Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of milnacipran (a SNRI) with TCAs and SSRIs: a modeling approach

Do productivity costs matter?: the impact of including productivity costs on the incremental costs of interventions targeted at depressive disorders

BACKGROUND

When guidelines for health economic evaluations prescribe that a societal perspective should be adopted, productivity costs should be included. However, previous research suggests that, in practice, productivity costs are often neglected. This may considerably bias the results of cost-effectiveness studies, particularly those regarding treatments targeted at diseases with a high incidence rate in the working population, such as depressive disorders.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to, first, investigate whether economic evaluations of treatments for depressive disorders include productivity costs and, if so, how. Second, to investigate how the inclusion or exclusion of productivity costs affects incremental costs.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed. Included articles were reviewed to determine (i) whether productivity costs had been included and (ii) whether the studies adhered to national health economic guidelines about the inclusion or exclusion of these costs. For those studies that did include productivity costs, we calculated what proportion of total costs were productivity costs. Subsequently, the incremental costs, excluding productivity costs, were calculated and compared with the incremental costs presented in the original article, to analyse the impact of productivity costs on final results. Regression analyses were used to investigate the relationship between the level of productivity costs and the type of depressive disorder, the type of treatment and study characteristics such as time horizon used and productivity cost valuation method.

RESULTS

A total of 81 unique economic evaluations of treatments for adults with depressive disorders were identified, 24 of which included productivity costs in the numerator and one in the denominator. Approximately 69% of the economic evaluations ignored productivity costs. Two-thirds of the studies complied with national guidelines regarding the inclusion of productivity costs. For the studies that included productivity costs, these costs reflected an average of 60% of total costs per treatment arm. The inclusion or exclusion of productivity costs substantially affected incremental costs in a number of studies. Regression analyses showed that the level of productivity costs was significantly associated with study characteristics such as average age, the methods of data collection regarding work time lost, the values attached to lost work time, the type of depressive disorder, the type of treatment provided and the level of direct costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies that do not include productivity costs may, in many cases, poorly reflect full societal costs (or savings) of an intervention. Furthermore, when comparing total costs reported in studies that include productivity costs, it should be noted that study characteristics such as the methods used to assess productivity costs may affect their level.

Comparisons between psychotropic drugs: must the risk of side effects dictate our practices?

OBJECTIVES

Recently, SOHO and CATIE's studies in the field of schizophrenic disorders asserted that molecules apparently showing the most side-effects are not only the most effective but also lead to the least changes in treatments. Can we generalise this assertion to other domains of pharmacological treatments, such as in mood and anxiety disorders? And, more generally, do we possess information about comparison between different types of molecules in these different fields.

METHODS

Review of the literature (medline-psycinfo-psycarticles) addressing these three psychiatric disorders, and comparing efficacy of treatments, or cost-effectiveness studies.

RESULTS

Although there is a plethora of publications about the efficacy of given molecules vs. placebo, studies comparing molecules are scarce, and studies on cost-effectiveness in natural environments are even more scarce. Independently of the type of disorders under study, the last few years' efforts to completely limit side effects seem to have resulted in a loss of efficacy. Moreover, the previously held hypothesis suggesting that the fewer the side effects, the lesser the need to change treatment has not been confirmed. The duration of a treatment is more dependent upon its efficacy than on other variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians cannot determine the absence of noxiousness of a molecule as their primary criterion of choice. In contrast, they should carefully balance side effects and efficacy. In Psychiatry, there is a lack of studies about cost-effectiveness in natural environments.

Sertraline treatment for depression associated with acute coronary syndromes: a cost analysis from the viewpoint of the Italian Healthcare System

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Depressive disorders (DD) are independent risk factors for rehospitalization after acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and, hence, for increased healthcare costs. A placebo-controlled safety trial of 24 weeks of treatment with sertraline after ACS (Sertraline Anti-Depressant Heart Attack Randomized Trial, SADHART) suggested that active treatment was associated with reduced rehospitalization due to coronary and non-coronary events. With the SADHART database, a cost analysis was carried out to determine the economic consequences of treating DD after ACS in the perspective of the Italian Healthcare System.

METHODS

Clinical information on medical events and rehospitalizations recorded over the study period was drawn from the original SADHART database, which did not contain information necessary for estimating indirect costs. Analysis was therefore limited to direct medical costs due to rehospitalizations, emergency room visits and hospital procedures, and the average Italian Diagnosis-Related Group (DRG) tariffs were applied.

RESULTS

With the exclusion of the cost of sertraline treatment, the average direct cost per patient over the study period was 3,418+/-8,290 euro in the active treatment group and 4,409+/-9,439 euro in the placebo group (p=0.3). After including the cost of 24 weeks of sertraline treatment, the average cost in sertraline-treated patients was only modestly increased, to 3,524+/-8,290 euro.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of major DD in patients with recent ACS can improve patient care without additional costs, and possibly with some savings, to the healthcare system.

Does pretreatment testing for serotonin transporter polymorphisms lead to earlier effects of drug treatment in patients with major depression? A decision-analytic model

BACKGROUND

An estimated 30% to 40% of patients with depression do not sufficiently respond to treatment with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and the period in which treatment efficacy can be assessed is relatively long. Therefore, a test to identify potential nonresponders could be useful in the treatment of depression. Serotonin transporter gene (SLC6A4) variations have been reported to account for differences in the way individuals respond to SSRI treatment.

OBJECTIVE

A decision-analytic model was used to assess whether pretreatment genetic testing for 5-HTTLPR, a polymorphism of the SLC6A4 genotype, could be an efficient tool in the treatment of depression.

METHODS

A theoretical clinical decision-analytic model was constructed to compare the current treatment strategy in The Netherlands with an alternative strategy for the treatment of depression. Under treatment guidelines in The Netherlands, all patients with depression receive SSRI treatment (nontesting strategy). Under the alternative strategy, genetic testing would be performed to identify which class of antidepressant would be the best choice for initiation of treatment (genetic testing strategy). Probabilities (predicted results) for this model were based on data from previous studies and the opinions of experts in the field of psychopharmacology. To test the robustness of the model, 6- and 12-week remission rates for patients treated with SSRIs were varied in a sensitivity analysis using a predetermined range that was established based on expert opinion. Threshold analyses were performed on the parameters of serotonin transporter genotype frequency and response and nonresponse rates for patients receiving SSRIs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) to determine the value for a variable at which it could be concluded that a change in treatment strategy would be preferred.

RESULTS

When genetic testing was performed before an antidepressant was prescribed, 64.6% of patients were predicted to be in remission after 6 weeks of treatment compared with 60.0% of patients who did not receive genetic testing. After 12 weeks, 79.5% of patients in the testing group who received an SNRI as initial treatment and 83.2% of those who received a TCA initially were predicted to be in remission compared with 76.7% of patients in the nontesting group. Sensitivity analyses indicated that the model was robust to variation of probability estimates within their plausible ranges. However, these findings were based on a theoretic model and did not include cost assessment. Pretreatment genetic testing must be evaluated further in randomized clinical trials and costs must be assessed before implementing this strategy in routine psychiatric practice can be recommended.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study suggest that performing genetic testing before prescribing antidepressant treatment may lead to greater numbers of patients experiencing remission early in treatment.

Controlled comparison of two different doses of milnacipran in major depressive outpatients

We compared the antidepressant efficacy and patient tolerance of two different doses of milnacipran (75 mg and 150 mg daily) in 66 outpatients with major depression, using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). Only new patients who had never experienced frank depressive episodes before, or those who had remained free from thymoregulators for more than 1 year without recurrence of depressive symptoms, were recruited. Subjects were randomly selected to receive a daily dose of milnacipran that reached either 75 mg or 150 mg within 2-3 weeks and then remained stable over an 8-week period. The results showed a significant superiority of milnacipran at 150 mg/day over 75 mg/day at the end of the study period in both response (50% or more decrease in total score from baseline, P=0.026) and remission (total HDRS score lower than 7 points, P=0.034). A response was recorded for 56.0% of the patients treated with 75 mg of milnacipran and for 84.6% of those treated with 150 mg after the 8-week study period. No significant difference was seen between the treatment groups for either individual or total incidence of adverse events. Notably, nausea and vomiting occurred most often immediately after the first visit, when subjects in both groups started with a daily dose of 50 mg. We conclude that additional comparisons between different doses of milnacipran should be performed to confirm or deny the linear dose/efficacy relationship observed in the present study.

A comparative study of milnacipran and imipramine in the treatment of major depressive disorder

The antidepressant efficacy and safety of milnacipran, a dual action antidepressant drug which inhibits the reuptake of serotonin and noradrenaline, was compared with that of the tricyclic antidepressant, imipramine, in a multi-centre, double-blind, randomised, parallel group, comparative trial in 5 hospital centres in Spain. One hundred patients hospitalised with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatry Association (third revision), with a minimum score of 25 on the Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale were treated for 6 weeks with milnacipran (100 mg/day) or imipramine (150 mg/day). Both treatments showed similar efficacy in reducing depressive symptoms. The frequency of most adverse events in the milnacipran-treated patients was lower than that observed in the imipramine group, particularly those related to anticholinergic symptoms. Dysuria and shivering, however, were more common with milnacipran. The results of this study support others which have demonstrated that milnacipran has equivalent efficacy but superior tolerability to a tricyclic antidepressant such as imipramine.

Differential effects of milnacipran and fluvoxamine, especially in patients with severe depression and agitated depression: a case-control study

We attempted to compare the antidepressant efficacy of milnacipran and fluvoxamine in 202 outpatients with major depression, using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS). Special attention was paid to the difference of responsiveness as a function of the severity of depression and individual HDRS factors. As a result, while no significant difference between the treatment groups was found overall, a positive response (50% or more decrease in total score from the baseline) was recorded significantly more often with milnacipran than fluvoxamine recipients whose baseline HDRS total score was greater than 19 points. Furthermore, there was a significant difference of response for the 'agitation' and 'insomnia' factors in favour of milnacipran. In both treatment groups, the incidence of adverse events, characteristic of tricyclic antidepressants such as dry mouth, constipation, somnolence and postural hypotension, was low. While complaints concerning the upper intestinal tract, such as epigastric distress, were predominant in the fluvoxamine group, urological complications and palpitations were reported only in the milnacipran group. In conclusion, we suggest that milnacipran is preferred to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for the treatment of depressed patients with agitation as well as severely depressed patients.

Economic assessment of a maintenance treatment strategy in prevention of recurrent depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

To compare the 12-month cost-effectiveness of milnacipran in maintenance treatment of depression to that of medical follow-up without antidepressant.

METHOD

A Markov model with transition probabilities from a double blind clinical trial demonstrating the prophylactic efficacy of milnacipran was used. Other parameters were obtained from published sources.

RESULTS

Base-case incremental cost for preventive treatment was 1,191 FF. It was reduced to 685 FF when using a 25% hospitalization rate in case of recurrence. Patients with a high initial response had extra cost of 191 FF and cost-utility was estimated to be 23,875 FF per QALY gained. For those patients, using a 25% hospitalization rate in case of recurrence, costs were lower at 1,174 FF and preventive strategy was dominating.

CONCLUSION

Cost of maintenance therapy is partially balanced by the gain from recurrence prevention. It should be focused on patients with few residual symptoms or a high probability of hospitalization in case of recurrence.