Evidence Hub

Cost-effectiveness of oral triptans for acute migraine: mixed treatment comparison

Asseburg C, Peura P, Oksanen T, Turunen J, Purmonen T, Martikainen J

International journal of technology assessment in health care, 2012

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of triptans in the treatment of migraine has not been assessed since generic sumatriptan entered the Finnish market in 2008.

METHODS: Using systematic review and mixed treatment comparison, the effectiveness of triptans was estimated with regard to 2-hour response, 2-hour pain-free, recurrence, and any adverse event, using published clinical data. Direct and indirect costs (2010 EUR, societal perspective) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were evaluated over one acute migraine attack using a decision-tree model.

RESULTS: The meta-analysis combined data from fifty-six publications. The highest probability of achieving the primary outcome, "sustained pain-free, no adverse event" (SNAE), was estimated for eletriptan 40 mg (20.9 percent). Sumatriptan 100 mg was the treatment with lowest estimated costs (€20.86), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of eletriptan 40 mg compared with sumatriptan 100 mg was €43.65 per SNAE gained (€19,659 per QALY gained).

CONCLUSION: Depending on the decision-maker's willingness-to-pay threshold, either sumatriptan 100 mg or eletriptan 40 mg is likely to be cost-effective.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free