Abstract

PurposeWhile previous studies have estimated health state utilities associated with migraine severity and frequency, migraine treatments vary in other ways that may have an impact on patients’ quality of life, preference, and utility. The purpose of this study was to estimate utilities associated with migraine treatment attributes including route of administration and treatment-related adverse events (AEs).MethodsIn time trade-off interviews, migraine patients and general population participants in the UK valued health state vignettes drafted based on literature, medication labels, and clinician interviews. All respondents valued migraine health states varying in route of administration. Each participant also valued eight health states (randomly selected from a total of 15) that added the description of an AE to a migraine health state.ResultsA total of 400 participants completed interviews (200 general population [49.0% female; mean age = 43.6 years]; 200 migraine patients [74.5% female; mean age = 45.8 years]). In the general population sample, mean utilities of health states without aura were 0.79 with daily oral medication, 0.78 with one injection per month, and 0.72 with 31–39 injections once every 3 months. The greatest disutilities (i.e., decreases in utility) were for AEs associated with oral medications (e.g., − 0.060 [fatigue] and − 0.098 [brain fog]). Differences among health states followed the same pattern in the patient sample as in the general population sample.ConclusionsUtilities estimated from the general population sample may be used to represent route of administration and AEs in cost-utility models. Results from the patient sample indicate that these treatment characteristics have an impact on patient preference.

Highlights

  • Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) are conducted to examine the value of migraine preventive therapies to inform decisionmaking on healthcare resource allocation [1,2,3,4,5,6]

  • 29 (14.6%) of the general population participants reported being diagnosed with migraines, which is consistent with epidemiological research

  • The utilities derived from the general population sample may be used to adjust utility scores in models comparing treatments that differ with regard to route of administration or adverse events (AEs) profile

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Cost-utility analyses (CUAs) are conducted to examine the value of migraine preventive therapies to inform decisionmaking on healthcare resource allocation [1,2,3,4,5,6]. A new class of monoclonal antibodies targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) or its receptor have demonstrated efficacy in the preventative treatment of episodic and chronic migraine [14,15,16,17] These medications have a different route of administration than previously available treatments, and these differences could impact treatment preferences. The most commonly used migraine preventive therapies are daily oral medications, including topiramate, beta blockers such as propranolol, and tricyclic antidepressants such as amitriptyline [25] Another treatment that has demonstrated efficacy for chronic migraine is onabotulinumtoxinA, administered every 12 weeks in a series of 31–39 intramuscular injections to the head and neck [26, 27]. No published utilities were located to represent these treatment process differences in CUAs of migraine preventive treatments

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call