Cargando…

Frovatriptan and Rizatriptan Economic EVAluation: the FREEVA study

BACKGROUND: The present pharmacoeconomic study compared the direct and indirect costs of using frovatriptan versus rizatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: Data on the cost-efficacy of the two triptans were derived from a recently published Italian, multicenter, randomized, double-bl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lisotto, Carlo, Guidotti, Mario, Zava, Dario, Savi, Lidia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24330707
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1129-2377-14-96
_version_ 1782297881449857024
author Lisotto, Carlo
Guidotti, Mario
Zava, Dario
Savi, Lidia
author_facet Lisotto, Carlo
Guidotti, Mario
Zava, Dario
Savi, Lidia
author_sort Lisotto, Carlo
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The present pharmacoeconomic study compared the direct and indirect costs of using frovatriptan versus rizatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: Data on the cost-efficacy of the two triptans were derived from a recently published Italian, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over patient preference study, comparing frovatriptan versus rizatriptan. The direct costs were obtained by calculating the drug consumption, both of triptans and rescue medications. Prices of currently marketed drugs were obtained from Italian Drug Agency price list. The indirect costs were those related to absenteeism from the workplace due to migraine. RESULTS: 129 of the 148 patients with a current history of migraine randomized to the two study drugs and completing the study were analyzed. The number of attacks treated with only 1 dose of study drug was higher with frovatriptan (157 vs. 147), whereas the number of attacks treated with ≥2 doses of study medication was higher with rizatriptan (122 vs. 110 and 74 vs. 67, respectively). However, more patients treated with frovatriptan took a rescue medication (71 vs. 59). The total direct cost per attack (including study drug rescue medication) was 9.12 € for frovatriptan and 13.54 € for rizatriptan (p < 0.05 between-treatments). As for indirect costs, in the group of patients treated with frovatriptan the mean number of lost working hours was significantly (p < 0.05) lower (1.5 h) compared to the subjects who used rizatriptan (2.8 h). Based on the earned income per unit of work, indirect costs per attack resulted to be 24.55 € for frovatriptan and 45.84 € for rizatriptan. Overall, the total costs, including direct and indirect costs, were evaluated to be 33.67 € for frovatriptan and 59.38 € for rizatriptan, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this model analysis, frovatriptan was found to be significantly more cost-effective than rizatriptan. This outcome can be explained by the lower acquisition cost of frovatriptan, the need for fewer doses, and the loss of fewer working hours. This finding could drive selection of the most appropriate oral treatment for acute migraine attacks based on both individual patient’s needs and the cost-effectiveness of the available drugs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 2006-002572-17 (EudraCT).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3878870
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher Springer
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38788702014-01-03 Frovatriptan and Rizatriptan Economic EVAluation: the FREEVA study Lisotto, Carlo Guidotti, Mario Zava, Dario Savi, Lidia J Headache Pain Research Article BACKGROUND: The present pharmacoeconomic study compared the direct and indirect costs of using frovatriptan versus rizatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. METHODS: Data on the cost-efficacy of the two triptans were derived from a recently published Italian, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over patient preference study, comparing frovatriptan versus rizatriptan. The direct costs were obtained by calculating the drug consumption, both of triptans and rescue medications. Prices of currently marketed drugs were obtained from Italian Drug Agency price list. The indirect costs were those related to absenteeism from the workplace due to migraine. RESULTS: 129 of the 148 patients with a current history of migraine randomized to the two study drugs and completing the study were analyzed. The number of attacks treated with only 1 dose of study drug was higher with frovatriptan (157 vs. 147), whereas the number of attacks treated with ≥2 doses of study medication was higher with rizatriptan (122 vs. 110 and 74 vs. 67, respectively). However, more patients treated with frovatriptan took a rescue medication (71 vs. 59). The total direct cost per attack (including study drug rescue medication) was 9.12 € for frovatriptan and 13.54 € for rizatriptan (p < 0.05 between-treatments). As for indirect costs, in the group of patients treated with frovatriptan the mean number of lost working hours was significantly (p < 0.05) lower (1.5 h) compared to the subjects who used rizatriptan (2.8 h). Based on the earned income per unit of work, indirect costs per attack resulted to be 24.55 € for frovatriptan and 45.84 € for rizatriptan. Overall, the total costs, including direct and indirect costs, were evaluated to be 33.67 € for frovatriptan and 59.38 € for rizatriptan, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this model analysis, frovatriptan was found to be significantly more cost-effective than rizatriptan. This outcome can be explained by the lower acquisition cost of frovatriptan, the need for fewer doses, and the loss of fewer working hours. This finding could drive selection of the most appropriate oral treatment for acute migraine attacks based on both individual patient’s needs and the cost-effectiveness of the available drugs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 2006-002572-17 (EudraCT). Springer 2013 2013-12-11 /pmc/articles/PMC3878870/ /pubmed/24330707 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1129-2377-14-96 Text en Copyright © 2013 Lisotto et al.; licensee Springer. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lisotto, Carlo
Guidotti, Mario
Zava, Dario
Savi, Lidia
Frovatriptan and Rizatriptan Economic EVAluation: the FREEVA study
title Frovatriptan and Rizatriptan Economic EVAluation: the FREEVA study
title_full Frovatriptan and Rizatriptan Economic EVAluation: the FREEVA study
title_fullStr Frovatriptan and Rizatriptan Economic EVAluation: the FREEVA study
title_full_unstemmed Frovatriptan and Rizatriptan Economic EVAluation: the FREEVA study
title_short Frovatriptan and Rizatriptan Economic EVAluation: the FREEVA study
title_sort frovatriptan and rizatriptan economic evaluation: the freeva study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878870/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24330707
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1129-2377-14-96
work_keys_str_mv AT lisottocarlo frovatriptanandrizatriptaneconomicevaluationthefreevastudy
AT guidottimario frovatriptanandrizatriptaneconomicevaluationthefreevastudy
AT zavadario frovatriptanandrizatriptaneconomicevaluationthefreevastudy
AT savilidia frovatriptanandrizatriptaneconomicevaluationthefreevastudy