201 patients. The HIC was effective in controlling symptoms with a significant reduction in pain score (median [interquartile range; IQR] 7.0 [2.0] preinfusion vs. 1.0 [2.0] postinfusion, p < 0.001). Only 25/297 (8.4%) patients came to the ED within 2 weeks of the HIC visit, and an even smaller number of patients (20/297, 6.7%) were admitted as inpatients within 2 weeks of the HIC visit. The number of ED visits was significantly reduced in the year after the HIC visit compared with the year prior (median [IQR] 1.0 [2.0] before vs. 0.0 [1.0] after, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: A pediatric HIC is effective in alleviating the symptoms and preventing ED visits. These centers should be considered as standard of care at children's hospitals.

Analysis of treatment cost and persistence among migraineurs: A two-year retrospective cohort study in Pakistan.

OBJECTIVES: The persistence pattern of anti-migraine drugs' use among migraineurs is very low in the United States and different European countries. However, the cost and persistence of antimigraine drugs in Asian countries have not been well-studied. Hence, the present study aimed to evaluate the treatment cost and persistence among migraineurs in Pakistan. METHODS: Data from prescriptions collected from migraineurs who visited the Outpatient Department (OPD) of different public and private sector tertiary-care hospitals of Karachi, Pakistan were used to conduct this retrospective cohort study from 2017 to 2019. The minimum follow up period for each migraineur was about 12 months for persistence analysis while dropped-out patients data were also included in survival analysis as right censored data. Pairwise comparisons from Cox regression/hazards ratio were used to assess the predictors of persistence with the reference category of non-binary variables i.e. hazard ratio = 1 for low frequency migraineurs and NSAIDs users. Persistence with anti-migraine drugs was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier curve along with the Log Rank test. RESULTS: A total of 1597 patients were included in this study, 729 (45.6%) were male and 868 (54.3%) were female. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the most prescribed class of drug initially for all classes of migraineurs (26.1%). Of them, 57.3% of migraineurs discontinued their treatment, 28.5% continued while 14.8% were switched to other treatment approaches. Persistence with initial treatment was more profound in female (58.8%) patients compared to males while the median age of continuers was 31 years. The total cost of migraine treatment in the entire study cohort was 297532.5 Pakistani Rupees ($1901.1). By estimating the hazard ratios (HR) using the Cox regression analysis, it can be observed that patients with high frequency (HR, 1.628; 95%CI, 1.221-2.179; p<0.0001) migraine, depression (HR, 1.268; 95%CI, 1.084-1.458; p<0.0001), increasing age (HR, 1.293; 95%CI, 1.092-1.458; p<0.0001), combination analgesics (HR, 1.817; 95%CI, 0.841-2.725; p = 0.0004) and prophylaxis drugs (HR, 1.314; 95%CI, 0.958-1.424; p<0.0001) users were at a higher risk of treatment discontinuation. However, patients with chronic migraine (HR, 0.881; 95%CI, 0.762-0.912; p = 0.0002), epileptic seizure (HR, 0.922; 95%CI, 0.654-1.206; p = 0.0002), other comorbidities (HR, 0.671; 95%CI, 0.352-1.011; p = 0.0003) and users of triptan(s) (HR, 0.701; 95%CI, 0.182-1.414; p = 0.0005) and triptan(s) with NSAIDs (HR, 0.758; 95%CI, 0.501-1.289; p<0.0001) had more chances to continue their initial therapy. CONCLUSION: Similar to western countries, the majority of migraineurs exhibited poor persistence to migraine treatments. Various factors of improved persistence were identified in this study.

Cost of fremanezumab, erenumab, galcanezumab and onabotulinumtoxinA associated adverse events, for migraine prophylaxis in Spain.

Objective: To compare the cost of adverse events (AEs) associated with preventive treatment of migraine with fremanezumab, versus erenumab, galcanezumab, and onabotulinumtoxinA.Methods: A probabilistic modeling analysis was performed, using second-order Monte Carlo simulations, with 1,000 simulations, in patients with at least 4 days of migraine per month, from the perspective of the National Health System and a time horizon of 12 weeks. The frequency of AEs described in the clinical trials was analyzed with 12 weeks of treatment. Unit costs (€) of management of AEs were obtained from public health prices, expert panels, and published Spanish studies.Results: Fremanezumab would generate average savings of -€469 (95% CI -€303; -€674) versus erenumab, -€268 (95% CI -€171; -€391) versus galcanezumab, -€1,100 (95% CI -€704; -€1,608) or -€1,295 (95% CI -€835; -€1,893) versus onabotulinumtoxinA using real-life or clinical trial data, respectively.Conclusions: The different safety profile of treatment with fremanezumab, compared to erenumab, galcanezumab, and onabotulinumtoxinA, would generate savings in health-care resources in all the scenarios considered.

Treatment patterns, health resource consumption, and costs of patients with migraine in an Italian real-world setting.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the demographic and clinical characteristics of migraineurs prescribed ≥1 migraine prophylactic therapy, and to analyze their therapeutic pathways, healthcare resource consumption, and related costs. METHODS: This retrospective analysis was based on administrative databases from two regions and three local health units in Italy. Adult patients with ≥1 discharge diagnosis for migraine or ≥1 prescription for migraine-specific drugs, or ≥1 emergency room visit for migraine from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2016 were included if they had received ≥1 migraine prophylactic therapy between 1 January 2011 and 31 December 2015 (enrollment period). The first date of the last migraine prophylactic treatment was considered as the index date (ID). Patients were characterized 1-year prior ID and followed-up for 1 year afterwards. RESULTS: Of the 166,362 identified migraineurs, 32,794 (mean age: 45.9 ± 13.9 years, 19.2% male) who received migraine prophylaxis were included in the analysis. At ID, 31,629 patients had received 1 prophylactic treatment with antidepressants (51.2%), neuromodulators (28.1%), beta blockers (12.4%), other migraine preparations (7.8%), and botulinum toxin A (0.5%). Focusing on patients with one prophylactic treatment at ID, 85.4% did not have any previous therapeutic failures whereas 14.6% had ≥1 previous failure. During follow-up, 5% of patients made a therapeutic switch after a mean period of 103.4 ± 97.9 days. Total mean annual cost for patients receiving migraine prophylaxis was 1193.64€ during characterization and 1303.86€ during follow-up periods. CONCLUSION: This real-world study gave insights on the characterization of migraineurs and patterns of prophylaxis utilization in Italian clinical settings, showing an underuse of prophylactic agents.

The effectiveness and value of novel acute treatments for migraine.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Borrelli, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette, through the University of Illinois at Chicago, received funding from ICER for development of the economic model described in this publication. Atlas has nothing to disclose.

The Health and Productivity Burden of Migraines in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to quantify the health and productivity burden of migraines in Australia, measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), productivity-adjusted life years (PALYs, a novel measure of productivity), and associated health-care and broader economic costs. METHODS: A Markov state-transition model was constructed to simulate follow-up of Australians aged 20-64 years over the next 10 years. The model was first run using current prevalence estimates of migraine. It was then rerun assuming that people with migraine hypothetically did not have the condition. Differences in outcomes between the 2 model simulations represented the health and productivity burden attributable to migraine. All data inputs were obtained from published sources. Gross domestic product (GDP) per equivalent full-time worker in Australia was used to reflect the cost of each PALY (AU$177,092). Future costs and outcomes were discounted by 5% annually. RESULTS: Currently, 1,274,319 million (8.5%) Australians aged 20-64 years have migraine. Over the next 10 years, migraine was predicted to lead to a loss of 2,577,783 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2,054,980 to 3,000,784) QALYs among this cohort (2.02 per person and 2.43% of total QALYs), and AU$1.67 (95% CI $1.16 to $2.37) billion in health-care costs (AU$1313 per person, 95% CI $914 to $1862). There would also be 384,740 (95% CI 299,102 to 479,803) PALYs lost (0.30 per person and 0.53% of total PALYs), resulting in AU$68.13 (95% CI $44.42 to $98.25) billion of lost GDP (AU$53,467 per person, 95% CI $34,855 to $77,102). CONCLUSION: Migraines impose a substantial health and economic burden on Australians of working age. Funding interventions that reduce the prevalence of migraines and/or its effects are likely to provide sound return on investment.

[Specialised headache units, a feasible alternative in Spain]. / Unidades especializadas de cefalea, una alternativa viable en España.

INTRODUCTION: Visits due to headaches are the most frequent cause of demand for neurological treatment in primary care and neurology services. Headache units improve the quality of care, reduce waiting lists, facilitate access to new treatments of proven efficacy and optimise healthcare expenditure. However, these units have not been implemented on a widespread basis in Spain due to the relatively low importance attributed to the condition and also the assumption that such units have a high cost. AIM: To define the structure and minimum requirements of a headache unit with the intention of contributing to their expansion in hospitals in Spain. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We conducted a consensus study among professionals after reviewing the literature on the structure, functions and resources required by a headache unit designed to serve an area with 350,000 inhabitants. RESULTS: Eight publications were taken as a reference for identifying the minimum resources needed for a headache unit. The panel of experts was made up of 12 professionals from different specialties. The main resource required to be able to implement these units is the professional staff (both supervisory and technical), which can mean an additional cost for the first year of around 107,287.19 euros. CONCLUSIONS: If we bear in mind the direct and indirect costs due to losses in labour productivity per patient and compare them with the estimated costs involved in implementing these units and their expected results, everything points to the need for headache units to become generalised in Spain.

TITLE: Unidades especializadas de cefalea, una alternativa viable en España.Introducción. Las consultas por cefalea son el motivo más frecuente de demanda de atención de causa neurológica en la atención primaria y en los servicios de neurología. Las unidades de cefalea mejoran la calidad asistencial, reducen las listas de espera, facilitan el acceso a nuevos tratamientos de eficacia contrastada y optimizan el gasto sanitario. No obstante, la implantación de estas unidades no está extendida en España debido a la relativa importancia atribuida a la patología y a la suposición de que su coste es elevado. Objetivo. Definir la estructura y los requerimientos mínimos de una unidad de cefalea con la intención de contribuir a su extensión en los hospitales de España. Sujetos y métodos. Estudio de consenso entre profesionales tras la revisión de la bibliografía sobre la estructura, las funciones y los recursos de una unidad de cefalea para un área de 350.000 habitantes. Resultados. Se tomaron como referencia ocho publicaciones para la identificación de recursos mínimos necesarios de una unidad de cefalea. El panel de expertos estuvo integrado por 12 profesionales de diferentes especialidades. El principal recurso para la implementación de estas unidades son profesionales (superiores y técnicos), lo que puede suponer un coste adicional para el primer año de alrededor de 107.287,19 euros. Conclusiones. Si consideramos los costes directos e indirectos debidos a las pérdidas por productividad laboral por paciente y los comparamos con los costes estimados de implantación de estas unidades y su expectativa de resultados, todo apunta a que es necesaria la generalización de unidades de cefalea en España.

Identifying Outcome Measures for Migraine Value-Based Contracting Using the Delphi Method.

OBJECTIVE: To identify meaningful migraine outcome measures among key stakeholders to inform value-based contracts for migraine medications. BACKGROUND: Value-based contracts linking medication payments to predefined performance metrics aim to promote value through aligned incentives and shared risk between manufacturers and payers. The emergence of new and expensive pharmaceuticals for migraine presents an opportunity for value-based contract development. However, uncertainty remains around which outcomes are most meaningful to all migraine stakeholders. METHODS: This study utilized a Delphi survey to incorporate views from 82 stakeholders, including patients (n = 21), providers (n = 23), payers (n = 10), employers (n = 18), and pharmaceutical company representatives (n = 10). A list of 15 migraine-related outcomes was created from a literature review and subject matter expert consultation. Stakeholders reported on the value of these outcomes through a 5-point Likert scale and selection of their top 3 most meaningful outcomes. All participants except patients and employers also used a 5-point Likert scale to rate the feasibility of collecting each outcome measure. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement on the importance and feasibility of an outcome (Likert scores ≥4/5 or selection of an outcome as most meaningful). RESULTS: After 2 rounds, consensus was achieved for importance of 9 outcomes on the Likert scale. "Decrease in migraine frequency" reached 100% agreement (82/82), followed by "increased ability to resume normal activities" (96%, 79/82). When asked to choose the 3 most meaningful outcomes, stakeholders selected "decrease in migraine frequency" (88%, 72/82) followed by "decrease in migraine severity" (80%, 66/82). The 2 measures rated as most feasibly collected were "decrease in emergency department/urgent care visits" (95%, 40/42) and "decrease in migraine frequency" (90%, 38/42). There were statistically significant differences between non-patient and patient stakeholders in selection of "decrease in emergency department/urgent care visits" [20% (12/61) vs 0% (0/21), P = .031]; and employer and patient stakeholders in selection of "decrease in work days missed" [44% (8/18) vs 5% (1/21), P = .006] and "decrease in emergency department/urgent care visits" [22% (4/18) vs 0% (0/21), P = .037] as most meaningful outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The measures "decrease in migraine frequency" followed by "decrease in migraine severity" were identified as top priority migraine outcome measures.

Economic burden and risk factors of migraine disease progression in the US: a retrospective analysis of a commercial payer database.

AIMS: To evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of migraine progression and to assess the incremental burden of migraine progression on healthcare systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients were required to have a migraine diagnosis in IQVIA's US adjudicated claims database between 1 January 2012 and 30 June 2016, continuous enrollment ≥12 months before and after the index date (i.e. the first observed migraine diagnosis), and ≥1 additional migraine diagnosis claim during the 12-month post-index period. A previously-developed algorithm identified patients with prevention-eligible episodic migraine (EM). All-cause healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs were evaluated at baseline, over the follow-up period and pre/post progression from prevention-eligible EM to chronic migraine. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate risk factors associated with progression. RESULTS, LIMITATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS: Of the 125,436 patients with prevention-eligible EM that were initially identified, 5,790 (4.6%) were further identified as progressed. Patients who progressed had higher healthcare costs and higher medication use at baseline compared to patients that did not progress. Mean (SD) all-cause total costs per patient per month were $1,790 ($3,788), significantly higher in the post-progression period compared to $1,414 ($2,456) in the pre-progression period in patients who progressed (p < .0001). Younger age, female sex, initial diagnosis by a neurologist, chronic pain, and use of triptans and/or non-specific acute medications were all significant progression risk factors. Results are limited by the use of a heterogeneous population (incident, prevalent, treated, and untreated patients), coding biases, and lack of information on non-prescription drug utilization and plan limits. Limitations aside, there are substantial HCRU and cost burden associated with migraine progression. Younger age, female sex, and the use of specific drug classes are likely to increase migraine disease progression risk.

Acupuncture reduced the medical expenditure in migraine patients: Real-world data of a 10-year national cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: According to the data of Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, almost all the countries got increased medical expenditures in these years. Among the diseases, migraine is a condition that affects predominantly young and middle-aged people. It results in great economic losses. So we perform this research to investigate the acupuncture effect of reducing medical expenditure and medical resources use. PERSPECTIVE: Acupuncture is a non-pharmacologic treatment and it became popular in recent years. In Taiwan, about 13% migraine patients visited acupuncture doctor. We hypothesized that the acupuncture had the additional effect than the medical treatment. SETTING: We analysed the economic cost and medical visits in the real word. METHODS: We used national cohort data from Taiwan, retrospectively gathered between 2000 and 2010. We selected newly diagnosed migraine patients who were diagnosed by registered neurologists formally licensed by the Taiwan Neurological Society. We divided these patients into two groups: with and without acupuncture treatment. The main outcome was medical expenditures and visits within 1 year after acupuncture. RESULTS: In migraine patients who received acupuncture treatment, medical expenditures on emergency care and hospitalization were significantly lower than the group without acupuncture treatment. CONCLUSION: According to our real-world data, acupuncture can reduce the medical expenditure in migraine patients within 1 year after diagnosis. For the health policy maker, it is cost effective to encourage combining acupuncture and western medicine to treat migraine patients. For the doctors in routine clinical practice, who may consider to consult acupuncture doctors to deal with the migraine patients together.