Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-12T04:26:16.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are the Triptans for Migraine Therapy Worth the Cost?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2016

W.J. Becker
W.J. Becker*
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
*
Division of Neurology, 12th Floor, Foothills Medical Centre, 1403 - 29th Street NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 2T9, Canada.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The triptans represent a major advance in migraine therapy but their cost per dose greatly exceeds that of many older treatments. There is evidence that for a significant proportion of migraine patients these new drugs can show a positive cost benefit and also improve quality of life. Cost benefit would be expected to be greatest in patients with more severe migraine attacks.

Type
Review Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , May 2000 , pp. 111 - 115
Copyright
Copyright © The Canadian Journal of Neurological 2000

References

REFERENCES

1. Tfelt-Hansen, P. Efficacy and adverse events of subcutaneous, oral and intranasal sumatriptan used for migraine treatment: a systematic review based on number needed to treat. Cephalalgia 1998 Oct;18(8):532–538.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Shear, NH, Oh, PI, Arikian, SR, Detsky, AS, Laupacis, A. Pharmacoeconomics: measure of cost and benefit. Ann R Coll Phys Surg Canada 1995;28:239–240.Google Scholar
3. Cohen, JA, Beall, DG, Miller, DW, et al. Subcutaneous sumatriptan for the treatment of migraine: humanistic, economic, and clinical consequences. Fam Med 1996 Mar;28(3):171–177.Google ScholarPubMed
4. Streator, SE, Shearer, SW. Pharmacoeconomic impact of injectable sumatriptan on migraine associated healthcare costs. Am J Manag Care 1996;2:67–76.Google Scholar
5. Legg, RF, Sclar, DA, Nemec, NL, Tarnai, J, Mackowiak, JI. Cost effectiveness of sumatriptan in a managed care population. Am J Manag Care 1997;3:117–122.Google Scholar
6. von Korff, M, Stewart, WF, Simon, DJ, Lipton, RB. Migraine and reduced work performance: a population-based diary study. Neurology 1998;50:1741–1745.Google Scholar
7. Cortelli, P, Cahlof, C Bouchard, J, et al. A multinational investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan III. Workplace productivity and non-workplace activity. PharmacoEconomics 1997;11(Suppl.1):35–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Legg, RF, Sclar, DA, Nemec, NL, Tarnai, J, Mackowiak, JI. Cost benefit of sumatriptan to an employer. JOEM 1997;39(7):652–657.Google Scholar
9. Fishman, P, Black, L. Indirect costs of migraine in a managed care population. Cephalalgia 1999;19:50–57.Google Scholar
10. Michel, P, Dartigues, JF, Duru, G, et al. Incremental absenteeism due to headaches in migraine: results from the Mig-Access French national cohort. Cephalalgia 1999;19(5):503–510.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Davies, GM, Santanello, N, Gerth, W, Lerner, D, Block, GA. Validation of a migraine work and productivity loss questionnaire for use in migraine studies. Cephalalgia 1999;19(5): 497–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Dahlof, C, Bouchard, J, Cortelli, P, et al. A multi-national investigation of the impact of subcutaneous sumatriptan II: health-related quality of life. PharmacoEconomics 1997; 11(Suppl.1):24–34.Google Scholar
13. Osterhaus, JT, Gutterman, DL, Plachetka, JR. Healthcare resource and lost labor costs of migraine in the US. PharmacoEconomics 1992;2:67–76.Google Scholar
14. Van Roijen, L, Essink-Bot, M-L, Koopmanschap, MA, et al. Societal perspective on the burden of migraine in the Netherlands. PharmacoEconomics 1995;7:170–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. 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;346:923–926.Google Scholar
16. The 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;32:177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Myllylä, VV, Havanka, H, Herrala, L, et al. Tolfenamic acid rapid release versus sumatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine: comparable effect in a double-blind, randomized, controlled, parallel-group study. Headache 1998;38:201–207.Google Scholar
18. The 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;31:314–322.Google Scholar
19. Reches A. Comparison of the efficacy, safety and tolerability of oral eletriptan and cafergot for the acute treatment of migraine. Cephalalgia 1999;19:355.Google Scholar
20. The Diclofenac-K/Sumatriptan Migraine Study Group. Acute treatment of migraine attacks: efficacy and safety of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug, diclofenac-potassium, in comparison to oral sumatriptan and placebo. Cephalalgia 1999;19(4):232–240.Google Scholar
21. Pryse-Phillips, WEM, Dodick, WD, Edmeads, JG, et al. Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of migraine in clinical practice. Can Med Assoc J 1997;156:1273–1287.Google ScholarPubMed
22. Mathews, NT. Drug induced headache. Neurologic Clinics 1990;8:903–912.Google Scholar
23. Stewart, WF, Lipton, RB, Whyte, J, et al. An international study to assess reliability of the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) score. Neurology 1999;53(5):988–994.Google Scholar
24. Tfelt-Hansen, P, Teal, J, Rodriguez, F, et al on behalf of the Rizatriptan 030 Study Group. Oral rizatriptan versus oral sumatriptan: a direct comparative study in the acute treatment of migraine. Headache 1998;38:748–755.Google Scholar