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.
Solomon GD. Quality-of-life assessment in patients with headache. Pharmaco Economics 1994; 6: 34–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Dahlof C, Assessment of health-related quality of life in migraine. Cephalalgia 1993: 12: 233–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stang PE. Osterhaus JT. Impact of migraine in the United States: data from the National Health Interview Survey. Headache 1993: 33: 29–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
Clouse JC, Osterhaus JT. Healthcare resource use and costs associated with migraine in a managed healthCare selling. PharomacoE,onomics 1994: 28: 659–64Google Scholar
de Lissomy G. Lazarus SS. The economic cost of migraine: present state of knowledge. Neurology 1994: 44 Suppl.4:58–62Google Scholar
Wells NEJ. MioceVich ML. The economic cost of migraine. Br J Med Econ 1992: 2: 103–15Google Scholar
The Suhcutaneous Sumatriptan International Study Group. Treatment of migraine allacks with sumatriptan. N Engl J Med1991: 325: 316–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cady RK. Wendt JK. Kirchner JF. el al. Treatment of acute migraine with subcutaneous sumatriptan. JAMA 1991; 265:2831–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Dahlöf CGU. How does sumatriptan perform in clinical practise? Cephalalgia 1995: 15 Suppl. 15: 21–8Google Scholar
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
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
Greiner ILL. Addy SN. Sumatriptan use in a large group-model health maintenan,e organisation Am J Health-Syst Pharm1996: 53: 633–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
Miller DW. Martin BC, Loo CM. Sumatriptan and lost productivity: a time series analysis of diary data. Clin Ther 1996: 18:1263–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
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