title: Frovatriptan and rizatriptan economic EVAluation: the FREEVA study.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  The present pharmacoeconomic study compared the direct and indirect costs of using frovatriptan versus rizatriptan in the acute treatment of migraine.
  
  
  METHODS
  Data on the cost-efficacy of the two triptans were derived from a recently published Italian, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over patient preference study, comparing frovatriptan versus rizatriptan. The direct costs were obtained by calculating the drug consumption, both of triptans and rescue medications. Prices of currently marketed drugs were obtained from Italian Drug Agency price list. The indirect costs were those related to absenteeism from the workplace due to migraine.
  
  
  RESULTS
  129 of the 148 patients with a current history of migraine randomized to the two study drugs and completing the study were analyzed. The number of attacks treated with only 1 dose of study drug was higher with frovatriptan (157 vs. 147), whereas the number of attacks treated with ≥2 doses of study medication was higher with rizatriptan (122 vs. 110 and 74 vs. 67, respectively). However, more patients treated with frovatriptan took a rescue medication (71 vs. 59). The total direct cost per attack (including study drug rescue medication) was 9.12 € for frovatriptan and 13.54 € for rizatriptan (p < 0.05 between-treatments). As for indirect costs, in the group of patients treated with frovatriptan the mean number of lost working hours was significantly (p < 0.05) lower (1.5 h) compared to the subjects who used rizatriptan (2.8 h). Based on the earned income per unit of work, indirect costs per attack resulted to be 24.55 € for frovatriptan and 45.84 € for rizatriptan. Overall, the total costs, including direct and indirect costs, were evaluated to be 33.67 € for frovatriptan and 59.38 € for rizatriptan, respectively.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Within the limitations of this model analysis, frovatriptan was found to be significantly more cost-effective than rizatriptan. This outcome can be explained by the lower acquisition cost of frovatriptan, the need for fewer doses, and the loss of fewer working hours. This finding could drive selection of the most appropriate oral treatment for acute migraine attacks based on both individual patient's needs and the cost-effectiveness of the available drugs.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  2006-002572-17 (EudraCT).
authors: Department of Neurology, Pordenone Hospital, Ospedale Civile, Via Savorgnano 2, 33078 San Vito al Tagliamento (PN), Pordenone, Italy. carlo.lisotto@aopn.sanita.fvg.it.
authors: Carlo
authors: C
authors: Lisotto
authors: Mario
authors: M
authors: Guidotti
authors: Dario
authors: D
authors: Zava
authors: Lidia
authors: L
authors: Savi
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000700:Analgesics / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D002227:Carbazoles / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D018592:Cross-Over Studies; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008881:Migraine Disorders / Q000188:drug therapy*; D014230:Triazoles / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use; D014363:Tryptamines / Q000191:economics* / Q000627:therapeutic use
chemical_list: D000700:Analgesics; D002227:Carbazoles; D014230:Triazoles; D014363:Tryptamines; C093622:rizatriptan; C108128:frovatriptan