Skip to main content

Table 8 Sensitivity analyses

From: Economic consequences of migraine in Sweden and implications for the cost-effectiveness of onabotulinumtoxinA (Botox) for chronic migraine in Sweden and Norway

  Model input ICER (EUR)
Base case Sensitivity Sweden Norway
Base case    18,506 19,954
Analyses of structural changes and altering assumptions
 Indirect costs Not included Included Dominating Dominating
 Discount rate costs and health effects 3% (Sweden) and 4% (Norway) 0% 17,931 19,250
5% 18,893 20,132
 Stopping rule 30% reduction in 2 cycles No stopping rule 23,412 24,545
50% reduction in 2 cycles 17,666 19,163
0% reduction in 2 cycles 21,825 23,070
 Population All patients ≥1 prior prophylactic 15,160 16,900
≥3 prior prophylactics 15,764 17,532
 Utilities Estimated from COI database REPOSE [56] 14,565 15,702
PREEMPT [18, 24] 15,634 16,804
IBMS 18,219 19,644
 Time horizon 10 years 5 years 21,481 22,645
Analysis mirroring previous erenumab analysis
Norwegian (NOMA) and Swedish (TLV) erenumab analyses: 10-year time horizona, indirect costs not included, ≥3 prior prophylacticsb, stopping rule 30% reduction in 2 cycles, utilities mapped from MSQ to EQ-5Dc 16,625 18,462
  1. aNOMA utilised a 10-year time horizon, while the TLV time horizon was confidential. We therefore chose to undertake the analyses using a 10-year time horizon
  2. bThe TLV analyses were undertaken in a population with ≥ 2 prior prophylactics and 30% stopping rules. There is no available data for this combination of population and stopping rule for Botox. The NOMA analysis was however undertaken in a population of ≥ 3 prior prophylactics. We chose to undertake the analyses the ≥ 3 prior prophylactics population, and to use the 30% stopping rule, as NOMA argued for the importance of this specific rule
  3. cThe CGRP analyses utilised utilities mapped from MSQ to EQ-5D, based on clinical trials