PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 11, Supplement 1, pp 43–50 | Cite as

A Multinational Investigation of the Impact of Subcutaneous Sumatriptan

IV: Patient Satisfaction
  • J. Bollchard
  • P. Cortelli
  • C. Dahlöf
  • J. Heywood
  • J.-P. Jansen
  • K. L. Price
  • S. Pham
  • A. Joseph
  • L. Babiak
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.

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.
    Bamat MR. Lake AE. Patient attitudes about headache. Headache 1983: 23: 229–37Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Personal and Economic Cost Questionnaire (PECQ). 1990. Glaxo Laboratories Ltd Booklet. Migraine: The patients perspectiveGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cady RK. Wendt JK. Kirchner JR. et al. Treatment of acute migraine with subcutaneous sumatriptan. JAMA 1991; 265:2K31–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Sumatriptan Auto-Injector Study Group. Self-treatment of acute migraine with subcutaneous sumatriptan using an auto injector device. Eur Neurol 1991: 31: 323–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nappi G. Siculeri F, Byrne M. et al. Oral sumatriptan compared with placebo in the acute treatment of migraine. J Neurol1994; 241: 138–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The Multinational Oral Sumatriptan and Cafergot Comparative Study Group. A randomised. douhle-blind comparison of sumatriptan and cafergot in the acute treatment of migraine.Eur Neurol1991; 31 (5): 314–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schoen J, Bulde J. Cackebcke J. et al. Self treatment of acute migraine with subcutaneous sumatriptan using an auto-injector device: comparison with customary treatment in an open.longitudinal study. Cephalalgia 1994: 14: 55–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cady RK. Dexter J. Sargant JD. et al. Efficacy of subcutaneous sumatriptan in repeated episodes of migraine. Neurology1993: 43: 1363–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chazot G. Boureau F. Emile J. et al. Comparison of sumatriptan with usual acute treatment of migraine. Cephalalgia 1993: 13 Suppl. 13: 162Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boureau F. Chazof G, Emile J. et al. Comparison of subcutaneous sumatriptan with usual acute treatments for migraine.French Sumatriptan Study Group. Eur Neurol 1995; 35 (5):264–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dahlöf C. How does sumatriptan perform in clinical practice? Cephalalgia 1995: 15: 21–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Heywood J, Bouchard J. Conelli P. et al. A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan. I: design,methods and clinical findings. Pharmaco Economics 1997: 11Suppl. 1: 11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Conelli P. Dahlof C. Bouchard J. et al. A multinational inve,ligation of the impacI of subcutaneous sumalriplan. III:workplace productivity and non-workplace activity.Pharmaco Economics 1997; 11 Suppl. 1: 35–42Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dahlöf C, Bouchard J. Conelli P. et al. A multinational investigation of the impact of suocutancous sumatriptan. II: healthrelatedquality of life. Pharmaco Economics 1997: 11 Suppl.1: 24–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Headache Classillcation Committee of the International Headache Society. Classificalion and diagnostic criteria for headache,orders. cranial neuralgias and facial pain. Cephalalgia 1988:8 (7): 1–98Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Bollchard
    • 1
  • P. Cortelli
    • 2
  • C. Dahlöf
    • 3
  • J. Heywood
    • 4
  • J.-P. Jansen
    • 5
  • K. L. Price
    • 6
  • S. Pham
    • 7
  • A. Joseph
    • 8
  • L. Babiak
    • 9
  1. 1.Clinical Research DepartmentSt Joseph HospitalLa MalbaieCanada
  2. 2.Clinica NeurologicaUniversità di BolognaBolognaItaly
  3. 3.The Gothenburg Migraine ClinicSociala Huset, GothenburgSweden
  4. 4.Royal Melbourne HospitalParkvilleAustralia
  5. 5.Schmerz-Zentrum Berlin GmbHBerlinGermany
  6. 6.Glaxo Wellcome Research and Development, Pharmacoeconomic ResearchGreenford, MiddlesexEngland
  7. 7.Glaxo Wellcome Research and Development, Medical AffairsResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  8. 8.Annie Chicoye EconomicsParisFrance
  9. 9.Drug Programme Management, Ministry of HealthTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations