PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 11, Supplement 1, pp 35–42 | Cite as

A Multinational Investigation of the Impact of Subcutaneous Sumatriptan

III: Workplace Productivity and Non-Workplace Activity
  • P. Cortelli
  • C. Dalhlöf
  • J. Bouclzard
  • J. Heywood
  • J.-P. Jansen
  • S. Pham
  • J. Hirsch
  • J. Adams
  • D. W. Miller
Article

Abstract

This report presents the workplace productivity and non-workplace activity results of a multinational study of the effects of subcutaneous sumatriptan 6mg in the acute treatment of migraine compared with patient’s customary therapy.

Patients diagnosed with mIgraine treated their symptoms for 24 weeks with subcutaneous sumatriptan after a 12-week period of treating symptoms with their customary (non-sumatriptan) therapy. Patients used diary cards to record information concerning the effects of migraine on workplace productivity and nonworkplace activity time.

The average workplace productivity time lost was 23.4 hours per patient during 12 weeks of customary therapy, compared with 7.2 and 5.8 hours per patient during the first and second 12-week periods of sumatriptan therapy, respectively. An average of9.3 hours of non-workplace activity time was lost per patient during the customary therapy phase, compared with 3.2 and 2.8 hours during the first and second 12-week periods of sumatriptan therapy, respectively.

Treatment of migraine with subcutaneous sumatriptan compared with customary therapy was associated with an average gain per patient of approximately 16 hours of workplace productivity time and 6 hours of non-workplace activity time, over a 3-month period.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Solomon GD. Quality-of-life assessment in patients with headache. Pharmaco Economics 1994; 6: 34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Osterhaus JT. Townsend RJ. Gandek B. et al. Measuring the functional status and well-being of patients with migraine headache. Headache 1994: 34: 337–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dahlof C, Assessment of health-related quality of life in migraine. Cephalalgia 1993: 12: 233–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stang PE. Osterhaus JT. Impact of migraine in the United States: data from the National Health Interview Survey. Headache 1993: 33: 29–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pryse-Phillips W. Findlay H. Tugwell P. et al. A Canadian population survey on the clinical. epidemiologic, and societal impact of migraine and tension-type headache. Can J Neurol Sci 1992: 19: 313–9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Osterhaus JT. Gullerman DL. Plachetko JR. Health care resource use and lost labour costs of migraine headache in the United States. Pharmaco Economics 1992: 2: 67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clouse JC, Osterhaus JT. Healthcare resource use and costs associated with migraine in a managed healthCare selling. PharomacoE,onomics 1994: 28: 659–64Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Lissomy G. Lazarus SS. The economic cost of migraine: present state of knowledge. Neurology 1994: 44 Suppl.4:58–62Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lipton TB. Stewart WE Health-related quality of life in headache research. Headache 1995: 35: 447–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wells NEJ. MioceVich ML. The economic cost of migraine. Br J Med Econ 1992: 2: 103–15Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    The Suhcutaneous Sumatriptan International Study Group. Treatment of migraine allacks with sumatriptan. N Engl J Med1991: 325: 316–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cady RK. Wendt JK. Kirchner JF. el al. Treatment of acute migraine with subcutaneous sumatriptan. JAMA 1991; 265:2831–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cutler N. Mushet GR. Davis R. et al. Oral sumatriptan for the acute treatment of migraine: evaluation of three dosagestrengths. Neurology 1995; 45 Suppl.: 10–4Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sergent J. Kirchner JR. Davis R. et al. Oral sumatriptan is effective and welltoleralcd for the a,ute treatment of migraine:results of a multicenter study. Neurology 1995: 45 Suppl.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rederkh G. Rapoport A. Cutler N. et al. Oral sumatriptan forthe long term treatment of migraine: elini,al lindings. Neurology1995: 45 SuppJ.: 15–20Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heywood J. Bouchard J. Cortelli P. et al. A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan. I: design methods and dinical lindings. Pharmaco Econorni.:s 1997: 11Suppl. 1: 11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    DahLöF C, Bouchard J. Cortelli P. et al. A multinational investigation of the impa,t of subcutaneous sumatriptan. II: healthrelatedquality of life. PharmacoEwnomi.:s 1997: 11 Suppl.1: 24–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bouchard J. Cortelli P. Dahlöf C, et al. A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan.IV: patient satisfaction. Pharmaco Economics 1997: 11 Suppl.1: 43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Headache Classilication Committee of the International Headache Society. Classification and diagnostic criteria for headachedisorders. Cranial neuralgias and facial pain. Cephalalgia 1988; 8: 1–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mushet GR. Miller IL. Clements B. et al. Impact of sumatriptan on workplace productivity. non work activities, and health-related quality of life among hospital employees with migraine.Headache 1996; 36: 137–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dahlöf CGU. How does sumatriptan perform in clinical practise? Cephalalgia 1995: 15 Suppl. 15: 21–8Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rasmussen BK. Jensen R. Scholl M. et al. Epidemiology of headache in a general populmion: a prevalence study. J Clin Epidemiol 1991: 44: 1147–57PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    van Roijen I. Essink-Bot ML. Koopmanschap MA. et al. Sorietal perspective on the burden of migraine in The Netherlands.Pharmaco Economics 1995: 7: 170–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Greiner ILL. Addy SN. Sumatriptan use in a large group-model health maintenan,e organisation Am J Health-Syst Pharm1996: 53: 633–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Miller DW. Martin BC, Loo CM. Sumatriptan and lost productivity: a time series analysis of diary data. Clin Ther 1996: 18:1263–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Adelman JU. Sharfman M. Johnson R. et al. Impact of oral sumatriptan on workplace productivity. health-related quality of life. healthcare use, and patient satisfaction in nurses with migraine. Am J Managed Care 1996: 2: 1407–16Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Cortelli
    • 1
  • C. Dalhlöf
    • 2
  • J. Bouclzard
    • 3
  • J. Heywood
    • 4
  • J.-P. Jansen
    • 5
  • S. Pham
    • 6
  • J. Hirsch
    • 7
  • J. Adams
    • 8
  • D. W. Miller
    • 9
  1. 1.Clinica NuerologiaUniversità di BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.The Gothenburg Migraine ClinicSociala Huset, GothenburgSweden
  3. 3.Clinical Research DepartmentSt Joseph HospitalLa MalbaieCanada
  4. 4.Royal Melbourne HospitalParkvilleAustralia
  5. 5.Schmerz-Zentrum Berlin GmbHBerlinGermany
  6. 6.Glaxo Wellcome Research and Development, Medical AffairsResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  7. 7.Hirsch Reid ConsultingTrabuco CanyonUSA
  8. 8.Glaxo Wellcome Inc.MississaugaCanada
  9. 9.Glaxo Wellcome Research and Development, Pharmacoeconomic ResearchGreenford, MiddlesexEngland

Personalised recommendations