Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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, 1993
Diener HC, Kaube H, Limmroth V. A practical guide to the management and prevention of migraine. Drugs 1998; 56: 811–24
Pryse-Phillips WE, Dodick DW, Edmeads JG. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of migraine in clinical practice. Canadian Headache Society. CMAJ 1997; 156: 1273–87
Lipton RB. Disability assessment as a basis for stratified care. Cephalalgia 1998; 18 Suppl. 22: 40–6
Lipton RB, Stewart WF. Clinical applications of zolmitriptan (Zomig, 311C90). Cephalalgia 1997; 18: 530–9
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: 2599–605
Williams P, Dowson AJ, Rapoport AM, et al. The cost effectiveness of stratified care in the management of migraine. Pharmacoeconomics 2001; 19: 819–29
Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Whyte J. An international study to assess reliability of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score. Neurology 1999; 22: 988–94
Stewart WF, Lipton RB, Kolodner K. Reliability of the Migraine Disability Assessment Score in a population-based sample of headache sufferers. Cephalalgia 1999; 19: 107–14
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 press
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 Mar
Netten A, Dennett J, Knight J. Unit costs of health and social care. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent, 1999
Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy (CIPFA). The Health Service Database 1999. Croydon: CIPFA, 1999
MEDTAP International. Database of International Unit Costs for Economic Evaluation in Health Care. London: MEDTAP International Inc, 1999
Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, et al., editors. Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York (NY): Oxford University Press, 1996
Brouwer WBF, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Productivity costs in cost-effectiveness analysis: numerator or denominator: a further discussion. Health Econ 1997; 6: 511–4
Office for National Statistics. Monthly digest of statistics, April. London: The Stationary Office, 2000
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: 123–262
Efron B, Tibshirani R. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York (NY): Chapman & Hall, 1993
Johannesson M, Weinstein S. On the decision rules of cost-effectiveness analysis. J Health Econ 1993; 12: 459–67
Van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and c/e-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3: 309–19
Fenwick E, Claxton K, Sculpher M. Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Health Econ 2001; 10: 779–89
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: 720–6
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: 1965–9
Briggs AH, Gray A. Handling uncertainty when performing economic evaluation of healthcare interventions. Health Technol Assess 1999; 3: 1–134
Briggs AH. A Bayesian approach to stochastic cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ 1999; 8: 257–62
Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999; 18: 342–64
Canadian Coordinating Centre for Health Technology Assessment (CCHOTA). Guidelines for Economic Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals: Canada. Ottawa: 1997
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, 1995
Health Insurance Council. Dutch guidelines for pharmacoeconomic research. Amsterdam: Health Insurance Council, 1999
Johannesson M, O’Conor RM. Cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective. Health Policy 1997; 39: 241–53
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr Anne MacGregor from the City of London Migraine Clinic for her helpful discussions relating to the clinical scenarios associated with managing the adverse events. The DISC trial and this economic evaluation were funded by AstraZeneca.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sculpher, M., Millson, D., Meddis, D. et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Stratified Versus Stepped Care Strategies for Acute Treatment of Migraine. Pharmacoeconomics 20, 91–100 (2002). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200220020-00002
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200220020-00002