ArticlePharmacoEconomics2026
Cost-Utility Analysis of Calcitonin Gene-Related Peptide Monoclonal Antibodies for Patients with Episodic Migraine Headache in the USA.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of eptinezumab and erenumab as a preventive treatment of migraine in patients with episodic migraine with different routes of administration, from the US healthcare payer perspective.
methodsA hybrid decision tree-Markov model was constructed to assess the cost effectiveness of eptinezumab and erenumab as a preventive treatment for migraines compared to topiramate among patients with episodic migraine from the US healthcare payer's perspective. A decision tree model simulated the probability of patients experiencing adequate responses to treatments in the first 6 months, which fed into a Markov model using a 2-year time horizon. The Markov model consisted of three states: "Off Preventive Treatment," "Preventive Treatment," and death. Total costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated for each strategy followed by sensitivity analyses. An annual discount rate of 3% was applied to both costs and utility values, and costs were reported in 2025 US dollars.
resultsIn the base-case results, total costs of eptinezumab and erenumab were $21,767 and $21,739, respectively. Total quality-adjusted life-years for eptinezumab and erenumab were 1.32 and 1.30, respectively. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of eptinezumab and erenumab compared to topiramate were $117,626 and $155,259 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively. Erenumab was eliminated because of extended dominance; thus, eptinezumab was selected for additional sensitivity analyses. In the one-way sensitivity analysis, treatment response, utility values, and drug costs were influential in changing the study's conclusions. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, eptinezumab was cost effective in 1.8%, 33.6%, and 78.6% of simulations when the willingness-to-pay threshold was $50,000, $100,000, and $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, respectively.
conclusionsOur analysis suggests that eptinezumab might be cost effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained compared with topiramate, with uncertainties on health state utilities and pharmaceutical costs. Policymakers should carefully consider the tradeoffs between costs and benefits when making decisions regarding formulary coverage for the episodic migraine population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.