Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Oral serotonin receptor agonists

A review of their cost effectiveness in migraine

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Migraine headache is a highly prevalent chronic, episodic condition. The direct and indirect costs of migraine headache have a tremendous economic impact in the US. Research has shown that serotonin (5HT1B/D) receptor agonists reduce healthcare costs, improve health-related QOL (HR-QOL), decrease migraine disability and keep patients effective in the workplace. The purpose of this manuscript is to examine the cost effectiveness of oral 5HT1B/D receptor agonists for the treatment of migraine headache.

In general, 5HT1B/D receptor agonists are associated with increases in direct healthcare costs; however, they are also associated with reductions in the indirect costs associated with migraine headache. Therefore, it appears that the relatively high acquisition cost of these medications is offset and, as a class, these medications appear to be cost effective and demonstrate net benefits from the societal perspective.

Based on meta-analyses in which data on eletriptan were not available, it appears that within the class, almotriptan and rizatriptan are the most cost effective. In a prospective study comparing eletriptan with sumatriptan, it appears that the former may be more cost effective than the latter. Additional investigations are needed to further explore the application of the friction-cost approach and QALYs to cost-effectiveness analyses of this class of medication.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Linet MS, Stewart WF, Celentano DD, et al. An epidemiologic study of headache among adolescents and young adults. JAMA 1989; 261 (15): 2211–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Celentano DD, et al. Undiagnosed migraine headaches: a comparison of symptom-based and reported physician diagnosis. Arch Intern Med 1992; 156: 1273–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Lipton RB, Silberstein SD, Stewart WF. An update on the epidemiology of migraine. Headache 1994; 34: 319–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Celentano DD. Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States. JAMA 1992; 267: 64–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Badia X, Magaz S, Gutierrez L, et al. The burden of migraine in Spain: beyond direct costs. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 (9): 591–603

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bigal ME, Rapoport AM, Bordini CA, et al. Burden of migraine in Brazil: estimate of cost of migraine to the public health system and an analytical study of the cost-effectiveness of a stratified model of care. Headache 2003 Jul-Aug; 43 (7): 742–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Osterhaus IT, Gutterman DL, Plachetka JR. Healthcare resource and low labour costs of migraine headaches in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 2 (1): 2–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ramadan NM, Silberstein SD, Freitag F, et al. Evidence-based guidelines for migraine headache in the primary care setting: pharmacological management for Prevention of Migraine. AAN Headache Guidelines: multispecialty consensus on diagnosis and treatment of headache, St Paul, Minnesota: American Academy of Neurology 2000 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.aan.com/public/practiceguidelines/headache-gl.htm [Accessed 2003 Jul 22]

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schulman EA, Cady RK, Henry D, et al. Effectiveness of sumatriptan in reducing productivity loss due to migraine: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Mayo Clin Proc 2000 Aug; 75 (8): 782–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Mushet GR, Miller D, Clements B, et al. Impact of sumatriptan on workplace productivity, nonwork activities, and healthrelated quality of life among hospital employees with migraine. Headache 1996; 36 (3): 137–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen JA, Beall D, Beck A, et al. Sumatriptan treatment for migraine in a health maintenenace organization: economic, humanistic, and clinical outcomes. Clin Ther 1999; 21 (1): 190–205

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Adelman JU, Sharfman M, Johnson R, et al. Impact of oral sumatriptan on workplace productivity, health-related quality of like, healthcare use, and patient satisfaction with medication in nurses with migraine. Am J Managed Care 1996; 2 (10): 1407–16

    Google Scholar 

  14. Cohen JA, Beall DG, Miller DW, et al. Subcutaneous sumatriptan for the treatment of migraine: humanistic, economic, and clinical consequences. Fam Med 1996; 28 (3): 171–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Jhingran P, Cady RK, Rubino J, et al. Improvements in healthrelated quality of life with sumatriptan treatment for migraine. J Med Econ 1996; 42 (1): 36–42

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Solomon GD, Nielsen K, Miller D. The effects of sumatriptan on migraine: health-related quality of life. Med Interface 1995 Jun; Suppl.: 134–41

    Google Scholar 

  17. Solomon GD. Quality-of-life assessment in patients with headache. Pharmacoeconomics 1994 Jul; 6 (1): 34–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Cady RC, Ryan R, Jhingran P, et al. Sumatriptan injection reduces productivity loss during a migraine attack. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 1013–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Litaker DG, Solomon GD, Genzen JR. Impact of sumatriptan on clinic utilization and costs of care in migraineurs. Headache 1996; 36 (9): 538–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Greiner DL, Addy SN. Sumatriptan use in a large group-model health maintenance organization. Am J Health Syst Pharm 1996; 53: 633–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Caro JJ, Gestsios D. Pharmacoeconomic evidence and considerations for triptan treatment of migraine. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2002; 3 (3): 237–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Adelman JU, Betsey J. Meta-analysis of oral triptan therapy for migraine: number needed to treat and relative cost to achieve relief within 2 hours. J Manag Care Pharm 2003; 9 (1): 45–52

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Biddle AK, Shih YC, Kwong WJ. Cost-benefit analysis of sumatriptan tablets versus usual therapy for treatment of migraine. Pharmacotherapy 2000 Nov; 20 (11): 1356–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Cady RK, Sheftell F, Lipton RB, et al. Economic implications of early treatment of migraine with sumatriptan tablets. Clin Ther 2001 Feb; 23 (2): 284–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Caro G, Getsios D, Caro JJ, et al. Sumatriptan: economic evidence for its use in the treatment of migraine, the Canadian comparative economic analysis. Cephalalgia 2001 Feb; 21 (1): 12–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Caro JJ, Getsios D, Raggio G, et al. Treatment of migraine in Canada with naratriptan: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Headache 2001 May; 41 (5): 456–64

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Evans KW, Boan JA, Evans JL, et al. Economic evaluation of oral sumatriptan compared with oral caffeine/ergotamine for migraine. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12 (5): 565–77

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Gross MLP, Dowson AJ, Deavy L, et al. Impact of oral sumatriptan 50mg on work productivity and quality of life in migraineurs. Br J Med Econ 1996; 10: 231–46

    Google Scholar 

  29. Halpern MT, Lipton RB, Cady RK, et al. Costs and outcomes of early versus delayed migraine treatment with sumatriptan. Headache 2002 Nov; 42 (10): 984–99

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Joish V, Armstrong EP. Use of decision analysis in modeling the cost effectiveness of oral vs SC sumatriptan. Formulary 2000; 35 (6): 532–9

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lofiand III, Kim S, Batenhorst AS, et al. Cost effectiveness and cost benefit of sumatriptan in patients with migraine. Mayo Clin Proc 2001; 76: 1093–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Reeder CE, Steadman S, Goldfarb SD. Economic comparison of oral triptans for management of acute migraine: implications for managed care. Am J Manag Care 2002 Feb; 8 (3 Suppl.): S80–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Ferrari M, Roon K, Lipton RB, et al. Oral Triptans (serotonin 5HT1B/1Dagonist) in acute migraine treatment: a meta-analysis of 53 trials. Lancet 2001 Nov 17; 358: 1668–75

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sculpher M, Millson D, Meddis D, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of stratified versus stepped care strategies for acute treatment of migraine. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20 (2): 91100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Stone A, et al. Stratified care vs step care strategies for migraine/ the disability in strategies of care (DISC) study: a randomized trial. JAMA 2000 Nov; 284 (20): 2599–605

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Wells N, Hettiarachchi J, Drummond M, et al. A cost-effectiveness analysis of eletriptan 40 and 80mg versus sumatriptan 50 and 100mg in the acute treatment of migraine. Value Health 2003 Jul-Aug; 6 (4): 438–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pryse-Phillips W. Comparison of oral eletriptan (40-80mg) and oral sumatriptan (50-100mg) for the treatment of acute migraine: a randomised, placebo-controlled trial in sumatriptannaive patients [abstract]. Cephalalgia 1999; 19: 355

    Google Scholar 

  38. Williams P, Dowson AJ, Rapoport AM, et al. The cost effectiveness of stratified care in the management of migraine. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (8): 819–29

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Clouse JC, Osterhaus IT. Healthcare resource use and costs associated with migraine in a managed healthcare setting. Ann Pharmacother 1994; 28: 659–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. O’Brien B, Goeree R, Streiner D. Prevalence of migraine headache in Canada: a population-based survey. Int J Epidemiol 1994 Oct; 23 (5): 1020–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lofland JH, Johnson NE, Batenhorst AS, et al. Changes in resource use and outcomes for patients with migraine treated with sumatriptan. Arch Intern Med 1999 Apr 26; 159: 857–63

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Gold MR, Seigel JE, Russell LB, et al. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996

    Google Scholar 

  43. British national formulary. London: British Medical Association, 2002

  44. Silberstein SD. Analyses of cost effectiveness of migraine therapies should consider multiple measures. J Manag Care Pharm 2003; 9 (3): 279–80

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Lofland J, Pizzi L, Frick KD. A review of health-related lost workplace productivity instruments. Pharmacoeconomics 2004; 22 (3): 165–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Gross MLP, Dowson AJ, Deavy L, et al. Impact of oral sumatriptan 50mg on work productivity and quality of life in migraineurs. Br J Med Econ 1996; 10: 231–46

    Google Scholar 

  47. Burton W, Conti D. The real measure of productivity. Bus Health 1999 Nov; 17 (11): 34–6

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Johannesson M. The willingness to pay for health changes, the human-capital approach and the external costs. Health Policy 1996 Jun; 36 (3): 231–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Koopmanschap MA, van Ineveld BM. Towards a new approach for estimating indirect costs of disease. Soc Sci Med 1992 May; 34 (9): 1005–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Ferrari M. The economic burden of migraine to society. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13 (6: 667–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF, van Ineveld BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995 Jun; 14 (2): 171–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Lofland III, Locklear JC, Frick KD. Different approaches to valuing the lost productivity of patients with migraine. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19 (9): 917–25

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality K-08 00005 Mentored Clinical Scientist Award.

The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this review.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Policy and Clinical Outcomes, Thomas Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut Street, Suite 115, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107, USA

    Jennifer H. Lofland & David B. Nash

Authors
  1. Jennifer H. Lofland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David B. Nash
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer H. Lofland.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lofland, J.H., Nash, D.B. Oral serotonin receptor agonists. Pharmacoeconomics 23, 259–274 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523030-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523030-00006

Keywords

Search

Navigation