Sumatriptan: Economic Evidence for Its Use in the Treatment of Migraine, the Canadian Comparative Economic Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate economic and health effects of sumatriptan relative to customary therapy in Canada. The relationship between treatment and functionality was established based on analysis of existing data from a multinational study. A Monte Carlo model was developed to simulate 1 year for each of customary therapy and six sumatriptan formulations. Costs are expressed in 1998 Canadian dollars. Sumatriptan is expected to reduce the time spent with migraine symptoms and resulting time lost. Under customary therapy, the annual cost of lost time is estimated at pound908 ($1973). With sumatriptan, these costs ranged from pound406 ($882) with subcutaneous sumatriptan to pound577 ($1254) with nasal sumatriptan 10 mg, saving pound331-502 ($719-1091) in the annual cost of time lost. All these benefits are expected to be obtained at an additional drug cost ranging from pound869 ($1889) for subcutaneous sumatriptan to pound278 ($605) for sumatriptan suppository. The cost of sumatriptan treatment is significantly offset by a substantial reduction of costs associated with time lost due to migraine symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".