University of Utah Pharmacotherapy Outcomes Research Center, Salt Lake City, 84112, USA.
CNS Drugs. 2010 Aug;24(8):695-712. doi: 10.2165/11531180-000000000-00000.
There are few data about the cost effectiveness of prophylactic medications for migraine. Clinical trials have shown several preventive agents to be useful in reducing the frequency of migraine attack while having tolerable side effects.
To compare the cost effectiveness of adding preventive treatment to abortive therapy for acute migraine with abortive therapy for acute migraine alone in the primary care setting.
A Markov decision analytic model with a cycle length of 1 day, a time horizon of 365 days and three health states was used to perform an analysis comparing the cost effectiveness and utility of five treatments for migraine prophylaxis (amitriptyline 75 mg/day, topiramate 100 and 200 mg/day, timolol 20 mg/day, divalproex sodium 1000 mg/day or propranolol 160 mg/day) with treatment of acute migraine alone for the management of migraine in the primary care setting. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.
The expected total annual cost for the use of preventive agents ranged from $US2932 to $US3887, compared with $US3960 for the use of abortive medications only. In the baseline analysis, use of each of the five preventive agents generated more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incurred lower costs compared with abortive medications only. Monte Carlo Simulation suggested that amitriptyline 75 mg/day was most likely to be considered a cost-effective option versus the other five therapies, followed by timolol 20 mg/day, topiramate 200 mg/day, topiramate 100 mg/day, divalproex sodium 1000 mg/day and propranolol 160 mg/day when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for society is <$US18 000 per QALY gained.
Preventive medications appear to be a cost-effective approach to the management of migraine in the primary care setting compared with the approach of abortive treatment only. Among those preventive agents, probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that, when the societal WTP is <$US18 000 per QALY gained, amitriptyline 75 mg/day is most likely to be considered a cost-effective option.
预防性药物治疗偏头痛的成本效益数据较少。临床试验表明,几种预防药物在可耐受副作用的情况下,可有效减少偏头痛发作的频率。
比较在初级保健环境中,将预防性治疗添加到急性偏头痛的缓解治疗中与单独使用急性偏头痛缓解治疗相比的成本效益。
使用一个具有 1 天周期长度、365 天时间范围和 3 种健康状态的马尔可夫决策分析模型,对 5 种偏头痛预防治疗(阿米替林 75mg/天、托吡酯 100mg 和 200mg/天、噻吗洛尔 20mg/天、双丙戊酸钠 1000mg/天或普萘洛尔 160mg/天)与单独治疗急性偏头痛治疗偏头痛的成本效益和效用进行比较在初级保健环境中用于偏头痛的缓解治疗。进行了单因素和概率敏感性分析,以测试结果的稳健性。
使用预防性药物的预期年度总费用为 2932 美元至 3887 美元,而单独使用缓解药物的费用为 3960 美元。在基线分析中,与单独使用缓解药物相比,使用五种预防药物中的每一种都产生了更多的质量调整生命年(QALY),且成本更低。蒙特卡罗模拟表明,与其他五种疗法相比,阿米替林 75mg/天最有可能被认为是一种具有成本效益的选择,其次是噻吗洛尔 20mg/天、托吡酯 200mg/天、托吡酯 100mg/天、双丙戊酸钠 1000mg/天和普萘洛尔 160mg/天,当社会的意愿支付(WTP)低于每获得一个 QALY 18000 美元时。
与单独使用缓解药物相比,预防性药物治疗在初级保健环境中治疗偏头痛似乎是一种具有成本效益的方法。在这些预防药物中,概率敏感性分析表明,当社会的 WTP 低于每获得一个 QALY 18000 美元时,阿米替林 75mg/天最有可能被认为是一种具有成本效益的选择。