Cost-effectiveness analysis of erenumab for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine: Results from the US societal and payer perspectives

Abstract

Objectives To assess the cost-effectiveness of erenumab 140 mg (“erenumab”) for the prophylactic treatment of episodic migraine and chronic migraine. Study design A hybrid Monte Carlo patient simulation and Markov cohort model was constructed to compare erenumab to no preventive treatment or onabotulinumtoxinA among adult ( ≥ 18 years) patients with episodic migraine and chronic migraine who failed prior preventive therapy from the US societal and payer perspectives. Methods Patients entered the model one at a time and were assigned to a post-treatment monthly migraine day category based on baseline monthly migraine days and treatment effect. Using monthly cycles, patients were followed for 2 years and accumulated costs and utilities associated with their post-treatment monthly migraine days. The primary outcome included the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio presented as cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Results With an annual drug price of erenumab of $6900, treatment with erenumab in the societal perspective ranges from a dominant strategy versus no preventive treatment among chronic migraine patients to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $122,167 versus no preventive treatment among episodic migraine patients. When excluding indirect costs (i.e. payer perspective), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios are cost-effective among chronic migraine patients ($23,079 and $65,720 versus no preventive treatment and onabotulinumtoxinA, respectively), but not among episodic migraine patients ($180,012 versus no preventive treatment). Model results were sensitive to changes in monthly migraine days, health utilities, and treatment costs. Conclusion The use of erenumab may be a cost-effective approach to preventing monthly migraine days among patients with chronic migraine versus onabotulinumtoxinA and no preventive treatment in the societal and payer perspectives, but is less likely to offer good value for money for those with episodic migraine, unless lost productivity costs are considered.