, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 91–100 | Cite as

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stratified Versus Stepped Care Strategies for Acute Treatment of Migraine

The Disability in Strategies for Care (DISC) Study
  • Mark Sculpher
  • David Millson
  • David Meddis
  • Lynne Poole
Original Research Article


Background: The Disability in Strategies for Care (DISC) study was the first large randomised controlled trial to compare alternative treatment strategies in the acute treatment of migraine. With 835 patients in its intention-to-treat efficacy analysis, DISC compared a stratified care strategy, where initial therapy was based on clinical need as determined by the Migraine Disability Assessment Scale (MIDAS) and two stepped care strategies (across attacks and within attacks), where first-line therapy with a simple combination analgesic was escalated, if response had been inadequate, to zolmitriptan, a migraine-specific therapy.

Objective: To report on the cost effectiveness of these three strategies from a societal perspective.

Study design and methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken using data from the DISC study, and including both health service and productivity costs. Data were collected prospectively on drug usage (main therapy and rescue medication); resource use associated with adverse events was estimated by a clinician blinded to treatment strategy. Health service resource use was costed using UK unit costs (1999 to 2000 values). Data were collected using diary cards on the amount of time patients lost from work, and on reduced effectiveness at work, due to a migraine attack. This facilitated an estimate of the productivity costs associated with the treatment strategies. To assess cost effectiveness, the differences in costs between the strategies were related to the two primary outcome measures in the trial: headache response 2 hours after initial therapy and disability-adjusted time during the first 4 hours after initial therapy.

Results: Although the mean health service cost was higher in the stratified care group (mean over 6 attacks of £28.25 versus £11.74 and £23.15 in the stepped care across attacks group and within attacks group, respectively), mean productivity costs over 6 attacks were lower in the stratified group (£112.22 versus £144.70 and £127.53). The total mean cost over six attacks was, therefore, lowest in the stratified care group (£138.95 compared with £157.19 in the stepped care across attacks group and £148.53 in the stepped care within attacks group), although these differences did not reach statistical significance. In terms of headache response, stratified care was statistically significantly more effective than both forms of stepped care. Using disability-adjusted time, stratified care was statistically significantly more effective than stepped care across attacks, but not against stepped care within attacks.

Conclusion: Given its lower mean costs and higher mean effectiveness, a stratified care strategy, which included zolmitriptan, was the dominant strategy and was unequivocally more cost effective from a societal perspective than either stepped care strategy. When the uncertainty around these means was considered, stratified care had the highest probability of being cost effective.


  1. 1.
    Saper JR, Silberstein S, Gordon CD, et al., editors. Handbook of headache management: a practical guide to diagnosis and treatment of head, neck and facial pain. Baltimore (MD): Williams and Wilkins, 1993Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diener HC, Kaube H, Limmroth V. A practical guide to the management and prevention of migraine. Drugs 1998; 56: 811–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pryse-Phillips WE, Dodick DW, Edmeads JG. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of migraine in clinical practice. Canadian Headache Society. CMAJ 1997; 156: 1273–87Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lipton RB. Disability assessment as a basis for stratified care. Cephalalgia 1998; 18 Suppl. 22: 40–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lipton RB, Stewart WF. Clinical applications of zolmitriptan (Zomig, 311C90). Cephalalgia 1997; 18: 530–9Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lipton R, Stewart WF, Stone A, et al. Stratified care vs step care strategies for migraine: the Disability in Strategies of Care (DISC) study: a randomised trial. JAMA 2000; 284: 2599–605PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Williams P, Dowson AJ, Rapoport AM, et al. The cost effectiveness of stratified care in the management of migraine. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19: 819–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Whyte J. An international study to assess reliability of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score. Neurology 1999; 22: 988–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner K. Reliability of the Migraine Disability Assessment Score in a population-based sample of headache sufferers. Cephalalgia 1999; 19: 107–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner KB. Validity of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score in comparison to a diary-based measure in a population sample of migraine sufferers. Pain. In pressGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    British Medical Association, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. British National Formulary. London: British Medical Association and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, no. 39, 2000 MarGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Netten A, Dennett J, Knight J. Unit costs of health and social care. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 1999Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA). The Health Service Database 1999. Croydon: CIPFA, 1999Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    MEDTAP International. Database of International Unit Costs for Economic Evaluation in Health Care. London: MEDTAP International Inc, 1999Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1996Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Productivity costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: numerator or denominator: a further discussion. Health Econ 1997; 6: 511–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Office for National Statistics. Monthly digest of statistics, April. London: The Stationary Office, 2000Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH, van Ineveld BM, et al. The friction cost method of measuring the indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995; 14: 123–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Efron B, Tibshirani R. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York (NY): Chapman & Hall, 1993Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Johannesson M, Weinstein S. On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1993; 12: 459–67PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and c/e-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3: 309–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001; 10: 779–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Cost effectiveness analysis of improved blood pressure control in hypertensive patients with type 2 diabetes: UKPDS 40. BMJ 1998; 317: 720–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Delaney BC, Wilson S, Roalfe A, et al. Cost effectiveness of initial endoscopy for dyspepsia in patients over age 50 years: a randomised controlled trial in primary care. Lancet 2000; 356: 1965–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Briggs AH, Gray A. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3: 1–134PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Briggs AH. A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 1999; 8: 257–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 342–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Canadian Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (CCHOTA). Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals: Canada. Ottawa: 1997Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Commonwealth of Australia. Guidelines for the Pharmaceutical Industry on Preparation of Submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee: Including Major Submissions Involving Economic Analyses. Canberra: Australian Government Publication Service, 1995Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Health Insurance Council. Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research. Amsterdam: Health Insurance Council, 1999Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Johannesson M, O’Conor RM. Cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective. Health Policy 1997; 39: 241–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Sculpher
    • 1
  • David Millson
    • 2
  • David Meddis
    • 3
  • Lynne Poole
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Health EconomicsUniversity of YorkHeslington, YorkUK
  2. 2.Department of Medicines ManagementKeele UniversityKeele, StaffordshireUK
  3. 3.AstraZenecaMacclesfieldUK

Personalised recommendations