Education and decision making at the time of triptan prescribing: patient expectations vs actual practice

Eptinezumab for the Prevention of Migraine: Clinical Utility, Patient Preferences and Selection - A Narrative Review

The new Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide (CGRP)-targeted therapies have proven high efficacy and tolerability in episodic and chronic migraine. Eptinezumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that selectively binds CGRP with high affinity. Eptinezumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration on February 21st, 2020, for the preventive treatment of migraine in adults. It is administered intravenously over 30 minutes with a standard dose of 100 mg and has a T-max of 30 minutes-1 hour and a half-life of 27 days. These pharmacological properties allow for a very rapid onset of effect and a quarterly administration. It is the first time that a preventive treatment for migraine can be offered as an intravenous administration. As the range of therapeutic possibilities in migraine is expanding, the treatment process must include common decision-making, where physicians should explain in detail to patients the different characteristics of treatment options beyond efficacy and side effects. Patients can now express a preference on a range of opportunities: pharmacological versus non-pharmacological approaches, route of administration, frequency of administration, efficacy, rapidity, side effects, costs, the possibility of titration or dosing, and durability of effectiveness at suspension. Also, patient preferences can be influenced by age, country, migraine severity, and earlier experience with CGRP-targeted therapies. Besides, adherence may be influenced by several factors, including route and the schedule of administration. This narrative review describes a new perspective from the patient's point of view. Clinicians should ally with patients to select treatments that meet each patient's needs and thus apply a tailored approach, addressing not only headaches. In this way, physicians would care for the patients globally and stand out their preferences on different aspects of treatment. Besides, healthcare professionals shall be aware that patients' beliefs about therapies are subject to change with increasing experience with new therapeutic approaches.

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Erenumab Versus OnabotulinumtoxinA for Patients with Chronic Migraine Attacks in Greece

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, chronic neurovascular brain disorder with non-negligible multifaceted economic costs. Existing preventive treatments involve the selective use of onabotulinumtoxinA, which aims at migraine morbidity reduction for patients who have failed initial preventive treatment with oral agents. Erenumab is a new preventive treatment for migraines.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the differences in costs and outcomes of the preventive treatment with erenumab versus onabotulinumtoxinA in patients with chronic migraines (CM) in Greece to assess the economic value of this treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis from both the payer and the societal perspective using a decision-tree analytic model. Outcomes were expressed in migraines avoided and in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). We obtained model inputs from the existing literature. The decision path adjusted for variation in the probability of adherence and the resulting differential effectiveness between the two treatments. Direct costs included the cost of the two drugs and administration costs, the costs of acute drugs used under usual care, and the costs of hospitalization, physician, and emergency department visits. Indirect costs for the societal perspective analyses included wages lost on workdays. The time-horizon of the analysis was 1 year and all costs were calculated in 2019 euros (€). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to control for parameter uncertainty and to evaluate the robustness of the findings.

RESULTS

Our results indicate that treatment of CM with erenumab compared to onabotulinumtoxinA resulted in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of €218,870 and €231,554 per QALY gained and €620 and €656 per migraine avoided, from the societal and the payer's perspective, respectively. Using a common cost-effectiveness threshold equal to three times the local gross domestic product (GDP) per capita (€49,000), for the erenumab ICERs to fall below this threshold, the erenumab price would have to be no more than €192 (societal perspective) or €173 (payer perspective).

CONCLUSION

The prophylactic treatment of CM with erenumab in Greece might be cost effective compared to the existing alternative of onabotulinumtoxinA from both the payer and the societal perspective, but only at a highly discounted price. Nevertheless, erenumab could be considered a therapeutic option for patients who fail treatment with onabotulinumtoxinA.

Is Reclassification of the Oral Contraceptive Pill from Prescription to Pharmacist-Only Cost Effective? Application of an Economic Evaluation Approach to Regulatory Decisions

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Unplanned pregnancies can lead to poorer maternal and child health outcomes. The Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration committee rejected reclassifying a range of oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) from prescription to pharmacist-only medicines in 2015, mainly based on safety concerns. Improving access to OCPs may encourage some women to use contraceptives or switch from other contraceptive methods. However, some adverse events may increase and some women may stop using condoms, increasing their risk of sexually transmitted infections. This study aimed to estimate the cost effectiveness of reclassifying OCPs from prescription to pharmacist-only.

PERSPECTIVE

Healthcare system.

SETTING

Australian primary care.

METHODS

A Markov model was used to synthesise data from a variety of sources. The model included all Australian women aged 15-49 years (N = 5,644,701). The time horizon was 35 years. Contraceptive use before reclassification was estimated using data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey, while survey data informed use after reclassification. Health outcomes included pregnancies, pregnancy outcomes (live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy and abortion), sexually transmitted infections, adverse events (venous thromboembolism, depression, myocardial infarction and stroke), ovarian cancer cases and quality-adjusted life-years. Costs included those related to general practitioner and specialist consultations, contraceptives and other medicines, pharmacist time, hospitalisations and adverse events. All costs were reported in 2016 Australian Dollars. A 5% discount rate was applied to health outcomes and costs.

RESULTS

Reclassifying OCPs resulted in 85.70 million quality-adjusted life-years experienced and costs of $46,910.14 million over 35 years, vs. 85.68 million quality-adjusted life-years experienced and costs of $50,274.95 million with OCPs remaining prescription-only. Thus, reclassifying OCPs was more effective and cost saving. However, a sensitivity analysis found that more research on the probability of pregnancy in women not using contraception and not trying to conceive is needed.

CONCLUSION

Reclassifying OCPs is likely to be considered cost effective by Australian decision makers.

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

BACKGROUND

Migraine is a common, chronic, disabling headache disorder. Triptans, used as an acute treatment for migraine, are available via prescription in Australia. An Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) committee rejected reclassifying sumatriptan and zolmitriptan from prescription medicine to pharmacist-only between 2005 and 2009, largely on the basis of concerns about patient risk. Nevertheless, pharmacist-only triptans may reduce migraine duration and free up healthcare resources.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of reclassifying triptans from prescription-only to pharmacist-only in Australia.

METHODS

The study design included decision-analytic modeling combining data from various sources. Behavior before and after reclassification was estimated using medical practitioner and patient surveys and also administrative data. Health outcomes included migraine frequency and duration as well as adverse events (AEs) discussed by the TGA committee. Efficacy and AEs were estimated using randomized controlled trials and observational studies.

RESULTS

Reclassifying triptans will reduce migraine duration but increase AEs. This will result in 337 quality-adjusted life-years gained at an increased cost of A$5.9 million over 10 years for all Australian adults older than 15 years (19.6 million). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated to be A$17 412/quality-adjusted life-year gained.

CONCLUSIONS

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is likely to be considered cost-effective by Australian decision makers. Serotonin syndrome, a key concern of the TGA committee, had little impact on the results. Further research is needed regarding pharmacist-only triptan use by migraineurs currently using over-the-counter medicines and by nonmigraineurs, the efficacy of triptans, and the risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular AEs and chronic headaches with triptans.

Patients' preferences for headache acute and preventive treatment

Background

We aimed to explore patients’ preferences for headache treatments with a self-administered questionnaire including the Q-No questionnaire for nocebo.

Methods

Questionnaires from 514 outpatients naïve to neurostimulation and monoclonal antibodies were collected.

Results

Patients assessed that the efficacy of a treatment is more important than safety or route of administration. They preferred to use an external neurostimulation device for both acute (67.1%) and preventive treatment (62.8%). Most patients preferred to take a pill (86%) than any other drug given parenterally for symptomatic pharmaceutical treatment. For preventive pharmaceutical treatment, most patients preferred to take a pill once per day (52%) compared to an injection either subcutaneously or intravenously each month (9% and 4%), or three months (15% and 11%). 56.6% of all participants scored more than 15 in Q-No questionnaire indicating potential nocebo behaviors that contributed significantly in their choices.

Conclusion

These patient preferences along with efficacy and safety data may help physicians better choose the right treatment for the right person.