Cost per treatment responder analysis of atogepant compared to rimegepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine.
atogepant
cost per responder
episodic migraine
number needed to treat
rimegepant
Journal
Headache
ISSN: 1526-4610
Titre abrégé: Headache
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 2985091R
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Sep 2024
09 Sep 2024
Historique:
revised:
05
08
2024
received:
30
05
2024
accepted:
11
08
2024
medline:
9
9
2024
pubmed:
9
9
2024
entrez:
9
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
To estimate the number needed to treat and cost per additional responder for atogepant and rimegepant versus placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM) in the United States. Migraine has an enormous impact on a person's daily activities and quality of life, and results in significant clinical and economic burden to both individuals and society. It is important to understand the comparative efficacy and economic value of oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) for preventive treatment of EM. Currently, atogepant and rimegepant are US Food and Drug Administration approved for preventive treatment of migraine (rimegepant for EM and atogepant for EM and for chronic migraine). In the absence of head-to-head trials, we utilized an indirect treatment comparison on efficacy data from clinical trials conducted for the preventive treatment of EM. We estimated number needed to treat, a valuable metric used in clinical practice to compare treatment efficacy, and cost per additional responder, which can be used to establish the cost effectiveness of a treatment. An indirect treatment comparison was conducted to compare the efficacy of atogepant 60 mg once daily and rimegepant 75 mg once every other day as preventive treatments for EM using published data from the registrational trials of atogepant (ADVANCE) and rimegepant (BHV3000-305). The efficacy outcome of interest was ≥50% reduction from baseline in mean monthly migraine/headache days (≥50% responder rate), which was variably defined for a base case and two scenario analyses. Number needed to treat and cost per additional responder versus placebo were calculated and compared between both treatments (weeks 9-12 in the base case analysis; weeks 1-12 and 9-12 for atogepant and during weeks 9-12 for rimegepant in the scenario analyses). In the base case analysis, ≥50% responder rates were 64.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9-74.5) for atogepant and 51.8% (95% CI, 42.9-60.6) for rimegepant, compared to 44.1% (95% CI, 39.4-49.0) for placebo. The median number needed to treat versus placebo in the base case scenario was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.1-9.0) for atogepant compared to 13.0 (95% CI, 5.9-75.1) for rimegepant. The cost per additional responder versus placebo in the base case scenario was estimated to be $15,823 (95% CI, $11,079-$29,516) for atogepant compared to $73,029 (95% CI, $32,901-$422,104) for rimegepant. Results of the two scenario analyses were consistent with the base case analysis. Atogepant had substantially lower numbers needed to treat and costs per additional responder versus placebo than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM across all evaluated scenarios. These analyses suggest that atogepant may be more cost effective than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM. Limitations include differences in inclusion/exclusion criteria and in reporting of the ≥50% responder rates between trials.
Sections du résumé
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
To estimate the number needed to treat and cost per additional responder for atogepant and rimegepant versus placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM) in the United States.
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Migraine has an enormous impact on a person's daily activities and quality of life, and results in significant clinical and economic burden to both individuals and society. It is important to understand the comparative efficacy and economic value of oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) for preventive treatment of EM. Currently, atogepant and rimegepant are US Food and Drug Administration approved for preventive treatment of migraine (rimegepant for EM and atogepant for EM and for chronic migraine). In the absence of head-to-head trials, we utilized an indirect treatment comparison on efficacy data from clinical trials conducted for the preventive treatment of EM. We estimated number needed to treat, a valuable metric used in clinical practice to compare treatment efficacy, and cost per additional responder, which can be used to establish the cost effectiveness of a treatment.
METHODS
METHODS
An indirect treatment comparison was conducted to compare the efficacy of atogepant 60 mg once daily and rimegepant 75 mg once every other day as preventive treatments for EM using published data from the registrational trials of atogepant (ADVANCE) and rimegepant (BHV3000-305). The efficacy outcome of interest was ≥50% reduction from baseline in mean monthly migraine/headache days (≥50% responder rate), which was variably defined for a base case and two scenario analyses. Number needed to treat and cost per additional responder versus placebo were calculated and compared between both treatments (weeks 9-12 in the base case analysis; weeks 1-12 and 9-12 for atogepant and during weeks 9-12 for rimegepant in the scenario analyses).
RESULTS
RESULTS
In the base case analysis, ≥50% responder rates were 64.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9-74.5) for atogepant and 51.8% (95% CI, 42.9-60.6) for rimegepant, compared to 44.1% (95% CI, 39.4-49.0) for placebo. The median number needed to treat versus placebo in the base case scenario was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.1-9.0) for atogepant compared to 13.0 (95% CI, 5.9-75.1) for rimegepant. The cost per additional responder versus placebo in the base case scenario was estimated to be $15,823 (95% CI, $11,079-$29,516) for atogepant compared to $73,029 (95% CI, $32,901-$422,104) for rimegepant. Results of the two scenario analyses were consistent with the base case analysis.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Atogepant had substantially lower numbers needed to treat and costs per additional responder versus placebo than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM across all evaluated scenarios. These analyses suggest that atogepant may be more cost effective than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM. Limitations include differences in inclusion/exclusion criteria and in reporting of the ≥50% responder rates between trials.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : AbbVie
Informations de copyright
© 2024 American Headache Society.
Références
Burch RC, Buse DC, Lipton RB. Migraine epidemiology, burden, and comorbidity. Neurol Clin. 2019;37(4):631‐649. doi:10.1016/j.ncl.2019.06.001
Steinmetz JD, Seeher KM, Schiess N, et al. Global, regional, and national burden of disorders affecting the nervous system, 1990–2021: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2021. Lancet Neurol. 2024;23(4):344‐381. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(24)00038-3
Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society (IHS). The International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition. Cephalalgia. 2018;38(1):1‐211. doi:10.1177/0333102417738202
Buse DC, Scher AI, Dodick DW, et al. Impact of migraine on the family: perspectives of people with migraine and their spouse/domestic partner in the CaMEO study. Mayo Clin Proc. 2016;91(5):596‐611. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2016.02.013
Buse DC, Fanning KM, Reed ML, et al. Life with migraine: effects on relationships, career, and finances from the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study. Headache. 2019;59(8):1286‐1299. doi:10.1111/head.13613
Lipton RB, Adams AM, Buse DC, Fanning KM, Reed ML. A comparison of the Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) study and American Migraine Prevalence and Prevention (AMPP) study: demographics and headache‐related disability. Headache. 2016;56(8):1280‐1289. doi:10.1111/head.12878
Goadsby PJ, Evers S. International classification of headache disorders—ICHD‐4 alpha. Cephalalgia. 2020;40(9):887‐888. doi:10.1177/0333102420919098
Charles AC, Digre KB, Goadsby PJ, Robbins MS, Hershey A, American Headache Society. Calcitonin gene‐related peptide‐targeting therapies are a first‐line option for the prevention of migraine: an American Headache Society position statement update. Headache. 2024;64(4):333‐341. doi:10.1111/head.14692
Ailani J, Burch RC, Robbins MS, Board of Directors of the American Headache Society. The American Headache Society consensus statement: update on integrating new migraine treatments into clinical practice. Headache. 2021;61(7):1021‐1039. doi:10.1111/head.14153
Blumenfeld AM, Bloudek LM, Becker WJ, et al. Patterns of use and reasons for discontinuation of prophylactic medications for episodic migraine and chronic migraine: results from the Second International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS‐II). Headache. 2013;53(4):644‐655. doi:10.1111/head.12055
Ford JH, Schroeder K, Nyhuis AW, Foster SA, Aurora SK. Cycling through migraine preventive treatments: implications for all‐cause total direct costs and disease‐specific costs. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019;25(1):46‐59. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2018.18058
Buse DC, Yugrakh MS, Lee LK, Bell J, Cohen JM, Lipton RB. Burden of illness among people with migraine and ≥4 monthly headache days while using acute and/or preventive prescription medications for migraine. J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2020;26(10):1334‐1343. doi:10.18553/jmcp.2020.20100
Pozo‐Rosich P, Lucas C, Watson DPB, et al. Burden of migraine in patients with preventive treatment failure attending European headache specialist centers: real‐world evidence from the BECOME study. Pain Ther. 2021;10(2):1691‐1708. doi:10.1007/s40122-021-00331-3
Edvinsson L, Haanes KA, Warfvinge K, Krause DN. CGRP as the target of new migraine therapies—successful translation from bench to clinic. Nat Rev Neurol. 2018;14(6):338‐350. doi:10.1038/s41582-018-0003-1
Negro A, Martelletti P. Gepants for the treatment of migraine. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2019;28(6):555‐567. doi:10.1080/13543784.2019.1618830
Mitsikostas DD, Belesioti I, Arvaniti C, et al. Patients' preferences for headache acute and preventive treatment. J Headache Pain. 2017;18(1):102. doi:10.1186/s10194-017-0813-3
Hubig LT, Smith T, Chua GN, et al. A stated preference survey to explore patient preferences for novel preventive migraine treatments. Headache. 2022;62(9):1187‐1197. doi:10.1111/head.14386
Matza LS, Deger KA, Vo P, Maniyar F, Goadsby PJ. Health state utilities associated with attributes of migraine preventive treatments based on patient and general population preferences. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(9):2359‐2372. doi:10.1007/s11136-019-02163-3
Mansfield C, Gebben DJ, Sutphin J, et al. Patient preferences for preventive migraine treatments: a discrete‐choice experiment. Headache. 2019;59(5):715‐726. doi:10.1111/head.13498
QULIPTA [atogepant]. Package Insert. AbbVie Inc.; 2023. Accessed April 15, 2024. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2021/215206Orig1s000lbl.pdf
NURTEC ODT [rimegepant]. Package Insert. Pfizer Inc.; 2023. Accessed April 15, 2024. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2022/212728s009lbl.pdf
Ailani J, Lipton RB, Goadsby PJ, et al. Atogepant for the preventive treatment of migraine. N Engl J Med. 2021;385(8):695‐706. doi:10.1056/nejmoa2035908
Pozo‐Rosich P, Ailani J, Ashina M, et al. Atogepant for the preventive treatment of chronic migraine (PROGRESS): a randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet. 2023;402(10404):775‐785. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(23)01049-8
Tassorelli C, Nagy K, Pozo‐Rosich P, et al. Safety and efficacy of atogepant for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine in adults for whom conventional oral preventive treatments have failed (ELEVATE): a randomised, placebo‐controlled, phase 3b trial. Lancet Neurol. 2024;23(4):382‐392. doi:10.1016/s1474-4422(24)00025-5
Croop R, Lipton RB, Kudrow D, et al. Oral rimegepant for preventive treatment of migraine: a phase 2/3, randomised, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. Lancet. 2020;397:51‐60.
Citrome L, del Rio MS, Dong Y, et al. Benefit–risk assessment of galcanezumab versus placebo for the treatment of episodic and chronic migraine using the metrics of number needed to treat and number needed to harm. Adv Ther. 2021;38(8):4442‐4460. doi:10.1007/s12325-021-01848-x
Overeem LH, Raffaelli B, Mecklenburg J, Kelderman T, Neeb L, Reuter U. Indirect comparison of topiramate and monoclonal antibodies against CGRP or its receptor for the prophylaxis of episodic migraine: a systematic review with meta‐analysis. CNS Drugs. 2021;35(8):805‐820. doi:10.1007/s40263-021-00834-9
Drellia K, Kokoti L, Deligianni CI, Papadopoulos D, Mitsikostas DD. Anti‐CGRP monoclonal antibodies for migraine prevention: a systematic review and likelihood to help or harm analysis. Cephalalgia. 2021;41(7):851‐864. doi:10.1177/0333102421989601
Vo P, Wen S, Martel MJ, Mitsikostas D, Reuter U, Klatt J. Benefit‐risk assessment of erenumab and current migraine prophylactic treatments using the likelihood of being helped or harmed. Cephalalgia. 2018;39(5):608‐616. doi:10.1177/0333102418801579
AnalySource—Premier Drug Pricing Services. Accessed April 15, 2024. https://www.analysource.com/
Cetin M, Kilic S. Number needed to treat: an important measure for the correct assessment of clinical significance. Bull Clin Psychopharmacol. 2015;25(1):1‐3. doi:10.5455/bcp.20150318073223
Citrome L, Ketter TA. When does a difference make a difference? Interpretation of number needed to treat, number needed to harm, and likelihood to be helped or harmed. Int J Clin Pr. 2013;67(5):407‐411. doi:10.1111/ijcp.12142
Chong CAKY, Tomlinson G, Chodirker L, et al. An unadjusted NNT was a moderately good predictor of health benefit. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(3):224‐233. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.08.005
Schwedt TJ, Oakes TMM, Martinez JM, et al. Comparing the efficacy and safety of galcanezumab versus rimegepant for prevention of episodic migraine: results from a randomized, controlled clinical trial. Neurol Ther. 2024;13(1):85‐105. doi:10.1007/s40120-023-00562-w
Mahon R, Tiwari S, Koch M, et al. Comparative effectiveness of erenumab versus rimegepant for migraine prevention using matching‐adjusted indirect comparison. J Comp Eff Res. 2024;13(3):e230122. doi:10.57264/cer-2023-0122
Popoff E, Johnston K, Croop R, et al. Matching‐adjusted indirect comparisons of oral rimegepant versus placebo, erenumab, and galcanezumab examining monthly migraine days and health‐related quality of life in the treatment of migraine. Headache. 2021;61(6):906‐915. doi:10.1111/head.14128
Tassorelli C, Onishchenko K, Singh RBH, et al. Comparative efficacy, quality of life, safety, and tolerability of atogepant and rimegepant in migraine prevention: a matching‐adjusted indirect comparison analysis. Cephalalgia. 2024;44(2):03331024241235156. doi:10.1177/03331024241235156
Lipton R, Gandhi P, Wilson L, et al. Real‐world switching rates of atogepant are lower than CGRP monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) in patients with migraine using claims database (P4‐12.008). Neurology. 2024;102(17 suppl. 1):3503. doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000205185
Serrano D, Lipton RB, Scher AI, et al. Fluctuations in episodic and chronic migraine status over the course of 1 year: implications for diagnosis, treatment and clinical trial design. J Headache Pain. 2017;18(1):101. doi:10.1186/s10194-017-0787-1
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.4 (Updated August 2023). Cochrane; 2023. Accessed April 15, 2024. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
Doi SA, Furuya‐Kanamori L, Xu C, Lin L, Chivese T, Thalib L. Controversy and debate: questionable utility of the relative risk in clinical research: paper 1: a call for change to practice. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;142:271‐279. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.08.019
Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Evidence synthesis for decision making 2. Méd Decis Mak. 2012;33(5):607‐617. doi:10.1177/0272989x12458724