Socio-economic burden of chronic migraine in Russia

Introduction. Results of both clinical and epidemiological studies demonstrate a high frequency of work incapacity associated with headache, reduced socio-economic activity, low quality of life, greater number of comorbid diseases and mental disorders in patients with chronic migraine (CM) compared to those who suffer from episodic primary headache.

Objectives. Te objective of the study was comparative assessment of the disease cost and clinical and economic consequences of using various therapeutic approaches for preventive treatment of CM from the societal perspective in the Russian Federation.

Methods. Te following types of pharmacoeconomic analyses were used: disease cost analysis, budget effect analysis. Models based on literature data (Scenario No. 1) and based on expert opinion (Scenario No. 2) were constructed in parallel with subsequent interpretation and discussion of the results obtained. Direct and indirect costs were considered. Efcacy criteria were clinical outcomes of the use of therapeutic options in question — change in the frequency of use of migraine-associated aid: change in the frequency of use of emergency medical care; change in the frequency of inpatient treatment.

Results. CM is a disease associated with a signifcant socio-economic burden: the cost of managing a target population of 1 470 840 patients with current distribution of therapeutic approaches can reach up to 402 569 527 778 RUB with clinical and economic modeling based on literature data, and 444 918 119 377 RUB with clinical and economic modeling based on expert opinion surveys. Indirect costs constitute a signifcant proportion of the socio-economic cost of CM, estimated at 61 995 589 503 RUB to 88 794 056 961 RUB. Te use of various therapeutic approaches for treating CM can reduce the cost of the disease for the target population. Te cost of managing one patient with Botox® per year (141 820 RUB) was up to 40 % lower than the cost of preventive treatment of a patient with CM with oral medications (202 894 RUB), up to 192 % lower than the cost of managing patients without preventive treatment (414 305 RUB). Te use of Botox is associated with signifcantly smaller indirect costs in comparison with the use of other therapeutic approaches in managing patients with CM.

1. Adams AM, Serrano D, Buse DC, et al. Te impact of chronic migraine: Te Chronic Migraine Epidemiology and Outcomes (CaMEO) Study methods and baseline results. Cephalalgia. 2015;35(7):563—78. DOI: 10.1177/0333102414552532

2. Buse D, Manack A, Serrano D, et al. Sociodemographic and comorbidity profles of chronic migraine and episodic migraine sufferers. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010 Apr;81(4):428—32. DOI: 10.1136/jnnp.2009.192492

3. Bigal ME, Rapoport AM, Lipton RB, et al. Assessment of migraine disability using the Migraine Disability Assessment (MIDAS) questionnaire. A comparison of chronic migraine with episodic migraine. Headache. 2003;43(3):336—342.

4. Bigal ME, Serrano D, Reed M, et al. Chronic migraine in the population: burden, diagnosis, and satisfaction with treatment. Neurology. 2008;71(8):559—566. DOI: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000323925.29520.e7

5. Buse DC, Manack AN, Serrano D, et al. Headache-impact of chronic and episodic migraine: results from the AMPP study. Headache. 2012;52(1):3—17.

6. Meletiche DM, Lofland JH, Young WB. Quality of life differences between patients with episodic and transformed migraine. Headache. 2001;41(6):573—578.

7. Stewart WF, Wood GC, Manack A, et al. Employment and work impact of chronic migraine and episodic migraine. J Occup Environ Med. 2010;52(1):8—14. DOI: 10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181c1dc56.

8. Stokes M, Becker WJ, Lipton RB, et al. Cost of health care among patients with chronic and episodic migraine in Canada and the USA: results from the International Burden of Migraine Study (IBMS). Headache. 2011;51(7):1058—1077. DOI: 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2011.01945.x

9. Таtаrinova КV, Аrtemenko АR. Quality of life in patients with chronic migraine: relation to migraine severity, depression and sleep disturbances. Neuromuscular DISEASES. 2017:7(1);43—53. (In Russ). DOI: 10.17650/2222-8721-2017-7-1-43-53

10. Xronicheskaya migren`. Artemenko A.R., Kurenkov A.L. Moscow: ID «ABV-press», 2012. (In Russ).

11. Latysheva N.V. Centralnaya sensitizaciya u pacientov s xronicheskoj ezhednevnoj golovnoj bolyu. [dissertation] Moscow; 2009. (In Russ). Available by: http://medical-diss.com/docreader/275114/a#?page=5. Link is active on 16.11.2018.

12. Linde M, Gustavsson A, Stovner LJ, et al. Te cost of headache disorders in Europe: the Eurolight poject. Eur J Neurol 2012;19(5):703—711. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2011.03612.x

13. Ayzenberg I, Katsarava Z, Sborowski A, et al. Te prevalence of primary headache disorder in Russia: a countrywide survey. Cephalalgia. 2012;32(5):373— 381. DOI: 10.1177/0333102412438977

14. Artemenko AR, Shevchenko VS, Tatarinova KV, et al. Change in the structure of medicinal ABC in chronic migraine in Russia over the past 4 years. Anaesthesiology and Reanimatology. 2016;61(5S):43. (In Russ).

15. Fokin IV. Golovnaya bol’: osnovy organizatsii meditsinskoj pomoshhi. Moscow; 2008. (In Russ).

16. Kondratev AV, et al. Economic burden of headache: direct and inderect cjst of treating headache. Pharmateca. 2016;13:82—86. (In Russ).

17. Ayzenberg I, Katsarava Z, Sborowski A, et al. Headache-attributed burden and its impact on productivity and quality of life in Russia: structured health care for headache is urgently needed. Eur J Neurol. 2014;21(5):758—765. DOI: 10.1111/ene.12380

18. Antonaci F, Dumitrache C, De Cillis I, et al. A review of current European treatment guidelines for migraine. J Headache Pain. 2010;11(1):13—19. DOI: 10.1007/s10194-009-0179-2.

19. Artemenko AR, Kurenkov AL, Antipova OS. Diagnostika i lechenie khronicheskoj migreni. Moscow: Goryachaya liniya — Telekom; 2014. (In Russ).

20. Naprienko MV. Vosstanovitel’noe lechenie khronicheskikh form pervichnoj golovnoj boli. [dissertation] Moscow; 2011. (In Russ). Available by: http://medical-diss.com/docreader/351864/d#?page=1. Link is active on 05.12.2018.

21. Silberstein SD, Holland S, Freitag F, et al. Evidence-based guideline update: pharmacologic treatment for episodic migraine prevention in adults: report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology and the American Headache Society. Neurology. 2012;78(17):1337—1345. DOI: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e3182535d20

22. Lante´ri-Minet M, Demarquay G, Alchaar H, et al. Management of chronic daily headache in migraine patients: Medication overuse headache and chronic migraine. French guidelines (French Headache Society, French Private Neurologists Association, French Pain Society). Rev Neurol (Paris). 2014;170(3):162—176. DOI: 10.1016/j.neurol.2013.09.006

23. Giacomozzi AR, Vindas AP, Silva Jr AA, et al. Latin American consensus on guidelines for chronic migraine treatment. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2013;71(7):478— 486. DOI: 10.1590/0004-282X20130066

24. Straube A, Gaul C, Förderreuther S, et al. Terapy and care of patients with chronic migraine: Expert recommendations of the German Migraine and Headache Society German Society for Neurology as well as the Austrian Headache Society/ Swiss Headache Society. Nervenarzt. 2012;83(12):1600—1608. DOI: 10.1007/s00115-012-3680-9

25. Linde M, Gustavsson A, Stovner LJ, et al. Te cost of headache disorders in Europe: the Eurolight project. Eur J Neurol. 2012;19(5):703—711. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2011.03612.x

26. Wang SJ, Wang PJ, Fuh JL, et al. Comparisons of disability, quality of life, and resource use between chronic and episodic migraineurs: a clinic-based study in Taiwan. Cephalalgia. 2013;33(3):171—181. DOI: 10.1177/0333102412468668

27. Hawkins K, Wang S, Rupnow M. Direct cost burden among insured US employees with migraine. Headache. 2008;48(4):553—563. DOI: 10.1111/j.15264610.2007.00990.x

28. Lebedeva ER, Kobzeva NR, Gilev DV, Olesen E. Analysis of the quality of diagnosis and treatment of primary headache in different social groups of the Ural Region. Neurology, Neuropsychiatry, Psychosomatics. 2015; (1):19—26. (In Russ). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14412/2074-2711-2015-1-19-26.

29. Ob utverzhdenii otraslevogo standarta «kliniko-ehkonomicheskie issledovaniya. Obshhie polozheniya»: order No. 163 of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation of 27.05.2011. (In Russ).

30. Avksent’eva MA, Gerasimov BV, Sura MV. Kliniko-ehkonomicheskij analiz (otsenka, vybor meditsinskikh tekhnologij i upravleniya kachestvom meditsinskoj pomoshhi). Ed by Vorobyev PA. Moscow: N’yudiamed; 2004. (In Russ).

31. Planirovanie i provedenie klinicheskikh issledovanij lekarstvennykh sredstv. Ed by Belousov YuB. Moscow: Obshhestvo klinicheskikh issledovatelej; 2000. (In Russ).

32. Osnovnye ponyatiya v otsenke meditsinskikh tekhnologij: metod. posobie. Ed by Kolbin AS, Zyryanov SK, Belousov DYu. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo OKI; 2013. (In Russ).

33. Walley T., Haycox A., Boland A. Pharmacoeconomics. Elsevier Health Sciences, 2004. — 216 с.

34. Omelyanovsky VV, Avxentyeva MV, Derkach EV, Sveshnikova ND. Methodological issues of cost of illness analysis. Medical technologies. Assessment and choice. 2011;1:42—50. (In Russ).

35. Shapovalov MA, Bondarev VA, Korets LR. Kliniko-ehkonomicheskij analiz «stoimost’ bolezni». Mezhdunarodnyj zhurnal prikladnykh i fundamental’nykh issledovanij. 2012;7:143— 144. (In Russ).

36. Akobundu E, Ju J, Blatt L, et al. Cost-of-Illness studies: a review of current methods. Pharmacoeconomics. 2006;24(9):869—90. [PubMed: 16942122]. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200624090-00005

37. Bloom BS, Bruno DJ, Maman DY, et al. Usefulness of US cost-of-illness studies in healthcare decision making. Pharmacoeconomics. 2001;19(2):207—13. DOI: 10.2165/00019053-200119020-00007

38. Byford S, Torgerson DJ, Rafery J. Economic note: cost of illness studies. BMJ. 2000; 320(7245):1335.

39. Chisholm D, et al. Economic impact of disease and injury: counting what matters. BMJ. 2010;340. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c924 http://www.who.int/choice/publications/Economic_impact_paperBMJ.pdf.

40. Clabaugh G, Ward MM. Cost-of-illness studies in the United States: a systematic review of methodologies used for direct cost. Value in Health. 2008;11(1):13—21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00210.x [PubMed: 18237356].

41. Introduction and methods: assessing the environmental burden of disease at national and local levels. http://www.who.int/quantifying_ehimpacts/publications/9241546204/en/.

42. Koopmanshap MA. Cost-of-illness studies. Useful for health policy? Pharma coeconomics. 1998;14(2):143—148.

43. Larg A, Moss JR. Cost-of-illness studies: a guide to critical evaluation. Pharmacoeconomics. 2011;29(8):653—671. DOI: 10.2165/11588380-00000000000000

44. Shiell A, Gerard K, Donaldson C. Cost of illness studies: An aid to decisionmaking? Health Policy. 1987;8(3):317—323. DOI:10.1016/0168-8510(87)90007-8.

45. Twigg JL. Te cost of illness, disability, and premature mortality to Russia’s economy. Eurasian Geography and Economics. 2005;46(7):495—524. DOI:10.2747/1538-7216.46.7.495

46. Potapchik EG, Popovich LD. Sotsial’no-ehkonomicheskaya ehffektivnost’ gosudarstvennykh investitsij v meditsinskie tekhnologii (na primere lecheniya otdel’nykh zabolevanij kostno-myshechnoj sistemy i soedinitel’noj tkani) / EG Potapchik, LD Popovich; Nats. issled. un-t «Vysshaya shkola ehkonomiki». Moscow: Izd. dom Vysshej shkoly ehkonomiki; 2013. (In Russ).

47. Headache Classifcation committee of the IHS. Te International Classifcation of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (beta version). Cephalalgia. 2013;33(9):629—808. DOI: 10.1177/0333102413485658

48. https://www.pharmindex.ru/

49. http://grls.rosminzdrav.ru.

50. Postanovlenie Pravitel’stva Russian Federation ot 19.12.2016 N 1403 «O Programme gosudarstvennykh garantij besplatnogo okazaniya grazhdanam meditsinskoj pomoshhi na 2017 god i na planovyj period 2018 i 2019 godov». (In Russ).

51. http://www.spboms.ru/

52. http://zakupki.gov.ru/epz/main/public/home.html

53. http://www.pokrov.spb.ru/stoimostq-uslug.html

54. Brosa M, Gisbert R, Rodríguez JM, et al. Principios, métodos y aplicaciones del análisis del impacto presupuestario en el sector sanitario. Pharmacoecon. Span Res Artic. 2005;2:65—79.

55. Tu HAT, de Vries R, Woerdenbag HJ, et al. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Hepatitis B Immunization in Vietnam: Application of Cost-Effectiveness Affordability Curves in Health Care Decision Making. Value Health Reg Issues. 2012;1(1):7—14. DOI: 10.1016/j.vhri.2012.03.007

56. Sendi PP, Briggs AH. Affordability and cost-effectiveness: decision making on the cost-effectiveness plane. Health Econ. 2001;10(7):675—80.

57. Metodicheskie rekomendatsii po otsenke vliyaniya na byudzhet v ramkakh realizatsii programmy gosudarstvennykh garantij besplatnogo okazaniya grazhdanam meditsinskoj pomoshhi. Federal State Budgetary Institution “Center for Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control” of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation. Utverzhdeny prikazom Federal State Budgetary Institution “Center for Healthcare Quality Assessment and Control” of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation ot «23» dekabrya 2016 g. N 145od. Moscow; 2016. (In Russ).

58. Hepp Z, et al. Comparative effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA versus oral migraine prophylactic medications on headache-related resource utilization in the management of chronic migraine: Retrospective analysis of a US-based insurance claims database. Cephalalgia. 2016;36(9):862—74. DOI: 10.1177/0333102415621294

59. Ayzenberg I, et al. Headache yesterday in Russia: its prevalence and impact, and their application in estimating the national burden attributable to headache disorders. J Headache Pain. 2015;16:7. DOI: 10.1186/1129-2377-16-7

60. Klinicheskie rekomendatsii. Migren’ u vzroslykh. Vserossijskoe obshhestvo nevrologov (VON) Rossijskoe obshhestvo po izucheniyu golovnoj boli (ROIGB). Moscow; 2016. (In Russ).

61. Prikaz Minzdrava RF №1550n ot 24.12.2012 g. «Ob utverzhdenii standarta pervichnoj mediko-sanitarnoj pomoshhi pri migreni (differentsial’naya diagnostika i kupirovanie pristupa)». (In Russ).

62. Prikaz Minzdrava RF №1551n ot 24.12.2012 g. «Ob utverzhdenii standarta pervichnoj mediko-sanitarnoj pomoshhi pri migreni (proflakticheskoe lechenie)». (In Russ).

63. Federal’nyj zakon ot 29.12.2006 N 255-FZ (red. ot 03.12.2011) «Ob obyazatel’nom sotsial’nom strakhovanii na sluchaj vremennoj netrudosposobnosti i v svyazi s materinstvom». (In Russ).

64. Territorial’nyj organ Federal’noj sluzhby gosudarstvennoj statistiki po g. Sankt-Peterburgu i Leningradskoj oblasti. (In Russ). Available by: http://petrostat.gks.ru/

65. http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/ru/statistics/population/demography/#

66. Azimova YuE, Sergeev AV, Osipova VV. Cephalgia diagnostics and treatment in Russia: physician questionnaire survey results. Rossijskij zhurnal boli. 2010;3—4:12—18. (In Russ).

67. Amelin AV, Bogdanova YuN, Koreshkin MI. Diagnosis of primary and symptomatic forms of chronic daily headache. Zhurnal nevrologii i nejropsikhiatrii imeni S.S. Korsakova. 2011;111(1):86—88. (In Russ).

68. Osipova VV, Azimova YuE, Tabeeva G.R. Diagnostics of headache in Russia and post-Soviet countries: state of the problem and ways for its solution. Аnnaly klinicheskoj i ehksperimental’noj nevrologii. 2012;6(2):16—22. (In Russ).

69. Rachin AP, Judelson IB. Farmakoehpidemiologicheskie aspekty khronicheskoj ezhednevnoj golovnoj boli. Zhurnal nevrologii i psikhiatrii imeni S.S. Korsakova. 2005;105(8):66—68. (In Russ).

70. Tarasova SV. Rasprostranennost’, diagnostika razlichnykh form khronicheskoj ezhednevnoj golovnoj boli i ikh farmakoterapii. [dissertation] Saint-Petersburg; 2008. (In Russ). Available by: http://medical-diss.com/docreader/243901/d#?page=1. Link is active on 16.11.2018.

71. Glembotskaya GT, Kozub, OV. Farmakoehkonomicheskaya otsenka bremeni migreni v Rossijskoj Federatsii. Klinicheskaya farmakologiya i terapiya. 2013;22(2):83—86. (In Russ).

72. Guerzoni S, et al. Long-term Treatment Benefts and Prolonged Efcacy of OnabotulinumtoxinA in Patients Affected by Chronic Migraine and Medication Overuse Headache over 3 Years of Terapy. Front Neurol. 2017;8:586. DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2017.00586

73. Dominquez C, et al. OnabotulinumtoxinA in chronic migraine: predictors of response. A prospective multicentre descriptive study. Eur J Neurol. 2018;25(2):411—416. DOI: 10.1111/ene.13523