Frovatriptan and rizatriptan economic EVAluation: the FREEVA study.
Frovatriptan and rizatriptan economic EVAluation: the FREEVA study.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1129-2377-14-96
复制
发表时间：
2013-12-11
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Savi L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lisotto C;Guidotti M;Zava D;Savi L
本药物经济学研究比较了夫罗曲坦与利扎曲坦在偏头痛急性治疗中的直接和间接成本。两种曲坦类药物的成本效益数据来自最近发表的意大利多中心、随机、双盲、交叉患者偏好研究，该研究比较了夫罗曲坦与利扎曲坦。直接成本是通过计算曲坦类药物和救援药物的药物消耗量获得的。目前上市药品的价格来自意大利药品管理局价格表。间接成本是与因偏头痛而缺勤有关的成本。对 148 名目前有偏头痛病史的患者中的 129 名进行了分析，该患者随机接受两种研究药物并完成研究。仅使用 1 剂研究药物治疗的发作次数，夫罗曲坦组较高（157 例 vs. 147 例），而使用 ≥2 剂研究药物治疗的发作次数，利扎曲坦组较高（分别为 122 例 vs. 110 例和 74 例 vs. 67 例）。然而，更多接受夫罗曲坦治疗的患者服用了救援药物（71 例对 59 例）。夫罗曲坦每次发作的总直接费用（包括研究药物救援药物）为 9.12 欧元，利扎曲坦为 13.54 欧元（治疗间 p<0.05）。至于间接成本，与使用利扎曲坦治疗的受试者（2.8 小时）相比，接受夫罗曲坦治疗的患者组的平均损失工作时间（1.5 小时）显着 (p<0.05)。根据每单位工作的收入，夫罗曲坦每次发作的间接成本为 24.55 欧元，利扎曲坦为 45.84 欧元。总体而言，夫罗曲坦的总成本（包括直接成本和间接成本）分别为 33.67 欧元和利扎曲普坦 59.38 欧元。在该模型分析的局限性内，发现夫罗曲坦比利扎曲坦更具成本效益。这一结果可以通过夫罗曲坦的采购成本较低、所需剂量较少以及工作时间减少来解释。这一发现可能会推动根据患者个体的需求和现有药物的成本效益来选择最合适的口服治疗急性偏头痛发作。 2006-002572-17（EudraCT）。
The present pharmacoeconomic study compared the direct and indirect costs of using frovatriptan versus rizatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine. Data on the cost-efficacy of the two triptans were derived from a recently published Italian, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over patient preference study, comparing frovatriptan versus rizatriptan. The direct costs were obtained by calculating the drug consumption, both of triptans and rescue medications. Prices of currently marketed drugs were obtained from Italian Drug Agency price list. The indirect costs were those related to absenteeism from the workplace due to migraine. 129 of the 148 patients with a current history of migraine randomized to the two study drugs and completing the study were analyzed. The number of attacks treated with only 1 dose of study drug was higher with frovatriptan (157 vs. 147), whereas the number of attacks treated with ≥2 doses of study medication was higher with rizatriptan (122 vs. 110 and 74 vs. 67, respectively). However, more patients treated with frovatriptan took a rescue medication (71 vs. 59). The total direct cost per attack (including study drug rescue medication) was 9.12 € for frovatriptan and 13.54 € for rizatriptan (p < 0.05 between-treatments). As for indirect costs, in the group of patients treated with frovatriptan the mean number of lost working hours was significantly (p < 0.05) lower (1.5 h) compared to the subjects who used rizatriptan (2.8 h). Based on the earned income per unit of work, indirect costs per attack resulted to be 24.55 € for frovatriptan and 45.84 € for rizatriptan. Overall, the total costs, including direct and indirect costs, were evaluated to be 33.67 € for frovatriptan and 59.38 € for rizatriptan, respectively. Within the limitations of this model analysis, frovatriptan was found to be significantly more cost-effective than rizatriptan. This outcome can be explained by the lower acquisition cost of frovatriptan, the need for fewer doses, and the loss of fewer working hours. This finding could drive selection of the most appropriate oral treatment for acute migraine attacks based on both individual patient’s needs and the cost-effectiveness of the available drugs. 2006-002572-17 (EudraCT).