Is erenumab an efficient alternative for the prevention of episodic and chronic migraine in Spain? Results of a cost-effectiveness analysis

Other authors

Institut Català de la Salut

[Pozo Rosich P] Unitat de Cefalees, Servei de Neurologia, Vall d’Hebron Hospital Universitari, Barcelona, Spain. Grup de Recerca de Cefalea i Dolor Neurològic, Vall d’Hebron Institut de Recerca (VHIR), Barcelona, Spain. Departament de Medicina, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, Spain. [Poveda JL] Pharmacy Department, Hospital Universitari I Politècnic La Fe, Valencia, Spain. [Crespo C] Axentiva Solutions, Barcelona, Spain. G.M. Statistics Department, Universidad de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain. [Martínez M, Rodríguez JM] Novartis, Barcelona, Spain. [Irimia P] Department of Neurology, Headache Unit, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain

Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus

Publication date

2024-03-22T11:48:47Z

2024-03-22T11:48:47Z

2024-03-15



Abstract

Chronic migraine; Cost-effectiveness; Spain


Migraña crónica; Coste-efectividad; España


Migranya crònica; Cost-efectivitat; Espanya


Background The reimbursement of erenumab in Spain and other European countries is currently restricted because of the cost of this novel therapy to patients with migraine who have experienced previous failures to traditional preventive treatments. However, this reimbursement policy should be preferably based on cost-effectiveness studies, among other criteria. This study performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of erenumab versus topiramate for the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine (EM) and versus placebo for chronic migraine (CM). Methods A Markov model with a 10-year time horizon, from the perspective of the Spanish National Healthcare System, was constructed based on data from responder and non-responder patients. A responder was defined as having a minimum 50% reduction in the number of monthly migraine days (MMD). A hypothetical cohort of patients with EM with one or more prior preventive treatment failures and patients with CM with more than two treatment failures was considered. The effectiveness score was measured as an incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost per migraine day (MD) avoided. Data from clinical outcomes and patient characteristics were obtained from erenumab clinical trials (NCT02066415, STRIVE, ARISE, LIBERTY and HER-MES). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to validate the robustness of the model. Results After a 10-year follow-up, the estimated QALYs were 5.88 and 6.11 for patients with EM treated with topiramate and erenumab, respectively. Erenumab showed an incremental cost per patient of €4,420 vs topiramate. For CM patients, erenumab resulted in 0.756 QALYs gained vs placebo; and an incremental cost of €1,814. Patients treated with erenumab achieved reductions in MD for both EM and CM (172 and 568 MDs, respectively). The incremental cost per QALY gained with erenumab was below the Spanish threshold of €30,000/QALY for both health and societal perspectives (EM €19,122/QALY and CM €2,398/QALY). Conclusions Erenumab is cost-effective versus topiramate as a preventive treatment for EM and versus placebo for patients with CM from the perspective of the Spanish National Health System.


This study was funded by Novartis.

Document Type

Article


Published version

Language

English

Publisher

BMC

Related items

The Journal of Headache and Pain;25(1)

https://doi.org/10.1186/s10194-024-01747-w

Recommended citation

This citation was generated automatically.

Rights

Attribution 4.0 International

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This item appears in the following Collection(s)