A comparison of the cost-effectiveness of almotriptan and sumatriptan in the treatment of acute migraine using a composite efficacy/tolerability end point.

OBJECTIVE To use a composite efficacy/tolerability end point to compare the cost-effectiveness, from the perspective of a U.S. health care payer, of almotriptan and sumatriptan in the treatment of an acute migraine attack. METHODS The composite end point. Sustained pain free and No Adverse Events. (SNAE) was created from the sustained pain free and adverse event rates obtained in a meta-analysis of 53 placebo-controlled trials of oral triptans. The total direct cost of treating a single migraine attack was calculated from published sources. RESULTS In the base-case analysis, the average cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) were 82 US dollars , 133 US dollars , and 138 US dollars (per attack at which SNAE is achieved, 2004 prices) for almotriptan 12.5 mg, sumatriptan 50 mg, and sumatriptan 100 mg, respectively; the incremental CERs for almotriptan 12.5 mg were 12 US dollars and 16 US dollars (compared with sumatriptan 50 mg and sumatriptan 100 mg, respectively) per incremental attack at which SNAE is achieved. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the impact of (1) relaxing the base-case assumptions (independence of efficacy and tolerability, uniform apportionment of health service use costs across attacks, number of tablets used to treat 1 attack); (2) varying input costs; and (3) uncertainty in the efficacy and tolerability estimates from the meta-analysis. In all of these sensitivity analyses, almotriptan 12.5 mg remained cost effective compared with sumatriptan 50 mg and 100 mg. CONCLUSION Almotriptan was economically superior to sumatriptan in the treatment of a migraine attack.