Skip to main content
Log in

Sumatriptan

A Pharmacoeconomic Review of its Use in Migraine

  • Adis Pharmacoeconomic Drug Evaluation
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Synopsis

Migraine is a common illness characterised by severe, often throbbing and/or unilateral headache, which may be accompanied by sensitivity to light or noise. A minority of migraine attacks are preceded by transient visual or sensory disturbances. Migraine is associated with reductions in health-related quality of life, both during and between attacks.

Despite methodological limitations in cost-of-illness studies, it is clear that the cost of migraine to society is substantial. Indirect costs (primarily workplace productivity losses) make up 75 to 90% of total costs. Direct costs, such as the cost of drug treatment, physician consultation, hospitalisation and emergency room treatment, make up most of the remainder.

Sumatriptan is an effective and well tolerated agent in the treatment of migraine. Its main advantage over other agents used in the acute management of migraine appears to be its rapid onset of action. Sumatriptan reduces headache severity within 2 hours of oral administration in 50 to 67% of patients and within 1 hour of subcutaneous administration in 70 to 80% of patients. Headache recurs in approximately 40% of patients who initially respond to oral or subcutaneous sumatriptan; however, a second dose of the drug is effective against the symptoms of recurrence in a majority of patients. Some patients experience relief of non-headache migraine symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia. Adverse events reported after sumatriptan are generally mild and transient.

Data from studies of patients who used their usual therapies and sumatriptan in nonblinded, sequential phases indicate that both workplace and nonworkplace productivity losses were reduced during sumatriptan therapy. A cost-benefit analysis applied to some of these workplace productivity data indicated that, including direct costs and productivity savings, sumatriptan was associated with a net reduction in total cost of migraine. In retrospective cost analyses, sumatriptan was associated with increased prescription costs; the effect of the drug on other direct treatment costs was less clear. A retrospective pharmacoeconomic model suggested that the cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous sumatriptan versus subcutaneous dihydroergotamine depended on which outcome measure was of greatest interest. For measures of rapid relief of migraine, sumatriptan was superior, but the cost of achieving rapid relief was substantial.

Sumatriptan improved global quality-of-life scores compared with patients’ usual therapy in a randomised crossover trial and appeared to do the same when the drugs were administered in nonblinded, sequential phases in trials which used general and migraine-specific quality-of-life instruments.

Thus, sumatriptan is associated with a fast onset of action and improvements in health-related quality of life in patients with migraine. However, the cost of achieving rapid relief of migraine symptoms may be substantial. Compared with patients’ usual treatments, sumatriptan appeared to reduce workplace and non-workplace productivity losses. However, few economic data from well controlled prospective comparisons of sumatriptan with other available agents are available to quantify the effect of sumatriptan on the overall cost of migraine.

Overview of Migraine

Migraine headache affects 8 to 12% of the general adult population, but is more prevalent in women. Attacks of migraine, which may occur with or without aura, are characterised by severe, often unilateral and/or throbbing, head pain accompanied by nausea and/or sensitivity to light or noise. Transient visual or sensory disturbances (auras) precede a minority of attacks. Migraine is associated with reductions in health-related quality of life, particularly in the dimensions of bodily pain and role-physical (ability to function limited by physical health), both during and between attacks. More than half all of persons with migraine surveyed in the US reported at least 1 severe attack per month. More than 80% of patients report some disability with their attacks. Despite low rates of physician consultation, most persons with migraine use prescription or nonprescription medication for acute migraine headache.

Cost-of-illness estimates are associated with theoretical and methodological limitations; however, it is clear that the cost of migraine to society is substantial. Indirect costs, primarily those resulting from lost workplace productivity, make up the largest portion of total costs (75 to 90%). Estimates of the annual indirect cost of migraine range from $US1.4 to $US17.2 billion in the US (calculated using earnings data published in 1989) and £250 to £741 million in the UK (1990 and 1992 costs, respectively). Estimates of direct costs (e.g. the costs of medication, physician consultation, hospitalisation and emergency room treatment) are about 10 to 25% of the total cost of illness.

Clinical Profile of Sumatriptan

Sumatriptan is an effective and well tolerated agent in the treatment of migraine. Its main advantage over other available antimigraine drugs appears to be its rapid onset of action. Sumatriptan reduces headache severity in 50 to 67% of patients within 2 hours of oral administration and 70 to 80% of patients 1 hour after subcutaneous administration. Headache recurred within 48 hours in approximately 40% of patients who initially responded to the drug. A second dose of medication administered for symptom recurrence was effective in the majority of patients.

In randomised studies, headache relief after oral sumatriptan was as good as, or better than, that provided by other oral agents, including aspirin plus metoclopramide, ergotamine plus caffeine, and lysine acetylsalicylate plus metoclopramide. Subcutaneous sumatriptan provided more rapid relief of headache pain than subcutaneous dihydroergotamine mesylate (DHE), but was not superior 4 and 24 hours after administration. Fewer patients required rescue medication after oral sumatriptan than after aspirin plus metoclopramide or ergotamine plus caffeine.

Adverse events associated with sumatriptan are generally transient and of mild to moderate severity and would not be expected to substantially increase the cost of migraine treatment. After sumatriptan, some patients experience relief of non-headache migrainous symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, photophobia and phonophobia.

Pharmacoeconomic and Quality-of-Life Considerations

Limitations of available pharmacoeconomic analyses of sumatriptan include the absence of blinding and parallel control groups in most studies. Compared with patients’ usual treatments, oral and subcutaneous sumatriptan are associated with reductions in workplace productivity losses: estimated productivity gains with sumatriptan ranged from 12.1 to 89.8 hours per patient per year. Although of less measurable economic impact, nonworkplace productivity gains — generally less than an hour per treated migraine day — have also been documented with sumatriptan therapy.

A cost-benefit analysis of sumatriptan therapy suggested that the cost of oral sumatriptan 50mg (£220 per patient per year) was more than offset by reductions in workplace productivity losses, resulting in a net annual economic benefit of sumatriptan therapy to society of £125 per patient (1996 costs). In retrospective cost analyses, the introduction of sumatriptan was associated with increased prescription costs, but its effect on other direct costs associated with migraine treatment was unclear.

A pharmacoeconomic model applied retrospectively to a comparison of subcutaneous sumatriptan with subcutaneous DHE suggested that cost effectiveness of the 2 therapies was dependent upon which outcome measure was of greatest interest. For 4 outcome measures associated with rapid relief of migraine symptoms (requirement for no more than 1 dose of medication, ability to carry on as normal 1 hour after first dose and complete relief of symptoms or nausea 1 hour after first dose), the extra cost per patient successfully treated with sumatriptan ranged from $US4131 to $US6697 (1993 dollars). For other measures, DHE was both more efficacious and less expensive; therefore, cost-effectiveness ratios were not calculated. The additional cost of treating 100 patients with sumatriptan instead of DHE was estimated at $US88 395 per year (i.e. $US 884 per patient per year) [1993 dollars].

Health-related quality of life in patients with migraine is improved during treatment with sumatriptan, as demonstrated in a randomised crossover trial. Improvements in global health-related quality-of-life scores and scores for the domains of functional, physical and social impairments and iatrogenic disturbance were significantly greater during sumatriptan therapy than when patients used their usual medications. Health-related quality of life, measured by general and migraine-specific quality-of-life instruments, improved after sumatriptan therapy compared with baseline or scores after patients’ usual therapies, but the lack of parallel control groups and blinding in these studies limits the conclusions that can be drawn.

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. Plosker GL, McTavish D. Sumatriptan: a reappraisal of its pharmacology and therapeutic efficacy in the acute treatment of migraine and cluster headache. Drugs 1994 Apr; 47: 622–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. 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: 19–28

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kryst S, Scherl E. A population-based survey of the social and personal impact of headache. Headache 1994 Jun; 34: 344–50

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Henry P, Michel P, Brochet B, et al. A nationwide survey of migraine in France: prevalence and clinical features in adults. Cephalalgia 1992 Aug; 12: 229–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lipton RB, Stewart WF. The epidemiology of migraine. Eur Neurol 1994; 34 Suppl. 2: 6–11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Celentano DD, et al. Undiagnosed migraine headaches. A comparison of symptom-based and reported physician diagnosis. Arch Intern Med 1992 Jun; 152: 1273–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hopkins A. The epidemiology of headache and migraine, and its meaning for neurological services. Schweiz Med Wochenschr 1996 Jan 27; 126: 128–35

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 Jan 1; 267: 64–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 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 May; 20: 131–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Clarke CE, MacMillan L, Sondhi S. Economic and social impact of migraine. Q J Med 1996 Jan; 89: 77–84

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Welch KMA. Drug therapy of migraine. N Engl J Med 1993 Nov 11; 329: 1476–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Chustecka Z. New migraine agents approaching the market. Scrip 1996; 2166: 26

    Google Scholar 

  14. Visser WH, Terwindt GM, Reines SA, et al. Rizatriptan vs sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine: a placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study. Arch Neurol 1996; 53: 1132–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Osterhaus JT, Gutterman DL, Plachetka JR. Healthcare resource and lost labour costs of migraine headache in the US. Pharmacoeconomics 1992 Jul; 2(1): 67–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stang PE, Osterhaus JT. Impact of migraine in the United States: data from the National Health Interview Survey. Headache 1993 Jan; 33: 29–35

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Van Roijen L, Essink-Bot M-L, Koopmanschap MA. Societal perspective on the burden of migraine in the Netherlands. Pharmacoeconomics 1995 Feb; 7(2): 170–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bosanquet N, Zammit-Lucia J. Migraine: prevention or cure? Br J Med Econ 1992; 2: 81–91

    Google Scholar 

  19. Blau JN, Drummond MF, editors. Migraine. London: Office of Health Economics, 1991

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cull RE, Wells NEJ, Miocevich ML. The economic cost of migraine. Br J Med Econ 1992; 2: 103–15

    Google Scholar 

  21. Drummond M. Cost-of-illness studies: a major headache? Pharmacoeconomics 1992 Jul; 2(1): 1–4

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Davey PJ, Leeder SR. The cost of migraine: more than just a headache? Pharmacoeconomics 1992 Jul; 2(1): 5–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. de Lissovoy G, Lazarus SS. The economic cost of migraine. Present state of knowledge. Neurology 1994 Jun; 44 Suppl. 4: S56–62

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Dahlöf CGH, Dimenäs E. Migraine patients experience poorer subjective well-being/quality of life even between attacks. Cephalalgia 1995 Feb; 15: 31–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Osterhaus JT, Townsend RJ, Gandek B, et al. Measuring the functional status and well-being of patients with migraine headache. Headache 1994 Jun; 34: 337–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Solomon GD. Quality-of-life assessment in patients with headache. Pharmacoeconomics 1994 Jul; 6(1): 34–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Solomon GD, Skobieranda FG, Gragg LA. Quality of life and well-being of headache patients: measurement by the Medical Outcomes Study Instrument. Headache 1993 Jul-Aug; 33: 351–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Dechant KL, Clissold SP. Sumatriptan: a review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic efficacy in the treatment of migraine and cluster headache. Drugs 1992 May; 43: 776–98

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Harrison DL, Slack MK. Meta-analytic review of the effect of subcutaneous sumatriptan in migraine headache. J Pharm Technol 1996 May-Jun; 12: 109–14

    CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Tfelt-Hansen P, Henry P, Mulder LJ, et al. The effectiveness of combined oral lysine acetylsalicylate and metoclopramide compared with oral sumatriptan for migraine. Lancet 1995 Oct 7; 346: 923–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Multinational oral sumatriptan and cafergot comparative study group. A randomized, double-blind comparison of sumatriptan and cafergot in the acute treatment of migraine. Eur Neurol 1991 Sep-Oct; 31: 314–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Oral sumatriptan and aspirin plus metoclopramide comparative study group. A study to compare oral sumatriptan with oral aspirin plus oral metoclopramide in the acute treatment of migraine. Eur Neurol 1992 May-Jun; 32: 177–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Subcutaneous Sumatriptan International Study Group. Treatment of migraine attacks with sumatriptan. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 316–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dahlöf CGH. How does sumatriptan perform in clinical practice? Cephalalgia 1995 Oct; 15 Suppl. 15: 21–8

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dahlof C, Bouchard J, Cortelli P, et al. The impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan on workplace productivity and non-workplace activity: results of a multinational study in patients with migraine. Glaxo Wellcome, 18 Dec 1996. (Data on file)

  37. Gross MLP, Dowson AJ, Deavy L, et al. Impact of oral sumatriptan 50 mg on work productivity and quality of life in migraineurs. Br J Med Econ 1996; 10: 231–46

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mushet GR, Miller D, Clements B, et al. Impact of sumatriptan on workplace productivity, nonwork activities, and health-related quality of life among hospital employees with migraine. Headache 1996 Mar; 36: 137–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Langsdale T. Sumatriptan for migraine: assessing the outcomes. Inpharma 1996 Apr 20; 1033: 7–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Payne K, Kozma CM, Lawrence BJ. Comparing dihydroergotamine mesylate and sumatriptan in the management of acute migraine: a retrospective cost-efficacy analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 1996 Jul; 10(1): 59–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Edmond M, Miller DW, Clements B, et al. Impact of sumatriptan on health-related quality of life and productivity in migraineurs [abstract]. Neurology 1995 Apr; 45 Suppl. 4: 465

    Google Scholar 

  42. Dahlof C, Bouchard J, Cortelli P, et al. Sumatriptan treatment in improving health-related quality of life in migraineurs. Glaxo Wellcome, 30 Dec 1996. (Data on file)

  43. Jhingran P, Cady RK, Rubino J, et al. Improvements in health-related quality of life with sumatriptan treatment for migraine. J Fam Pract 1996 Jan; 42: 36–42

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. 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 with medication in nurses with migraine. Am J Man Care 1996; 2(10): 1407–16

    Google Scholar 

  45. McGhan WF, Kitz DS. Cost-Benefit Analysis. In: Bootman JL, Townsend RJ, McGhan WF, editors. Principles of pharmacoeconomics. Cincinnati (OH): Harvey Whitney Books Company, 1996: 60–75

    Google Scholar 

  46. Tfelt-Hansen P, Scheldewaert RG, Chazot G. Treatment of migraine attacks by oral lysine acetylsalicylate + metoclopramide (LAS + MTC) versus oral sumatriptan (S): socioeconomic consequences [abstract]. 6th Int Headache Res Sem 1995 Nov 17: 33

    Google Scholar 

  47. Miller DW, Martin BC, Loo CM. Sumatriptan and lost productivity time: a time series analysis of diary data. Clin Ther 1996; 18(6): 1263–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Streator SE, Shearer SW. Pharmacoeconomic impact of injectable sumatriptan on migraine-associated healthcare costs. Am J Man Care 1996; 2(2): 139–43

    Google Scholar 

  49. Litaker DG, Solomon GD, Genzen JR. Impact of sumatriptan on clinic utilization and costs of care in migraineurs. Headache 1996; 36: 538–41

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Cohen JA, Beall DG, Miller DW, et al. Subcutaneous sumatriptan for the treatment of migraine: humanistic, economic, and clinical consequences. Fam Med 1996; 28: 171–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Boureau F, Chazot G, Emile J, et al. Clinical efficacy of sumatriptan and its impact on quality of life comparison with the usual acute treatments of migraine [abstract]. In: Rose CF, editor. New advances in headache research 4. Proceedings of the 10th Migraine Trust Symposium: Sep 1994: London, England. London: Smith-Gordon and Company, 1994: 308

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bouchard J, Dahlof C, Heywood J, et al. A multinational investigation of subcutaneous sumatriptan: (IV) patient satisfaction. Glaxo Wellcome, 30 Dec 1996. (Data on file)

  53. Gruffydd-Jones K, Hood C, Price D. Patient preference for subcutaneous and oral sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine [abstract]. Eur J Neurol 1995 Sep; 2 Suppl. 1: 65

    Google Scholar 

  54. Steiner TJ. Long-term cost-benefit assessment of anti-migraine drugs. Cephalalgia 1995 Oct; 15 Suppl. 15: 37–40

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Larson LN. Cost determination and analysis. In: Bootman JL, Townsend RJ, McGhan WF, editors. Principles of pharmacoeconomics. 2nd ed. Cincinnati: Harvey Whitney Books, 1996: 44–59

    Google Scholar 

  56. Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FHF. Indirect costs in economic studies: confronting the confusion. Pharmacoeconomics 1993; 4(6): 446–54

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  57. Henry DA. Should indirect costs and benefits be included? [letter]. Pharmacoeconomics 1992; 1(6): 462

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allan J. Coukell.

Additional information

Various sections of the manuscript reviewed by: C. Dahlöf, Migränklinik-Göteborg, Gothenburg, Sweden;J. Edmeads, Department of Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; A. Hisashige, Department of Preventive Medicine, University of Tokushima, Tokushima, Japan; K. Payne, Department of Pharmacy, University of Manchester, Manchester, England; F. Rutten, Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; G.D. Solomon, Department of General Internal Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA; T.J. Steiner, Academic Unit of Neuroscience, Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School, London, England; T.D. Szucs, Medical Economics Research Group, Munich, Germany; R.L. Von Seggern, Adelman Headache Center, Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Coukell, A.J., Lamb, H.M. Sumatriptan. PharmacoEconomics 11, 473–490 (1997). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199711050-00009

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199711050-00009

Keywords

Navigation