Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Cost Effectiveness of Stratified Care in the Management of Migraine

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective: To examine the cost effectivess of a stratified-care regimen for patients with migraine — in which patients are stratified by severity of illness, and then prescribed differing treatments according to level of severity — compared with a conventional stepped-care approach.

Design and methods: A decision analytic model was constructed to simulate a controlled clinical trial in which patients with migraine receiving primary medical care were randomly assigned to treatment under a stepped-care or a stratified-care regimen. A health service payer perspective was adopted and the time horizon was 1 year. Data inputs were: (i) the frequency and disability of migraine, derived from population-based studies; (ii) disability level-specific treatment response rates for over-the-counter analgesics, aspirin/metoclopramide and zolmitriptan as the representative of high-end therapy obtained from an international consensus opinion enquiry; and (iii) unit costs of healthcare obtained from UK health service sources.

Main outcome measures and results: The estimated 1-year direct healthcare costs per primary care patient with migraine were pound sterling (£) 156.82 for stepped care and £151.57 for stratified care. Estimates of treatment response rates were 40 and 71% for stepped and stratified care, respectively. The cost per successfully treated attack was £23.43 for stepped care and £12.60 for stratified care.

Stratified care remained cost effective when tested in a wide range of one-way sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed the cost effectiveness of stratified care to be significant at the 3%level.Conditional confidence analysis showed that the level of confidence in the cost effectiveness of stratified care varied positively with the case mix, i.e. in populations where the proportion of moderate and severely disabled patients with migraine was greater than 25%, the cost effectiveness of stratified care remained statistically significant.

Conclusion: A stratified-care treatment strategy (including zolmitriptan as the representative of high-end therapy) is a highly cost-effective method of managing migraine in the primary care setting compared with stepped care, delivering improved clinical outcomes at no additional cost.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Table I
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Stewart WF, Simon D, Schechter A, et al. Population variance in migraine prevalence: a meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 269–80

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Scher AI, Stewart WF, Lipton RB. Migraine and headache: a meta-analytic approach. In: Crombie IK, editor. Epidemiology of pain. Seattle: IASP Press, 1999; 159–70

    Google Scholar 

  3. Stewart WF, Linet MS, Celentano DD, et al. Age- and sex-specific incidence rates of migraine with and without visual aura. Am J Epidemiol 1991; 134: 1111–20

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Johannes CB, Linet MS, Stewart WF, et al. Relationship of headache to phase of the menstrual cycle among young women: a daily diary study. Neurology 1995; 45: 1076–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Dahlöf CGH, Solomon GD. The burden of migraine to the individual sufferer: a review. Eur J Neurol 1998; 5: 525–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stewart WF, Shechter A, Lipton RB. Migraine heterogeneity: disability, pain intensity, and attack frequency and duration. Neurology 1994; 44 Suppl. 4: 24–39

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ferrari MD. The economic burden of migraine to society. Pharmacoeconomics 1998; 13: 667–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. Thom TJ. Economic costs of neoplasms, arteriosclerosis, and diabetes in the United States. In Vivo 1996; 10: 255–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith DH, Malone DC, Lawson KA, et al. A national estimate of the economic costs of asthma. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 156: 787–93

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. MIPCA. Migraine management guidelines: a strategy for the modern management of migraine. In: Eisenstadt, editor. Guidelines: summarising clinical guidelines for primary care. Berkhamsted: Medendium 1998; 4: 147

    Google Scholar 

  12. Lipton RB, Stewart WF. Clinical applications of zolmitriptan (Zomig™, 311C90). Cephalalgia 1997; 17 Suppl. 18: 53–9

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lipton RB. Disability assessment as a basis for stratified care. Cephalalgia 1998; 18 Suppl. 22: 40–6

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Whyte J, et al. An international study to assess the reliability of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score. Neurology 1999; 53: 988–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. MIDAS questionnaire. Accessed from: URL: http://www.midasmigraine.net/us/question/default.asp?p=question [Accessed 2001 May 31]

  16. Lipton RB, Stewart W, Stone A, et al. Stratified care is more effective than step care strategies for migraine: results of the Disability In Strategies for Care (DISC) Study. JAMA 2000; 284: 2599–605

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Migraine. Accessed from: URL: http://www.prodigy.nhs.uk/guidance/crs/migraine.htm [Accessed 2001 May 31]

  18. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner KB, et al. Validity of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score in comparison to a diary-based measure in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain 2000; 88: 41–52

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Evans C. The use of consensus methods and expert panels in pharmacoeconomic studies: practical applications and methodological shortcomings. Pharmacoeconomics 1997; 12: 121–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Rowe G, Wright G, Bolger F. Delphi: a re-evaluation of research and theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 1991; 39: 235–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Netten A, Dennett J, Knight J. Unit costs of health and social care. Canterbury: Personal and Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent at Canterbury, 1998

    Google Scholar 

  22. Critchfield GC, Willard KE. Probabilistic analysis of decision trees using Monte Carlo simulation. Med Decis Making 1986; 6: 85–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Morgan MG, Henrion M. Uncertainty: a guide to dealing with uncertainty in quantitative risk and policy analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990

    Book  Google Scholar 

  24. ZOMIG Professional Information Brochure. Accessed from : URL: http://www.astrazeneca-us.com/pi/ZM1108.pdf [Accessed 2001 May 31]

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a grant from AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. PW, AJD and AMR have undertaken consultancy work on behalf of a number of pharmaceutical companies. At the time of the study, JS was an employee of AstraZeneca.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Genesis Pharma Strategies, PAREXEL MMS, River Court, 50 Oxford Road, Denham, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB9 4DN, UK

    Paul Williams

  2. Kings Headache Service, Kings College Hospital, London, UK

    Andrew J. Dowson

  3. New England Center for Headache, Stamford, Connecticut, USA

    Alan M. Rapoport

  4. Prism Ideas Ltd, Nantwich, UK

    James Sawyer

Authors
  1. Paul Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew J. Dowson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alan M. Rapoport
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James Sawyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Williams, P., Dowson, A.J., Rapoport, A.M. et al. The Cost Effectiveness of Stratified Care in the Management of Migraine. Pharmacoeconomics 19, 819–829 (2001). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119080-00004

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119080-00004

Keywords

Search

Navigation