Real-world evidence on the economic implications of CGRP-mAbs as preventive treatment of migraine.

BACKGROUND: Calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are approved in Europe as preventive treatment of migraine in patients with at least four monthly migraine days. Migraine gives rise to direct healthcare expenditures, but most of the economic burden of migraine is socioeconomic. Evidence on the socioeconomic implications of CGRP-mAbs is, however, limited. There is an increasing interest in supplementing evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with real-world evidence (RWE) to aid clinical decision making and inform decision making for migraine management. The objective of this study was to generate RWE on the health economic and socioeconomic implications of administering CGRP-mAbs to patients with chronic migraine (CM) and episodic migraine (high-frequency episodic migraine (HFEM), and low-frequency episodic migraine (LFEM)). METHODS: Real-world data (RWD) on Danish patients with CM, HFEM, and LFEM were collected via two Danish patient organisations and two informal patient networks and used in a tailored economic model. Treatment effects of CGRP-mAbs on health economic and socioeconomic outcomes were estimated using a sub-sample of patients with CM who receive CGRP-mAb treatment. RESULTS: A total of 362 patients (CM: 199 [55.0%], HFEM: 80 [22.1%], LFEM: 83 [22.9%]) were included in the health economic model (mean age 44.1 ± 11.5, 97.5% female, 16.3% received treatment with CGRP-mAbs), and 303 patients were included in the socioeconomic model (15.2% received treatment with CGRP-mAbs). Health economic savings from initiating CGRP-mAb treatment totalled €1,179 per patient with CM per year on average (HFEM: €264, LFEM: €175). Socioeconomic gains from initiating CGRP-mAb treatment totalled an average gross domestic product (GDP) gain of €13,329 per patient with CM per year (HFEM: €10,449, LFEM: €9,947). CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that CGRP-mAbs have the potential to reduce both health economic expenditures and the socioeconomic burden of migraine. Health economic savings are used as a basis for health technology assessments (HTAs) of the cost-effectiveness of new treatments, which implies that important socioeconomic gains may not be given enough importance in decision making for migraine management.

Assessing the cost and quality-of-life impact of on-demand-only medications for adults with hereditary angioedema.

Background: Novel subcutaneous (SC) prophylactic therapies are transforming the treatment landscape of hereditary angioedema (HAE). Although questions are being raised about their cost, little attention has been paid to the cost and quality of life (QoL) impact of using on-demand-only medications. Objective: We assessed the overall economic burden of on-demand-only treatment for HAE and compared patient QoL with patients who received novel SC prophylactic therapies. Methods: US Hereditary Angioedema Association members were invited to complete an anonymous online survey to profile attack frequency, treatment use, and the presence of comorbidities as well as economic and socioeconomic variables. We modeled on-demand treatment costs by using net pricing of medications in 2018, indirect patient and caregiver costs, and attack-related direct billed costs for emergency department admissions, physician office visits, and/or hospitalizations. QoL was assessed by using the Angioedema Quality of Life questionnaire. Results: A total of 1225 patients (31.4%) responded. Of these, 737 adults with HAE (type I or II) met the inclusion criteria and completed the survey. Per patient/year direct costs associated with modeled on-demand-only treatment totaled $363,795, with additional indirect socioeconomic costs of $52,576 per patient/year. The greatest improvement in QoL was seen in patients who used novel SC prophylactic therapies, with a 59.5% (p < 0.01) improvement in median impairment scores versus on-demand-only treatment. In addition, patients who used novel SC prophylactic therapies reported a 77% reduction in the number of attacks each year when compared with those who used on-demand-only treatment. Conclusion: Our real-world patient data showed the cost and QoL burden of HAE treatment with on-demand-only therapy. Use of novel SC prophylaxis can lead to sizeable reductions in attack frequency and statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in QoL. These data could be useful to clinicians and patients as they consider therapy options for patients with HAE.