Work productivity and indirect cost savings of atogepant versus topiramate: results from the TEMPLE trial

Background and aims: Using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI): Migraine, we contrasted presenteeism, absenteeism, overall work productivity, and indirect cost savings of participants who received atogepant versus topiramate for the preventive treatment of migraine. Methods: TEMPLE was a phase 3b, randomized, multicenter, double-blind (DB), double-dummy, active-controlled trial to evaluate tolerability, safety, and efficacy of atogepant compared with topiramate for the preventive treatment of migraine. WPAI:Migraine was evaluated at each 4-week time point during the 24-week DB period. An excel-based cost calculator used WPAI data to calculate the per-patient-per-year (PPPY) work productivity cost by multiplying the percent overall work productivity loss, weeks per year, standard weekly full-time work hours (40), and the average hourly wage in Canada, Portugal, United Kingdom, and United States. Productivity benefit from using atogepant was calculated as the difference between atogepant and topiramate productivity loss PPPY. Results: Based on WPAI data from TEMPLE, atogepant demonstrated greater improvements in presenteeism and overall work productivity (Figures 1 and 2), and lower absenteeism and activity impairment versus topiramate. The cost calculator using overall work productivity data demonstrated atogepant provided greater productivity benefits and indirect cost savings compared with topiramate across all 4 countries (Table 1). Conclusion: Atogepant consistently demonstrated greater improvement compared to topiramate across all four WPAI domains. Using TEMPLE WPAI data, atogepant demonstrated work productivity benefit compared to topiramate in Canada, Portugal, UK, and United States.

URI

http://hdl.handle.net/10400.14/59166

Editora

John Wiley and Sons Inc.

Coleções

CIIS - Documentos de Conferências / Conference Objects

Licença CC

cclicense-by

Ver registo completo