Use of decision analysis in modeling the cost-effectiveness of oral vs SC sumatriptan

Formulary

Volumn 35, Issue 6, 2000, Pages 532-539

  Joish, Vijay N ^b   Armstrong, Edward P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SUMATRIPTAN;

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DATA ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG MANUFACTURE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; MIGRAINE; PROBABILITY; REVIEW;

EID: 0034124123     PISSN: 1082801X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (32)

1. International Headache Society (IHS). Headache Classification Committee of the IHS. Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgias, and facial pain. Cephalalgia 1998;8 (Suppl):1-96.
2. Dechant KL, Clissold SP. Sumatriptan: A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine and cluster headache. Drugs 1992;43:776-98.
3. Ferrari MD. The economic burden of migraine to society. Pharmacoeconomics 1998;13:667-76.
4. Streator SE, Shearer SW. Pharmacoeconomic impact of injectable sumatriptan on migraine-associated healthcare costs. Am J Managed Care 1996;2:139-43.
5. Osterhaus JT, Gutterman DL, Plachetka JR. Healthcare resource and labor costs of migraine headache in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 1992;2:67-76.
6. van Roijen L, Essink-Bot ML, Koopmanschap MA, et al. Societal perspective on the burden of migraine in The Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics 1995;7:170-9.
7. Parry TG. The prevalence and costs of migraine in Australia. Kensington; University of New South Wales, 1992. Center for Applied Economic Research (CAER) working paper number 1992/1.
8. Lipton RB, Stewart WF. Migraine headaches: Epidemiology and comorbidity. Clin Neurosci 1998;5:2-9.
9. Stang PE, Osterhaus JT, Celentano DD. Migraine. Patterns of healthcare use. Neurology 1994;44(Suppl 4):S47-55.
10. Hu XH, Markson LE, Lipton RB, et al. Burden of migraine in the United States: Disability and economic costs. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:813-8.
11. Stang PE, Osterhaus JT. Impact of migraine in the United States: Data from the national health interview survey. Headache 1993; 33:29-35.
12. Bootman JL, McGhan WF, Schondelmeyer SW. Research methodology: Application of cost-benefit and cost-effective analysis to clinical practice. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1982;16:235-43.
13. Basskin LE. Using decision analysis to solve pharmacoeconomic problems. In: Basskin LE, ed. Practical Pharmacoeconomics: How to Design, Perform and Analyze Outcomes Research. Cleveland, OH: Advanstar Communications, Inc; 1998: 113-21.
14. Pryse-Phillips W, Findlay H, Tugwell P, et al. A Canadian population survey on the clinical, epidemiologic and societal impact of migraine and tension-type headache. Can J Neurol Sci 1992;19:333-9.
15. Multum home page. Available at: http://www.multum.com. Accessed April 11, 2000.
16. State and Metropolitan Area Data Book, 1997-1998. US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census: 11.
17. 1993 American Medical Association Socioeconomic Monitoring System core survey. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Medical Practice 1994;108.
18. Williams RM. Distribution of emergency department costs. Ann Emerg Med 1996; 28:671-6.
19. DATA: Decision Analysis by TreeAge. TreeAge Software, Inc. 1996.
20. Evans KW, Boan JA, Evans JL, Shuaib A. Economic evaluation of oral sumatriptan compared with oral caffeine/ergotamine for migraine. Pharmacoeconomics 1997;12: 565-77.
21. Sumatriptan succinate. Physicians' Desk Reference. Montvale, NJ: Medical Economics Co; 1996:2845-6.
22. Einarson TR, Arikian SR, Doyle JJ. Rank-order stability analysis (ROSA): Testing pharmacoeconomic data. Decision Making 1995;15:367-72.
23. Gtezen TE. Up or down, medical prices don't matter - spending does. J Am Health Policy 1994;4:8-12.
24. Coukell AJ, Lamb HM. Sumatriptan: A pharmacoeconomic review of its use in migraine. Pharmacoeconomics 1997;11:473-90.
25. Stergachis A. Overview of cost-consequence modeling in outcomes research. Pharmacotherapy 1995;15(5 Pt 2):40S-42S.
26. Carpay HA, Matthijsse P, Steinbuch M, Mulder PG. Oral and subcutaneous sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine: An open randomized cross-over study. Cephalalgia 1997;17:591-5.
27. Tfelt-Hansen P. Sumatriptan for the treatment of migraine attacks - Review of controlled clinical trials. Cephalalgia 1993; 13:238-44.
28. Sargent J, Kirchner JR, Davis R, Kirkhart B. Oral sumatriptan is effective and well tolerated for the acute treatment of migraine: Results of a multicenter study. Neurology 1995;45(Suppl 7):S10-14.
29. Nappi G, Sicuteri F, Byrne M, et al. Oral sumatriptan compared with placebo in the acute treatment of migraine. J Neurol 1994;241:138-44.
30. Goadsby PJ, Zagami AS, Donnan GA, et al. Oral sumatriptan in acute migraine. Lancet 1991;338:782-3.
31. The Subcutaneous Sumatriptan International Study Group. Treatment of migraine attacks with sumatriptan. N Engl J Med 1991;325:316-21.
32. Winner P, Ricalde O, Force BL, et al. A double-blind study of subcutaneous dihydroergotamine vs subcutaneous sumatriptan in the treatment of acute migraine. Arch Neurol 1996;53:180-4. F