Skip to main content

Table 4 Other details about the included studies

From: A systematic review of economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments for adults with chronic migraine

Author Limitations Generalisability Source of funding Conflicts of interest
Journal articles
 Batty AJ, et al. (2013), United Kingdom [16] Placebo was not representative of standard care Transferable Allergan Inc., Irvine, CA. Stated
 Giannouchos TV, et al. (2019), Greece [17] Limitations were mostly presented for the assumptions made in the model. Context-specific None Stated
 Hansson-Hedblom A, et al. (2020), Norway and Sweden [18] The clinical trial may not be representative of everyday practice and physicians and participants may adjust treatment practices. The model was limited by only using MMD, and other dimensions of migraine, such as duration and severity, were not considered. Context-specific Allergan Norden, AB. Stated
 Hollier-Hann G, et al. (2020), United Kingdom [19] Limitations included the assumptions made for the model including that treatment response, HRQoL and resource utilisation were based on MMD frequency alone. Transferable Allergan UK, Marlow, Buckinghamshire, UK Stated
 Lipton RB, et al. (2018), United States of America [20] The model was created based on primary efficacy data from a mixed population of participants (EM and CM). There was also limited data beyond week 12 for CM participants. Also, treatment response, HRQoL and resource utilisation were based on MMD frequency alone.. Context-specific Amgen Inc. Stated
 Mahon R, et al. (2021), Sweden [21] Limitations included the assumptions made for the model including that treatment response, HRQoL and resource utilisation were based on MMD frequency alone. Context-specific Novartis Pharma AG Stated
 Ruggeri et al. (2013), Italy [22] Same limitations as Lipton, et al. (see above) and also the study used the UK tariff for the utility scores in the base model. Transferable Not stated Stated
 Sussman M, et al. (2018), United States of America [23] Same limitations as Lipton, et al. (see above) Context-specific Amgen Inc. Stated
 Vekov (2019), Bulgaria [24] Limitations were not stated Context-specific Not stated Not stated
Reports
 CADTH (Botox) (2019, Canada [25] The severity of CM was not captured in the model and there was no good quality of comparative evidence. Context-specific Allergan None
 CADTH (Erenumab) (2019, Canada [26] There was no good quality of comparative evidence. Context-specific Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada, Inc. None
 ICER (2018), United States of America [27] Since the data was obtained from the trial, there was uncertainty about the long-term effectiveness of medicines. Context-specific Government and not-for-profit organisations None
 NICE: Erenumab (2019), United Kingdom [29] Uncertainty due to not having long-term effectiveness data Context-specific Novartic Pharmaceutical UK Ltd. None
 NICE: Fremanezumab (2019), United Kingdom [28] Uncertainty due to not having long-term effectiveness data. There was also a lack of granularity within the published data for Botox, which led to limitations within the network meta-analysis conducted to compare the efficacy of Fremanezumab and Botox. Context-specific Teva UK Limited. None
 NICE: Galcenzenumab (2020), United Kingdom [30] The limitations included the model’s inability to capture the natural progression of diseases, the use of short-term estimates of mean change in monthly headache days, and response rates for extrapolating to different time horizons. Context-specific Eli Lilly and Company Limited None
 Warwick Evidence (2011), United Kingdom [31] Limitations including limitation of the trial to deal with correlated data, predicted ED-5D scores and the integrity around utility scores. Context-specific NIHR, UK None
  1. CM Chronic migraine, EM Episodic migraine, EQ-5D European-Quality of Life Five dimensions, HRQoL Health-Related Quality of Life, MMD Monthly migraine days