↓ Skip to main content

Cost-effectiveness analysis of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic cluster headache

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Headache & Pain, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#37 of 861)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cost-effectiveness analysis of non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation for the treatment of chronic cluster headache
Published in
Journal of Headache & Pain, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s10194-016-0633-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

James Morris, Andreas Straube, Hans-Christoph Diener, Fayyaz Ahmed, Nicholas Silver, Simon Walker, Eric Liebler, Charly Gaul

Abstract

Cluster headache (CH) is a debilitating condition that is generally associated with substantial health care costs. Few therapies are approved for abortive or prophylactic treatment. Results from the prospective, randomised, open-label PREVA study suggested that adjunctive treatment with a novel non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation (nVNS) device led to decreased attack frequency and abortive medication use in patients with chronic CH (cCH). Herein, we evaluate whether nVNS is cost-effective compared with the current standard of care (SoC) for cCH. A pharmacoeconomic model from the German statutory health insurance perspective was developed to estimate the 1-year cost-effectiveness of nVNS + SoC (versus SoC alone) using data from PREVA. Short-term treatment response data were taken from the clinical trial; longer-term response was modelled under scenarios of response maintenance, constant rate of response loss, and diminishing rate of response loss. Health-related quality of life was estimated by modelling EQ-5D™ data from PREVA; benefits were defined as quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Abortive medication use data from PREVA, along with costs for the nVNS device and abortive therapies (i.e. intranasal zolmitriptan, subcutaneous sumatriptan, and inhaled oxygen), were used to assess health care costs in the German setting. The analysis resulted in mean expected yearly costs of €7096.69 for nVNS + SoC and €7511.35 for SoC alone and mean QALY of 0.607 for nVNS + SoC and 0.522 for SoC alone, suggesting that nVNS generates greater health benefits for lower overall cost. Abortive medication costs were 23 % lower with nVNS + SoC than with SoC alone. In the alternative scenarios (i.e. constant rate of response loss and diminishing rate of response loss), nVNS + SoC was more effective and cost saving than SoC alone. In all scenarios modelled from a German perspective, nVNS was cost-effective compared with current SoC, which suggests that adjunctive nVNS therapy provides economic benefits in the treatment of cCH. Notably, the current analysis included only costs associated with abortive treatments. Treatment with nVNS will likely promote further economic benefit when other potential sources of cost savings (e.g. reduced frequency of clinic visits) are considered. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01701245 , 03OCT2012.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 63 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 22%
Other 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 24%
Neuroscience 12 19%
Psychology 5 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 15 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 December 2018.
All research outputs
#508,431
of 14,021,570 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Headache & Pain
#37
of 861 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,294
of 262,201 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Headache & Pain
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,021,570 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 861 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 262,201 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them