Skip to main content
Log in

Comparing Dihydroergotamine Mesylate and Sumatriptan in the Management of Acute Migraine

A Retrospective Cost-Efficacy Analysis

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The annual cost of managing migraine totals billions of US dollars. This retrospective economic analysis of a clinical trial comparing subcutaneous dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE) with subcutaneous sumatriptan in the treatment of acute migraine is appropriate because, although each product has been shown to be efficacious, the acquisition cost of sumatriptan is over 3 times that of DHE. Total costs in each treatment group were calculated and applied independently to 11 clinical trial efficacy measures.

Three of the efficacy measures showed no statistically significant difference between treatment arms, leading to a decision to use the less expensive DHE. In 4 of the efficacy measures, DHE was the obvious choice because it is more efficacious and less expensive. For the final 4 efficacy measures, where sumatriptan is more efficacious and more expensive, incremental cost-efficacy ratios were calculated to determine the additional expenditure required to achieve outcomes associated with quick relief.

Depending on the efficacy variable chosen and the assumptions used in the model, the incremental cost-efficacy ratios ranged from $US4000 to $US6700 per year (1993 dollars) for each additional patient who is successfully treated with sumatriptan compared with DHE. Therefore, in a population of 100 migraineurs, an additional 13 to 22 patients would achieve these short term benefits of sumatriptan, although it would cost an additional $US88 395 annually, given the assumptions made. Because each product has unique advantages, we conclude that the more cost-efficacious product is dependent on the outcome of interest and the amount that the patient or provider is willing to pay to achieve that outcome.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rappaport AM. Recurrent migraine: cost-effective care. Neurology 1994; 44 Suppl. 3: S25–8

    Google Scholar 

  2. Winner P, Ricalde O, LeForce B, et al. A double-blind study of subcutaneous dihydroergotamine versus subcutaneous sumatriptan in the treatment of acute migraine. Arch Neurol 1996; 53: 180–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Kozma CK, Mauch RP, Reeder CE, et al. A literature review comparing the economic, clinical and humanistic attributes of dihydroergotamine and sumatriptan. Clin Ther 1994; 16(6): 1037–51

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Welch KMA. Drug therapy of migraine. N Engl J Med 1993; 329(20): 1476–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Stang PE, Osterhaus JT. Impact of migraine in the United States: data from the national health interview survey. Headache 1993; 33: 29–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society. Classification and diagnostic criteria for headache disorders, cranial neuralgias and facial pain. Cephalgia 1988; 8 Suppl. 7: 1–96

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ziegler DK, Hassanein RS. Specific headache phenomena: their frequency and coincidence. Headache 1990; 30: 152–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rasmussen BK, Olesen J. Migraine with aura and migraine without aura: an epidemiological study. Cephalgia 1992; 12: 221–8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Silberstein SD, Lipton RB. Epidemiology of migraine. Neuroepidemiology 1993; 12: 179–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Celentano DD, et al. Prevalence of migraine headache in the United States: relation to income, race and other sociodemographic factors. JAMA 1992; 267(1): 64–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Friedman MD, Friedman DA. DHE 45 in the treatment of migraine: preliminary clinical observations. Ohio State Med J 1945; 41(12): 1099–100

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. ‘DHE 45’ (dihydroergotamine mesylate) injection product information. East Hanover (NJ): Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corporation, 1993 Apr

  13. Klapper JA, Stanton J. Clinical experience with patient administered subcutaneous dihydroergotamine mesylate in refractory headaches. Headache 1992; 32(1): 21–3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. ‘Imitrex’ (sumatriptan succinate) injection product information. Research Triangle Park (NC): Cerenex Pharmaceuticals, 1994 May

  15. Sumatriptan, serotonin and money [editorial]. Lancet 1992; 339: 151-2

  16. Kenyon J, editor. Optimum treatment of acute migraine and the place of sumatriptan in therapy. Drug Ther Perspect 1993; 1(1): 1–4

    Google Scholar 

  17. Average Wholesale Prices. Medi-Span Inc: 1995 Jul 1

  18. Bootman JL, Townsend RJ, McGhan WF. Principles of pharmacoeconomics. Cincinnati (OH): Harvey Whitney Books Company, 1991: 89

    Google Scholar 

  19. US Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1993. 113th ed. Washington, DC: The Reference Press, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ukens C. Pharmacist salaries: who’s getting the bigger bite? Drug Topics 1993; 137(7): 42–54

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Payne, K., Kozma, C.M. & Lawrence, B.J. Comparing Dihydroergotamine Mesylate and Sumatriptan in the Management of Acute Migraine. Pharmacoeconomics 10, 59–71 (1996). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199610010-00006

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199610010-00006

Keywords

Navigation