Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20658800›Full record

ArticleCNS drugs2010

Cost effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for the prevention of migraine: a Markov model application.

Junhua Yu, Kenneth J Smith, Diana I Brixner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in CNS drugs, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Health state utilities associated with attributes of migraine preventive treatments based on patient and general population preferences.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2019
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Undertreatment in patients with primary headaches attending headache centres.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Junhua YuUniversity of Utah Pharmacotherapy Outcomes Research Center, Salt Lake City, 84112, USA.
Kenneth J Smith
Diana I Brixner
University of Pittsburgh · USUniversity of Utah · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere are few data about the cost effectiveness of prophylactic medications for migraine. Clinical trials have shown several preventive agents to be useful in reducing the frequency of migraine attack while having tolerable side effects.

objectiveTo compare the cost effectiveness of adding preventive treatment to abortive therapy for acute migraine with abortive therapy for acute migraine alone in the primary care setting.

methodsA Markov decision analytic model with a cycle length of 1 day, a time horizon of 365 days and three health states was used to perform an analysis comparing the cost effectiveness and utility of five treatments for migraine prophylaxis (amitriptyline 75 mg/day, topiramate 100 and 200 mg/day, timolol 20 mg/day, divalproex sodium 1000 mg/day or propranolol 160 mg/day) with treatment of acute migraine alone for the management of migraine in the primary care setting. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results.

resultsThe expected total annual cost for the use of preventive agents ranged from $US2932 to $US3887, compared with $US3960 for the use of abortive medications only. In the baseline analysis, use of each of the five preventive agents generated more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incurred lower costs compared with abortive medications only. Monte Carlo Simulation suggested that amitriptyline 75 mg/day was most likely to be considered a cost-effective option versus the other five therapies, followed by timolol 20 mg/day, topiramate 200 mg/day, topiramate 100 mg/day, divalproex sodium 1000 mg/day and propranolol 160 mg/day when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for society is <$US18 000 per QALY gained.

conclusionsPreventive medications appear to be a cost-effective approach to the management of migraine in the primary care setting compared with the approach of abortive treatment only. Among those preventive agents, probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that, when the societal WTP is <$US18 000 per QALY gained, amitriptyline 75 mg/day is most likely to be considered a cost-effective option.

Indexed as

Adrenergic beta-AntagonistsAntidepressive Agents, TricyclicCost-Benefit AnalysisEconomics, PharmaceuticalFemaleHealth StatusHumansMaleMarkov ChainsMigraine DisordersNeuroprotective AgentsTreatment OutcomeAdrenergic beta-AntagonistsAntidepressive Agents, TricyclicNeuroprotective Agents

Identifiers

PMID20658800
OpenAlexW1524547306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.