TY - JOUR
T1 - Annual indirect cost savings in patients with episodic or chronic migraine
T2 - post-hoc analyses from multiple galcanezumab clinical trials
AU - Tobin, Joshua
AU - Ford, Janet H.
AU - Tockhorn-Heidenreich, Antje
AU - Nichols, Russell M.
AU - Ye, Wenyu
AU - Bhandari, Rohit
AU - Mi, Xiaojuan
AU - Sharma, Karan
AU - Lipton, Richard B.
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Aim: This post-hoc analysis estimated annual indirect cost savings with galcanezumab (GMB) treatment in patients with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). Methods: Data from 4 randomized, Phase 3, double-blind (DB), placebo (PBO)-controlled studies of GMB were analyzed: EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 (EM, 6-months DB), REGAIN (CM, 3-months DB), and CONQUER (previous failure of 2–4 migraine preventive medication categories, 3-months DB). Indirect costs were calculated at baseline and Month 3 using the first 2 items in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS): (A + B)/60*country specific annual wage (A = days of missed work/school; B = days of reduced productivity at work/school; assuming 60 working days in 3 months). All costs were annualized and expressed in international dollars (Int$) in 2018. ANCOVA models estimated the indirect cost savings as a change from baseline. Secondary analyses determined cost savings by employment and responder status. Results: Patients (>80% females) from EVOLVE-1 and −2 (n = 1,201; mean age 41.9 years), REGAIN (n = 759; mean age 41.3 years), and CONQUER (n = 453; mean age ∼46.0 years) were analyzed. GMB showed significant indirect cost savings for EM (Int$6256, p <.0001) and CM (Int$7129, p =.0002), with substantial savings for patients with previous failure of 2–4 migraine preventive medication categories (EM: Int$5664, p =.0030; CM: Int$5181, p =.1300). Compared with PBO, GMB showed significantly greater indirect cost savings for EM (p =.0156) and patients with previous failure of 2–4 migraine preventive medication categories (p =.0340). Employed patients with CM (p =.0018) and with previous failure of 2–4 migraine preventive medication categories (p <.0001) had significant cost savings after GMB treatment. GMB showed significant indirect cost savings in patients with a reduction in migraine headache days. Conclusion: GMB treatment resulted in annual indirect cost savings in patients with EM, CM, and with previous failure of 2–4 migraine preventive medication categories, with similar observations in the sensitivity analyses.
AB - Aim: This post-hoc analysis estimated annual indirect cost savings with galcanezumab (GMB) treatment in patients with episodic migraine (EM) or chronic migraine (CM). Methods: Data from 4 randomized, Phase 3, double-blind (DB), placebo (PBO)-controlled studies of GMB were analyzed: EVOLVE-1 and EVOLVE-2 (EM, 6-months DB), REGAIN (CM, 3-months DB), and CONQUER (previous failure of 2–4 migraine preventive medication categories, 3-months DB). Indirect costs were calculated at baseline and Month 3 using the first 2 items in Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS): (A + B)/60*country specific annual wage (A = days of missed work/school; B = days of reduced productivity at work/school; assuming 60 working days in 3 months). All costs were annualized and expressed in international dollars (Int$) in 2018. ANCOVA models estimated the indirect cost savings as a change from baseline. Secondary analyses determined cost savings by employment and responder status. Results: Patients (>80% females) from EVOLVE-1 and −2 (n = 1,201; mean age 41.9 years), REGAIN (n = 759; mean age 41.3 years), and CONQUER (n = 453; mean age ∼46.0 years) were analyzed. GMB showed significant indirect cost savings for EM (Int$6256, p <.0001) and CM (Int$7129, p =.0002), with substantial savings for patients with previous failure of 2–4 migraine preventive medication categories (EM: Int$5664, p =.0030; CM: Int$5181, p =.1300). Compared with PBO, GMB showed significantly greater indirect cost savings for EM (p =.0156) and patients with previous failure of 2–4 migraine preventive medication categories (p =.0340). Employed patients with CM (p =.0018) and with previous failure of 2–4 migraine preventive medication categories (p <.0001) had significant cost savings after GMB treatment. GMB showed significant indirect cost savings in patients with a reduction in migraine headache days. Conclusion: GMB treatment resulted in annual indirect cost savings in patients with EM, CM, and with previous failure of 2–4 migraine preventive medication categories, with similar observations in the sensitivity analyses.
KW - Chronic migraine
KW - employment
KW - episodic migraine
KW - indirect cost
KW - migraine headache days
KW - post-hoc
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85130615660&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85130615660&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/13696998.2022.2071528
DO - 10.1080/13696998.2022.2071528
M3 - Article
C2 - 35510376
AN - SCOPUS:85130615660
SN - 1369-6998
VL - 25
SP - 630
EP - 639
JO - Journal of Medical Economics
JF - Journal of Medical Economics
IS - 1
ER -