Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Migraine-Related Healthcare Resource Use and Costs for Subjects Prescribed Fixed-Dose Combination Sumatriptan/Naproxen Sodium vs. Single-Entity Oral Triptans in a Managed Care Population in the USA

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that the efficacy of a fixed-dose single-tablet combination containing sumatriptan and naproxen sodium (S/NS) was greater than either of its individual components. Simplifying drug regimens (e.g., via a fixed-dose combination) has been shown to improve “real-world” outcomes by reducing pill burden and treatment regimen complexity, improving adherence, and reducing healthcare resource use and associated costs; however, no studies assessing such outcomes have been conducted to date for the acute treatment of migraine.

Objective

To assess migraine-related healthcare resource use and associated costs for subjects prescribed S/NS vs. subjects prescribed single-entity oral triptans (SOTs) within a managed care population in the USA.

Methods

In this retrospective analysis of administrative claims data from July 1, 2008 to December 31, 2009 (IMS LifeLink), subjects meeting the following criteria were selected: one or more pharmacy claim(s) for either S/NS or SOT (index date), aged 18–64 years; at least one migraine diagnosis, and continuous enrollment in the 6 months prior to and post the index date. The study population was subsequently stratified for two analyses: triptan-naïve (triptan naïve in the 6-month period prior to the index date) and triptan-switch (triptan user in the 6-month period prior to the index date and switching to another triptan). Subjects prescribed S/NS were propensity-score matched with subjects prescribed SOT (triptan-naïve analysis: 1:3; triptan-switch analysis: 1:1) to assess differences in healthcare resource use and associated costs (2009 US$) between the S/NS and SOT groups.

Results

Results from the triptan-naïve and triptan-switch analyses suggest that subjects prescribed S/NS are likely to have similar healthcare resource use patterns as those either newly initiated on an SOT or switching SOTs, as measured by migraine medication use, migraine-related healthcare resource use, and all-cause healthcare resource use. One exception was the observed increased use of opioids in the SOT group compared with the S/NS group (change in mean number of tablets pre-index vs. post-index, S/NS vs. SOT; triptan-naïve analysis: 8.6 vs.18.3, p = 0.045; triptan-switch analysis: −8.2 vs. 17.7; p = 0.120). Total costs from the triptan-naïve analysis indicated that the S/NS group had lower migraine-related (US$744 vs. US$820; p = 0.067) and all-cause healthcare costs (US$4,391 vs. US$4,870; p = 0.040) when compared with the SOT group, driven by savings in medical costs (migraine-related: US$252 vs. US$380; p = 0.001; all-cause: US$3,023 vs. US$3,599; p = 0.014). However, no significant differences were observed for total costs from the triptan-switch analysis (migraine-related healthcare costs, S/NS vs. SOT: US$1,159 vs. US$1,117; p = 0.929; all-cause healthcare costs: US$5,128 vs. US$4,788; p = 0.381).

Conclusion

Study results suggest similar healthcare resource use patterns and associated costs when comparing S/NS and SOT across a triptan-naïve and triptan-experienced population. While the current study focuses on direct medical costs, future studies should extend beyond such a perspective to explore functional status, productivity, and health-related quality of life and satisfaction, attributes not captured in administrative claims data, but nonetheless important treatment goals.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. MacGregor EA, Brandes J, Eikermann A. Migraine prevalence and treatment patterns: the global Migraine and Zolmitriptan Evaluation survey. Headache. 2003;43(1):19–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Vos T, Flaxman AD, Naghavi M, Lozano R, Michaud C, et al. Years lived with disability (YLDs) for 1,160 sequelae of 289 diseases and injuries 1990-2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet. 2012;380(9859):2163–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mäki K, Vahtera J, Virtanen M, Elovainio M, Keltikangas-Järvinen L, Kivimäki M. Work stress and new-onset migraine in a female employee population. Cephalalgia. 2008;28(1):18–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fairclough DL, Gagnon D, Papadopoulos G. Planning analyses of quality-of-life studies: a case example with migraine prophylaxis. J Biopharm Stat. 2004;14(1):31–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mennini FS, Gitto L, Martelletti P. Improving care through health economics analyses: cost of illness and headache. J Headache Pain. 2008;9(4):199–206.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Campinha-Bacote DL, Kendle JB, Jones C, Callicoat D, Webert A, Stoukides CA, Kaul AF. Impact of a migraine management program on improving health outcomes. Dis Manag. 2005;8(6):382–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Diamond S, Diamond ML, Reed M. Prevalence and burden of migraine in the United States: data from the American Migraine Study II. Headache. 2001;41(7):646–57.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lipton RB, Bigal ME, Diamond M, Freitag F, Reed ML, Stewart WF, AMPP Advisory Group. Migraine prevalence, disease burden, and the need for preventive therapy. Neurology. 2007;68(5):343–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Diamond S, Bigal ME, Silberstein S, Loder E, Reed M, Lipton RB. Patterns of diagnosis and acute and preventive treatment for migraine in the United States: results from the American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention study. Headache. 2007;47(3):355–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Landy SH, Runken MC, Bell CF, Higbie RL, Haskins LS. Assessing the impact of migraine onset on work productivity. J Occup Environ Med. 2011;53(1):74–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Da Silva AN, Tepper SJ. Acute treatment of migraines. CNS Drugs. 2012;26(10):823–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stewart WF, Ricci JA, Chee E, Morganstein D. Lost productive work time costs from health conditions in the United States: results from the American Productivity Audit. J Occup Environ Med. 2003;45(12):1234–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Andlin-Sobocki P, Jönsson B, Wittchen HU, Olesen J. Cost of disorders of the brain in Europe. Eur J Neurol. 2005;12(Suppl 1):1–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Hu XH, Markson LE, Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Berger ML. Burden of migraine in the United States: disability and economic costs. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(8):813–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Osterhaus JT, Gutterman DL, Plachetka JR. Healthcare resource and lost labour costs of migraine headache in the US. Pharmacoeconomics. 1992;2(1):67–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hawkins K, Wang S, Rupnow MF. Indirect cost burden of migraine in the United States. J Occup Environ Med. 2007;49(4):368–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Edmeads J, Mackell JA. The economic impact of migraine: an analysis of direct and indirect costs. Headache. 2002;42(6):501–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Warshaw LJ, Burton WN, Silberstein SD, Lipton RB. Migraine: a problem for employers and managed care plans. Am J Manag Care. 1997;3(10):1515–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stokes M, Becker WJ, Lipton RB, Sullivan SD, Wilcox TK, et al. Cost of health care among patients with chronic and episodic migraine in Canada and the USA: results from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS). Headache. 2011;51(7):1058–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Stang PE, Crown WH, Bizier R, Chatterton ML, White R. The family impact and costs of migraine. Am J Manag Care. 2004;10(5):313–20.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Pesa J, Lage MJ. The medical costs of migraine and comorbid anxiety and depression. Headache. 2004;44(6):562–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Elston Lafata J, Moon C, Leotta C, Kolodner K, Poisson L, Lipton RB. The medical care utilization and costs associated with migraine headache. J Gen Intern Med. 2004;19(10):1005–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Insinga RP, Ng-Mak DS, Hanson ME. Costs associated with outpatient, emergency room and inpatient care for migraine in the USA. Cephalalgia. 2011;31(15):1570–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Silberstein SD. Practice parameter: evidence-based guidelines for migraine headache (an evidence-based review): report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2000;55(6):754–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Tepper SJ, Spears RC. Acute treatment of migraine. Neurol Clin. 2009;27(2):417–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Ferrari MD, Goadsby PJ, Roon KI, Lipton RB. Triptans (serotonin, 5-HT1B/1D agonists) in migraine: detailed results and methods of a meta-analysis of 53 trials. Cephalalgia. 2002;22(8):633–58.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ferrari MD, Roon KI, Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ. Oral triptans (serotonin 5-HT(1B/1D) agonists) in acute migraine treatment: a meta-analysis of 53 trials. Lancet. 2001;358(9294):1668–75.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Adelman JU, Belsey 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 

  29. Taylor FR, Kaniecki RG. Symptomatic treatment of migraine: when to use NSAIDs, triptans, or opiates. Curr Treat Options Neurol. 2011;13(1):15–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Snow V, Weiss K, Wall EM, Mottur-Pilson C. Pharmacologic management of acute attacks of migraine and prevention of migraine headache. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(10):840–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Brandes JL, Kudrow D, Stark SR, O’Carroll CP, Adelman JU, O’Donnell FJ, Alexander WJ, Spruill SE, Barrett PS, Lener SE. Sumatriptan-naproxen for acute treatment of migraine: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2007;297(13):1443–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Moskowitz MA, Cutrer FM. Sumatriptan: a receptor-targeted treatment for migraine. Annu Rev Med. 1993;44:145–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Burstein R. Deconstructing migraine headache into peripheral and central sensitization. Pain. 2001;89(2–3):107–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Burstein R, Jakubowski M. Implications of multimechanism therapy: when to treat? Neurology. 2005;64(10 Suppl 2):S16–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jakubowski M, Levy D, Kainz V, Zhang XC, Kosaras B, Burstein R. Sensitization of central trigeminovascular neurons: blockade by intravenous naproxen infusion. Neuroscience. 2007;148(2):573–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lipton RB, Dodick DW, Adelman JU, Kaniecki RG, Lener SE, White JD, Nelsen AC. Consistency of response to sumatriptan/naproxen sodium in a placebo-controlled, crossover study. Cephalalgia. 2009;29(8):826–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Smith TR, Sunshine A, Stark SR, Littlefield DE, Spruill SE, Alexander WJ. Sumatriptan and naproxen sodium for the acute treatment of migraine. Headache. 2005;45(8):983–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Winner P, Cady RK, Ruoff GE, Frishberg BM, Alexander WJ, Zhang Y, Kori SH, Lener SE. Twelve-month tolerability and safety of sumatriptan-naproxen sodium for the treatment of acute migraine. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(1):61–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Cady RK, Diamond ML, Diamond MP, Ballard JE, Lener ME, Dorner DP, Derosier FJ, McDonald SA, White J, Runken MC. Sumatriptan-naproxen sodium for menstrual migraine and dysmenorrhea: satisfaction, productivity, and functional disability outcomes. Headache. 2011;51(5):664–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Landy S, DeRossett SE, Rapoport A, Rothrock J, Ames MH, McDonald SA, Burch SP. Two double-blind, multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-dose studies of sumatriptan/naproxen sodium in the acute treatment of migraine: function, productivity, and satisfaction outcomes. MedGenMed. 2007;9(2):53.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Smith T, Blumenthal H, Diamond M, Mauskop A, Ames M, McDonald S, Lener S, Burch S. Sumatriptan/naproxen sodium for migraine: efficacy, health related quality of life, and satisfaction outcomes. Headache. 2007;47(5):683–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Taylor AA, Shoheiber O. Adherence to antihypertensive therapy with fixed-dose amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl versus comparable component-based therapy. Congest Heart Fail. 2003;9(6):324–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Brixner DI, Jackson KC 2nd, Sheng X, Nelson RE, Keskinaslan A. Assessment of adherence, persistence, and costs among valsartan and hydrochlorothiazide retrospective cohorts in free-and fixed-dose combinations. Curr Med Res Opin. 2008;24(9):2597–607.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Rabbani A, Alexander GC. Out-of-pocket and total costs of fixed-dose combination antihypertensives and their components. Am J Hypertens. 2008;21(5):509–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Baser O, Andrews LM, Wang L, Xie L. Comparison of real-world adherence, healthcare resource utilization and costs for newly initiated valsartan/amlodipine single-pill combination versus angiotensin receptor blocker/calcium channel blocker free-combination therapy. J Med Econ. 2011;14(5):576–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Cheong C, Barner JC, Lawson KA, Johnsrud MT. Patient adherence and reimbursement amount for antidiabetic fixed-dose combination products compared with dual therapy among Texas Medicaid recipients. Clin Ther. 2008;30(10):1893–907.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Pan F, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM. Impact of fixed-dose combination drugs on adherence to prescription medications. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(5):611–4.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Thayer S, Arondekar B, Harley C, Darkow TE. Adherence to a fixed-dose combination of rosiglitazone/glimepiride in subjects switching from monotherapy or dual therapy with a thiazolidinedione and/or a sulfonylurea. Ann Pharmacother. 2010;44(5):791–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Hutchins V, Zhang B, Fleurence RL, Krishnarajah G, Graham J. A systematic review of adherence, treatment satisfaction and costs, in fixed-dose combination regimens in type 2 diabetes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(6):1157–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Deyo RA, Cherkin DC, Ciol MA. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative databases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(6):613–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Romano PS, Roos LL, Jollis JG. Adapting a clinical comorbidity index for use with ICD-9-CM administrative data: differing perspectives. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(10):1075–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. D’Hoore W, Bouckaert A, Tilquin C. Practical considerations on the use of the Charlson comorbidity index with administrative data bases. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(12):1429–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Taylor FR. Acute treatment of migraine headaches. Semin Neurol. 2010;30(2):145–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Tepper SJ. Opioids should not be used in migraine. Headache. 2012;52(Suppl 1):30–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Buse DC, Pearlman SH, Reed ML, Serrano D, Ng-Mak DS, Lipton RB. Opioid use and dependence among persons with migraine: results of the AMPP study. Headache. 2012;52(1):18–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Radat F, Lanteri-Minet M. What is the role of dependence-related behavior in medication-overuse headache? Headache. 2010;50(10):1597–611.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Bigal ME, Lipton RB. Excessive opioid use and the development of chronic migraine. Pain. 2009;142(3):179–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Bigal ME, Serrano D, Buse D, Scher A, Stewart WF, Lipton RB. Acute migraine medications and evolution from episodic to chronic migraine: a longitudinal population-based study. Headache. 2008;48(8):1157–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Praveen KT, Law F, O’Shea J, Melichar J. Opioid dependence. Clin Evid (Online) 2011;2011. pii: 1015.

  61. Landy SH, Cady RK, Nelsen AN, White J, Runken MC. Consistency of return to normal function, productivity, and satisfaction following migraine attacks treated with sumatriptan/naproxen sodium combination. Headache. 2013. Epub [accepted for publication July 21, 2013].

  62. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Celentano DD, Reed ML. Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States: relation to age, income, race, and other sociodemographic factors. JAMA. 1992;267(1):64–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Von Korff M. The burden of migraine: a review of cost to society. Pharmacoeconomics. 1994;6(3):215–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosure

This study was sponsored and conducted by GlaxoSmithKline. M. Chris Runken was employed by GlaxoSmithKline at the time of the conduct and analysis of the study, but is now employed by GE Healthcare. Bridgett Goodwin, Brian Bowers, and Christopher Bell are employees of, and stakeholders in, GlaxoSmithKline. Michael Eaddy and Anna D’Souza are employees of Xcenda, who received funding as a contract research organization for this study from GlaxoSmithKline. Manan Shah was an employee of Xcenda at the time of conduct and analysis of the study, but is now employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb. All named authors reviewed and approved this manuscript.

Author contributions

Study concept and design were primarily the work of Chris Runken, Manan Shah, Michael Eaddy, and Anna D’Souza, with assistance from the other authors. Data interpretation was primarily the work of Christopher Bell, Michael Eaddy, and Anna D’Souza, with assistance from the other authors. Writing of the manuscript was primarily the work of Christopher Bell, with assistance from the other authors. Revision of the manuscript was shared by all authors. Christopher Bell is the guarantor for the overall content of the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. M. Chris Runken

    Present address: Grifols, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, USA

  2. Manan Shah

    Present address: Bristol-Myers Squibb, New York, NY, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. GlaxoSmithKline, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, USA

    M. Chris Runken, Bridgett Goodwin, Brian Bowers & Christopher F. Bell

  2. Xcenda, Palm Harbor, FL, USA

    Manan Shah, Michael Eaddy & Anna D’Souza

Authors
  1. M. Chris Runken
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Bridgett Goodwin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manan Shah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Eaddy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anna D’Souza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Brian Bowers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Christopher F. Bell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher F. Bell.

Additional information

GSK Health Outcomes Study Number: 113913.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 100 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Runken, M.C., Goodwin, B., Shah, M. et al. Migraine-Related Healthcare Resource Use and Costs for Subjects Prescribed Fixed-Dose Combination Sumatriptan/Naproxen Sodium vs. Single-Entity Oral Triptans in a Managed Care Population in the USA. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 13, 109–120 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-014-0129-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-014-0129-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation