, Volume 13, Issue 6, pp 667–676 | Cite as

The Economic Burden of Migraine to Society

  • Michel D. Ferrari
Review Article The Burden of Migraine to Society


The financial burden of migraine on society comprises direct costs, associated with medical care, and indirect costs, caused by absence from work and reduced productivity.

Recent studies have revealed that direct costs are generally relatively low in Europe, but are much higher in North America, probably because of increased use of emergency room and specialist consultations for the treatment of migraine. Most individuals who experience migraine headaches take medication (over-thecounter, prescription-only or a combination of both) for their condition; in Europe and North America, most patients who experience migraines have consulted a physician at some time because of their condition.

In general, the estimated indirect costs of migraine are substantial and are much higher than estimates of direct costs. On average, work losses related to reduced productivity are higher than those related to work absence. These data demonstrate the importance of the societal impact of migraine and illustrate the need for improved strategies to target migraine treatment.


Migraine Adis International Limited Indirect Cost Direct Cost Migraine Attack 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgias and facial pain. Cephalalgia 1988; 8 Suppl 7: 19–28Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Edmeads J, Findlay H, Tugwell P, et al. Impact of migraine and tension-type headache on life-style, consulting behaviour, and medication use: a Canadian population survey. Can J Neurol Sci 1993; 20: 131–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Streator SE, Shearer SW. Pharmacoeconomic impact of injectable sumatriptan on migraine-associated healthcare costs. Am J Manage Care 1996; 2: 139–43Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Celentano DD, Stewart WF, Lipton RB, et al. Medication use and disability among migraineurs: a national probability sample survey. Headache 1992; 32: 223–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Osterhaus JT, Gutterman DL, Plachetka JR. Healthcare resource and lost labour costs of migraine headache in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 2 (1): 67–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stang PE, Osterhaus JT, Celentano DD, et al. Migraine: problems of healthcare. Neurology 1994; 44 Suppl. 4: S47–55Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rasmussen BK, Jensen R, Olesen J. Impact of headache on sickness absence and utilisation of medical services: a Danish population study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1992; 46: 443–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van Roijen L, Essink-Bot M-L, Koopmanschap MA, et al. Societal perspective on the burden of migraine in the Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7 (2): 170–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wong TW, Wong KS, Yu TS, et al. Prevalence of migraine and other headaches in Hong Kong. Neuroepidemiology 1995; 14: 82–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sakai F, Igarashi H. Epidemiology of migraine in Japan: a nationwide study. Cephalalgia 1997; 17: 15–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaa KA, Carlson JA, Osterhaus JT. Emergency department resource use by patients with migraine and asthma in a health maintenance organization. Ann Pharmacother 1995; 29: 251–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Micieli G. Suffering in silence. In: Edmeads J, editor. Migraine: a brighter future. Worthing: Cambridge Medical Publications, 1993: 1–7Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Parry TG. The prevalence and costs of migraine in Australia. Kensington: University of New South Wales, 1992. Centre for Applied Economic Research (CAER) working paper no.: 1992/1Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Björk S, Roos P. Economic aspects of migraine in Sweden. Lund: Institute for Health Economics, 1991. Working paper no.: 8Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blau JN, Drummond MF. Migraine. London: Office of Health Economics, 1991Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bloomberg Financial Markets. Electronic database. New York: LP Bloomberg, 1998Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    International Monetary Fund (IMF). International financial statistics. Vol. 11 (1). Washington, DC: IMF, 1998Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    O—Brien B, Goeree R, Streiner D. Prevalence of migraine headache in Canada: a population-based survey. Int J Epidemiol 1994; 23: 1020–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clouse JC, Osterhaus JT. Healthcare resource use and costs associated with migraine in a managed healthcare setting. Ann Pharmacother 1994; 28: 659–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cull RE, Wells NEJ, Miocevich ML. The economic cost of migraine. Br J Med Econ 1992; 2: 103–15Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Láinez JM, Titus F, Cobaleda S, et al. Socioeconomic impact of migraine [abstract]. Funct Neurol 1996; 11: 133Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Clarke CE, MacMillan L, Sondhi S, et al. Economic and social impact of migraine. Q J Med 1996; 89: 77–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Celentano DD, et al. Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States: relation to age, income, race, and other sociodemographic factors. JAMA 1992; 267: 64–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Simon D. Work-related disability: results from the American migraine study. Cephalalgia 1996; 16: 231–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    To T, Wu K. Health care utilization and disability of migraine: the Ontario health survey. Can J Public Health 1995; 86: 195–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stang PE, Osterhaus JT. Impact of migraine in the United States: data from the National Health Interview Survey. Headache 1993; 33: 29–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Breslau N, Davis GC, Andreski P. Migraine, psychiatric disorders, and suicide attempts: an epidemiologic study of young adults. Psychiatry Res 1991; 37: 11–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Göbel H, Petersen—Braun M. Why patients with primary headaches do not consult a doctor. In: Olesen J, editor. Headache classification and epidemiology. New York: Raven Press Ltd, 1994: 267–72Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huse DM, Oster G, Killen AR, et al. The economic costs of non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. JAMA 1989; 262: 2708–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Von Korff M. The burden of migraine. A review of cost to society. Pharmacoeconomics 1994; 6 (3): 215–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sawyer J, Edmeads J, Lipton RB, et al. Clinical utility of a new instrument assessing migraine disability: the migraine disability assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire [abstract]. Neurology 1998; 50 Suppl. 4: A433–4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel D. Ferrari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeurologyLeiden University Medical CentreLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations