Cost-Effectiveness of Reclassifying Triptans in Australia: Application of an Economic Evaluation Approach to Regulatory Decisions

The cost-effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport) and onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) for managing spasticity of the upper and lower limbs, and cervical dystonia

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the costs and benefits associated with the use of abobotulinumtoxinA (aboBoNT-A) and onabotulinumtoxinA (onaBoNT-A) for lower limb spasticity in children, upper and lower limb spasticity in adults, and cervical dystonia in adults.

METHODS

This pharmacoeconomic analysis compared aboBoNT-A with onaBoNT-A. A decision tree model with a 1-year time horizon was conducted from a UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective using data from a variety of sources: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), network meta-analyses (NMAs), observational studies, and a physician survey investigating treatment patterns and resource utilization. Four patient populations were included: pediatric patients with lower limb spasticity (PLL), and adults with upper limb spasticity (AUL), lower limb spasticity (ALL), and cervical dystonia (CD). Outcomes included costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, cost per responder, and incremental cost per QALY gained. The effectiveness of each treatment was evaluated as a response to treatment. The base case assumption was that all patients in the model continued to receive botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) treatments at regular intervals regardless of treatment response status. Scenario analysis evaluated the impact of discontinuing BoNT-A for patients without a response to the first injection.

RESULTS

The model found that aboBoNT-A resulted in greater quality-of-life and lower costs compared with onaBoNT-A for the management of spasticity and CD in all included indications. Across populations, cost savings ranged from £304 to £3,963 and QALYs gained ranged from 0.010 to 0.02 over a 1-year time horizon. Results were robust to scenario analyses and were driven by the impact of treatment response on health-related quality-of-life.

CONCLUSIONS

AboBoNT-A was associated with higher treatment response, improved quality-of-life, and reduced costs in spasticity and CD versus onaBoNT-A. These findings could help deliver more effective and efficient healthcare in the NHS.

Application of an economic evaluation approach to making regulatory decisions regarding access to medicines: advantages, challenges and recommendations

Initially patients require a prescription to access most new medicines. Some medicines may later be reclassified, allowing patients to access them without a prescription. Currently, Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration guidelines regarding reclassification decisions focus on patient risk rather than on potential benefits to patient health and the healthcare system. We conducted two extensive case studies demonstrating an economic evaluation approach to medicine reclassification in Australia, which were presented at various conferences and to key stakeholders. This article discusses the advantages and challenges of using an economic evaluation approach to inform medicine reclassification decisions. Advantages identified include systematically and transparently synthesising evidence from multiple sources; predicting the overall expected impact of reclassification on health outcomes and costs before it occurs; considering a broader range of risks and benefits; aggregation of health impacts into a single measure (quality-adjusted life years); identification of drivers of uncertainty; insight into the effects of different regulatory decisions; and improved consistency of evidence. Challenges include data availability and quality, estimating behavioural changes, model complexity, the lack of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold, and funding of economic analyses. We recommend that regulatory decision makers use an economic evaluation approach to help inform reclassification decisions, although economic evaluation results should be considered as part of the broader body of evidence. Ultimately, the use of an economic evaluation approach will contribute to helping decision makers maximise population health outcomes in an efficient way.What is known about the topic?In the past, decisions regarding medicine reclassification have generally been made using a deliberative approach focusing on patient risk. However, there are also potential benefits to patient health and effects on the healthcare system. Increasing awareness of these benefits have led to the development of alternative approaches to decision making, including an economic evaluation approach.What does this paper add?This article discusses the advantages and challenges of using an economic evaluation approach to inform medicine reclassification decisions compared with alternative approaches.What are the implications for practitioners?Economic evaluation results should be considered as part of the broader body of evidence regarding the types of health impacts, the extent of the available evidence, who will be affected, and the role of medical practitioners and pharmacists in mitigating any risks. However, awareness of the advantages and challenges of this approach in advance will help mitigate some of the challenges and increase acceptance of the economic evaluation results by decision makers and stakeholders.

Evaluation of Patients with Insufficient Efficacy and/or Tolerability to Triptans for the Acute Treatment of Migraine: A Systematic Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Use of triptans for acute treatment of migraine is associated with insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability in approximately 30-40% of people. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to synthesize definitions, terminology, subsequent treatment outcomes, and characteristics associated with this subpopulation.

METHODS

A comprehensive SLR was conducted to identify studies, published from Jan 1995 to May 2019, which focused on insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability to triptans.

RESULTS

Thirty-five publications were identified, of which 22 described randomized controlled trials and open-label studies, and 13 described observational studies. Across studies, multiple objectives and a high amount of variability in methodologies and outcomes were noted. The most commonly applied measures of efficacy were headache pain freedom and pain relief at 2 h. Ten studies assessed efficacy of switching or optimizing treatment in patients with historical insufficient efficacy or tolerability to previous triptan treatment and demonstrated varying levels of success. Factors associated with increased risk of triptan insufficient efficacy included severe baseline headache severity, photophobia, phonophobia, nausea, and depression.

CONCLUSIONS

Irrespective of the methodology or definition used to identify people with insufficient efficacy and/or tolerability to triptans, study results support the assertion that a high unmet need remains for effective acute treatment of migraine.