A cost-effectiveness analysis of eletriptan 40 and 80 mg versus sumatriptan 50 and 100 mg in the acute treatment of migraine

Value in Health

Volumn 6, Issue 4, 2003, Pages 438-447

  Wells, Nicholas ^a   Hettiarachchi, Jayasena ^b   Drummond, Michael ^c   Carter, David ^d   Parpia, Tamiza ^a   Pang, Francis ^c  

^a PFIZER GLOBAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United Kingdom)

^b PFIZER INC   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^d Delta Consulting   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cost effectiveness; Economic evaluation; Eletriptan; Migraine; Sumatriptan

Indexed keywords

ELETRIPTAN; PLACEBO; SUMATRIPTAN;

ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; DRUG COST; DRUG EFFICACY; HEALTH CARE COST; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HUMAN; MIGRAINE; PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0042490729     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.64238.x     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Björk S, Roos P. Economic Aspects of Migraine in Sweden (Working paper No. 8). Lund: Institute for Health Economics, 1991.
2. Cull RE, Wells NEJ, Miocevich ML. The economic cost of migraine. Br J Med Econ 1992;11:103-15.
3. Clouse JC, Osterhaus JT. Healthcare resource use and costs associated with migraine in a managed care setting. Ann Pharmacother 1994;28:659-64.
4. 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.
5. Solomon GD, Price KL. Burden of migraine: a review of its socioeconomic impact. Pharmacoconomics 1997;11(Suppl 1):S1-10.
6. Ferrari MD. The economic burden of migraine to society. Pharmacoeconomics 1998;13:667-76.
7. Shiell A, Gerard K, Donaldson C. Cost of illness studies: an aid to decision-making? Health Policy 1987;8:317-23.
8. Koopmanschap MA. Cost of illness studies useful for health policy? Pharmacoeconomics 1998;14:143-8.
9. Drummond MF. Cost of illness studies - a major headache? Pharmacoeconomics 1992;2:1-4.
10. Coukell AJ, Lamb HM. Sumatriptan, a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in migraine. Pharmacoeconomics 1997;11:473-90.
11. Lofland JH, Johnson NE, Batenhorst AS, Nash DB. Changes in resource use and outcomes for patients with migraine treated with sumatriptan. Arch Intern Med 1999;159:857-63.
12. Schulman EA, Cady RK, Henry D, et al. Effectiveness of sumatriptan in reducing productivity loss due to migraine: results of a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Mayo Clin Proc 2000;75:782-9.
13. Limmroth V, Gerth W, Krobot KJ, Ulrich V. The productivity cost benefit of Maxalt 10 mg vs. usual migraine therapy in Germany [abstract]. Cephalalgia 2000;20:413.
14. Sculpher MJ, Millson D, Poole L. A stochastic cost effectiveness analysis of alternative acute treatment strategies for migraine: the disability in strategies for care (DISC) study [abstract]. Value Health 2000;5:364.
15. Belsey JB. The clinical and financial impact of oral triptans in the management of migraine in the UK: a systematic review. J Drug Assess 2000;3:119-31.
16. Getsios D, Caro JJ, Black L, et al. Evaluating naratriptan using the migraine adaptive cost-effectiveness (ACE) model [abstract]. Cephalalgia 2000;20:409.
17. Wells NEJ, Steiner TJ. Effectiveness of eletriptan in reducing time loss caused by migraine attacks. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;18:557-66.
18. Wells NEJ. Comparison of the effectiveness of eletriptan, sumatriptan and Cafergot® in reducing the time loss associated with migraine attacks. J Med Econ 2001;4:157-66.
19. Wells NEJ. Measuring the economic benefits of pharmacotherapy-general principals. In: Olesen J, Steiner T, Lipton R, eds. Frontiers in Headache Research. Vol. 11. Reducing the Burden of Headache. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.
20. Pryse-Philips W. Comparison of oral eletriptan (40-80 mg) and oral sumatriptan (50-100 mg) for the treatment of acute migraine: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial in sumatriptan-naïve patients. Cephalalgia 1999;19:355.
21. Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs in migraine. First edition. International Headache Society on Clinical Trials. Cephalalgia 1991;11:1-12.
22. Goldstein DJ. Efficacy definitions for migraine studies. Cephalalgia 1999;19:248-9.
23. British National Formulary No. 43. London: British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, 2002 Mar.
24. Blau JN, Drummond MF. Migraine. No. 102 in a Series of Papers on Current Health Problems. London: Office of Health Economics, 1991.
25. van Roijen L, Essink-Bot ML, Koopmanschap MA. Societal perspective on the burden of migraine in the Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics 1995;7:170-9.
26. Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1993.
27. Altman D. Practical Statistics for Medical Research. New York: Chapman & Hall, 1994.
28. Hettiarachchi J. Comparison of the efficacy of oral eletriptan (20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg) and sumatriptan (50 mg, 100 mg) for the treatment of acute migraine: pooled analysis of randomised clinical trials [abstract]. Eur J Neurol 2000;7:118.
29. Tfelt-Hansen P. Efficacy and adverse events of subcutaneous, oral, and intranasal sumatriptan used for migraine treatment: a systematic review based on number needed to treat. Cephalalgia 1998;18:532-8.
30. Tfelt-Hansen P, De Vries P, Saxena PR. Triptans in migraine: a comparative review of pharmacology, pharmacokinetics and efficacy. Drugs 2000;60:1259-87.
31. Sheftell FD, Fox AW. Acute migraine treatment outcome measures: a clinician's view. Cephalalgia 2000;20(Suppl 2):S14-24.
32. 1B/1D agonists) in acute migraine treatment, a meta-analysis of 53 trials. Lancet 2001;358:1668-75.
33. Lipton RB, Stewart WF. Acute migraine therapy. do doctors understand what patients want from therapy. Headache 1999;39(Suppl 2):S20-6.