IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v10y2012i3d10.2165_11630890-000000000-00000.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-effectiveness analysis of early versus non-early intervention in acute migraine based on evidence from the ‘Act when Mild’ study

Author

Listed:
  • John Slof

    (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)

Abstract

Background In spite of the important progress made in the abortive treatment of acute migraine episodes since the introduction of triptans, reduction of pain and associated symptoms is in many cases still not as effective nor as fast as would be desirable. Recent research pays more attention to the timing of the treatment, and taking triptans early in the course of an attack when pain is still mild has been found more efficacious than the usual strategy of waiting for the attack to develop to a higher pain intensity level. Objective To investigate the cost effectiveness of early versus non-early intervention with almotriptan in acute migraine. Methods An economic evaluation was conducted from the perspectives of French society and the French public health system based on patient-level data collected in the AwM (Act when Mild) study, a placebo-controlled trial that compared the response to early and non-early treatment of acute migraine with almotriptan. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were determined in terms of QALYs, migraine hours and productive time lost. Costs were expressed in Euros (year 2010 values). Bootstrapping was used to derive cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results Early treatment has shown to lead to shorter attack duration, less productive time lost, better quality of life, and is, with 92% probability, overall cost saving from a societal point of view. In terms of drug costs only, however, non-early treatment is less expensive. From the public health system perspective, the (bootstrap) mean ICER of early treatment amounts to €0.38 per migraine hour avoided, €1.29 per hour of productive time lost avoided, and €14296 per QALY gained. Considering willingness-to-pay values of approximately €1 to avoid an hour of migraine, €10 to avoid the loss of a productive hour, or €30 000 to gain one QALY, the approximate probability that early treatment is cost effective is 90%, 90% and 70%, respectively. These results remain robust in different scenarios for the major elements of the economic evaluation. Conclusions Compared with non-early treatment, a strategy of early treatment of acute migraine with almotriptan when pain is still mild is, with high probability, cost saving from the French societal perspective and can be considered cost effective from the public health system point of view.

Suggested Citation

  • John Slof, 2012. "Cost-effectiveness analysis of early versus non-early intervention in acute migraine based on evidence from the ‘Act when Mild’ study," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 201-215, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:10:y:2012:i:3:d:10.2165_11630890-000000000-00000
    DOI: 10.2165/11630890-000000000-00000
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.2165/11630890-000000000-00000
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2165/11630890-000000000-00000?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Karin H. M. Jacob‐Tacken & Marc A. Koopmanschap & Willem Jan Meerding & Johan L. Severens, 2005. "Correcting for compensating mechanisms related to productivity costs in economic evaluations of health care programmes," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(5), pages 435-443, May.
    2. Mohan V. Bala & Gary A. Zarkin, 2000. "Are QALYs an appropriate measure for valuing morbidity in acute diseases?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 9(2), pages 177-180, March.
    3. Andrew H. Briggs & David E. Wonderling & Christopher Z. Mooney, 1997. "Pulling cost‐effectiveness analysis up by its bootstraps: A non‐parametric approach to confidence interval estimation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 6(4), pages 327-340, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Svetlana Simić & Tamara Rabi-Žikić & José R. Villar & José Luis Calvo-Rolle & Dragan Simić & Svetislav D. Simić, 2020. "Impact of Individual Headache Types on the Work and Work Efficiency of Headache Sufferers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-9, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Iris Arends & Ute Bültmann & Willem van Rhenen & Henk Groen & Jac J L van der Klink, 2013. "Economic Evaluation of a Problem Solving Intervention to Prevent Recurrent Sickness Absence in Workers with Common Mental Disorders," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-1, August.
    2. Daniel F. Heitjan & Alan J. Moskowitz & William Whang, 1999. "Problems with Interval Estimates of the Incremental Cost—Effectiveness Ratio," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(1), pages 9-15, January.
    3. Werner Brouwer & Kaya Verbooy & Renske Hoefman & Job Exel, 2023. "Production Losses due to Absenteeism and Presenteeism: The Influence of Compensation Mechanisms and Multiplier Effects," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(9), pages 1103-1115, September.
    4. Andrew Briggs & Paul Fenn, 1998. "Confidence intervals or surfaces? Uncertainty on the cost‐effectiveness plane," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(8), pages 723-740, December.
    5. Feng Xie & Ngai-Nung Lo & Jean-Eric Tarride & Daria O’Reilly & Ron Goeree & Hin-Peng Lee, 2010. "Total or partial knee replacement? Cost-utility analysis in patients with knee osteoarthritis based on a 2-year observational study," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 11(1), pages 27-34, February.
    6. Birch, Stephen & Gafni, Amiram, 2003. "Economics and the evaluation of health care programmes: generalisability of methods and implications for generalisability of results," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 207-219, May.
    7. Mohsen Sadatsafavi; & Carlo Marra; & Lawrence McCandless & Stirling Bryan, 2012. "The challenge of incorporating external evidence in trial-based cost-effectiveness analyses: the use of resampling methods," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 12/24, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    8. F. Reed Johnson & Juan Marcos Gonzalez & John J. Sheehan & Shelby D. Reed, 2023. "How Much Better is Faster? Value Adjustments for Health-Improvement Sequences," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(8), pages 845-856, August.
    9. James W. Shaw & William C. Horrace & Ronald J. Vogel, 2002. "The Productivity of Pharmaceuticals in Improving Health: An Analysis of the OECD Health Data," HEW 0206001, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 11 May 2003.
    10. Marieke Krol & Nikkie Hosseinnia & Werner Brouwer & Leona Hakkaart Roijen, 2023. "Multiplier Effects and Compensation Mechanisms for Inclusion in Health Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(9), pages 1031-1050, September.
    11. Anthony O'Hagan & John W. Stevens, 2003. "Assessing and comparing costs: how robust are the bootstrap and methods based on asymptotic normality?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(1), pages 33-49, January.
    12. Tristan Snowsill, 2023. "Modelling the Cost-Effectiveness of Diagnostic Tests," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 339-351, April.
    13. Daniel F. Heitjan & Alan J. Moskowitz & William Whang, 1999. "Bayesian estimation of cost‐effectiveness ratios from clinical trials," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 191-201, May.
    14. González-Gómez, Manuel & Álvarez-Díaz, Marcos & Otero-Giráldez, María Soledad, 2013. "Estimating the long-run impact of forest fires on the eucalyptus timber supply in Galicia, Spain," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 149-161.
    15. Elisa Sicuri & Azucena Bardají & Tacilta Nhampossa & Maria Maixenchs & Ariel Nhacolo & Delino Nhalungo & Pedro L Alonso & Clara Menéndez, 2010. "Cost-Effectiveness of Intermittent Preventive Treatment of Malaria in Pregnancy in Southern Mozambique," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(10), pages 1-10, October.
    16. Greenberg, Dan & Bakhai, Ameet & Neumann, Peter J. & Cohen, David J., 2004. "Willingness to pay for avoiding coronary restenosis and repeat revascularization: results from a contingent valuation study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 207-216, November.
    17. David J. Vanness & W. Ray Kim, 2002. "Bayesian estimation, simulation and uncertainty analysis: the cost‐effectiveness of ganciclovir prophylaxis in liver transplantation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(6), pages 551-566, September.
    18. An Tran-Duy & Annelies Boonen & Wietske Kievit & Piet Riel & Mart Laar & Johan Severens, 2014. "Modelling Outcomes of Complex Treatment Strategies Following a Clinical Guideline for Treatment Decisions in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(10), pages 1015-1028, October.
    19. Andrew H. Briggs, 1999. "A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 8(3), pages 257-261, May.
    20. Mercedes Mareque & Elena de Prada Creo & Marcos Álvarez-Díaz, 2021. "Exploring Creative Tourism Based on the Cultural and Creative Cities (C3) Index and Using Bootstrap Confidence Intervals," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-17, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:10:y:2012:i:3:d:10.2165_11630890-000000000-00000. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.