Cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA versus topiramate in chronic migraine in the US: an economic analysis of the FORWARD randomized trial.

What was studied

This analysis used a computer model to compare costs and benefits of onabotulinumtoxinA and topiramate. Both prevent chronic migraine in US adults. The view was that of a payer. The model used data from the FORWARD trial. It covered a 2-year period.

What they found

The model estimated fewer headache-days with onabotulinumtoxinA than with topiramate. It estimated 122.56 fewer headache-days over 2 years. The cost per headache-day avoided was lower with onabotulinumtoxinA. Higher drug costs were offset by lower costs of health care use. Results held in sensitivity analyses.

What it means for patients

The authors say onabotulinumtoxinA was a cost-effective preventive treatment versus topiramate. They say fewer migraines led to a low added cost per headache-day avoided.

Why it is not certain yet

These are results of a model, not of a new trial. The model used inputs from the FORWARD trial and other sources. The abstract says results shifted with a longer time horizon and a bigger price discount. The analysis took a US payer view only.

Source

Cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA versus topiramate in chronic migraine in the US: an economic analysis of the FORWARD randomized trial.

We restate facts from the source record in our own words. The original wording belongs to its publisher.