Medical resource use and cost of venlafaxine or tricyclic antidepressant therapy. Following selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor therapy for depression

Effects of antidepressant treatments on health service utilization and medical costs among patients with depression: a nationwide population-based retrospective cohort study in Taiwan

This study aimed to assess the associations between the use of different types of antidepressants and health service utilization and costs among depressed patients. Data used in this study were retrieved from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. We identified 447 411 new antidepressant users during the study period (2011-2015) and they were individually followed for a 1-year period. Two-part generalized estimating equation models were conducted. Results demonstrated that there was a substantial decrease in outpatient service utilized by patients undertaking serotonin antagonists and reuptake inhibitors (β = -0.2074), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (β = -0.0452), tricyclic antidepressants (β = -0.1308), or other antidepressants (β = -0.0637), compared with their counterparts in the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors group (all P < 0.05). Compared with patients who were treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, those who were prescribed serotonin antagonists and reuptake inhibitors (β = -0.4934, P < 0.05) or tricyclic antidepressants (β = -0.4194, P < 0.05) had incurred lower costs pertaining to outpatient service, while considerably higher costs were borne by those patients embarked on the treatment of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (β = 0.3228, P < 0.05) or other antidepressants (β = 0.1118, P < 0.05). We concluded that the initiation of various classes of antidepressants led to significant variations in health service utilization and costs among depressed patients.

Cost-effectiveness comparisons between antidepressant treatments in depression: evidence from database analyses and prospective studies

BACKGROUND

Knowledge regarding the relative cost-effectiveness of different antidepressants is crucial for the planning of depression treatment. However, there have been only a small number of reviews of such evidence and synthesizing economic evidence across studies is methodologically challenging. In particular, there have been few reviews of the methods employed in database analyses (studies that use data from real-world practice).

METHODS

Published economic evaluations based on database analyses were systematically reviewed to compare antidepressant treatments in depression. Prospective studies of cost-effectiveness were also reviewed to highlight unanswered questions through comparisons between these two different study designs.

RESULTS

Forty papers met the criteria and were included. A relatively large number of industry-sponsored evaluations of escitalopram were identified and these found escitalopram to be potentially cost-effective in depression treatment. Evidence of cost-effectiveness differences between other individual SSRIs was not unequivocally established. Inconsistent findings further emerged concerning the cost-effectiveness of SSRIs versus TCAs between retrospective database analyses and prospective studies.

LIMITATIONS

Different outcome measures and cost perspectives make it difficult to make comparisons across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of different antidepressants in depression continues to accumulate. Beyond the efficacy or tolerability data found for newer antidepressants in controlled trials, further research from real-world settings is needed to examine the relative cost-effectiveness of different antidepressant agents.

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.

Economic considerations in the prescribing of third-generation antidepressants

A comprehensive, multinational literature search was conducted of all articles published from 1993 to 2003 regarding the cost effectiveness of antidepressant drugs, with special emphasis on comparing third-generation antidepressants (TGAs) with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Information from the collected articles was entered into a database and then analysed to assess the different approaches to cost effectiveness comparisons for the various classes of antidepressants. Factors examined included direct and indirect costs, treatment endpoints, healthcare cost burden and productivity gains for patients successfully treated for depression. Most model-based studies published between 1993 and 2003 supported the cost effectiveness of TGAs compared with TCAs or SSRIs. While the purchase price of TGAs may be greater, cost savings in terms of direct and indirect costs were realised because of the reduced adverse effects of TGAs and subsequent improved patient compliance. Studies based on patient level cost data, however, were less conclusive about the economic benefits of TGAs compared with SSRIs or TCAs. While it may be premature to conclude that TGAs have a significant net economic benefit compared with other antidepressant classes, prescribers and payers may find it helpful when choosing antidepressants for depressed patients to consider that the higher drug prices for TGAs may be offset by savings, in terms of their greater compliance and resultant therapeutic success rates compared with TCAs or SSRIs. Additional research is needed to clarify how cost effectiveness is assessed in different patient populations, such as geriatric patients--who commonly have more co-morbidities and higher total healthcare costs than other patient populations.

Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants

BACKGROUND

Concern is widespread about potential sponsorship influence on research, especially in pharmacoeconomic studies. Quantitative analysis of possible bias in such studies is limited.

AIMS

To determine whether there is an association between sponsorship and quantitative outcomes in pharmacoeconomic studies of antidepressants.

METHOD

Using all identifiable articles with original comparative quantitative cost or cost-effectiveness outcomes for antidepressants, we performed contingency table analyses of study sponsorship and design v. study outcome.

RESULTS

Studies sponsored by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) manufacturers favoured SSRIs over tricyclic antidepressants more than non-industry-sponsored studies. Studies sponsored by manufacturers of newer antidepressants favoured these drugs more than did non-industry-sponsored studies. Among industry-sponsored studies, modelling studies favoured the sponsor's drug more than did administrative studies. Industry-sponsored modelling studies were more favourable to industry than were non-industry-sponsored ones.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacoeconomic studies of antidepressants reveal clear associations of study sponsorship with quantitative outcome.

Economic evaluation of antidepressive agents: a systematic critique of experimental and observational studies

The purpose of this study was to examine whether experimental and observational pharmacoeconomic analyses of antidepressant drugs support the choice of one of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or newer antidepressants as first-line treatment for patients with major depression. We systematically reviewed economic evaluations of two or more antidepressants completed in clinical practice. A systematic electronic search yielded 38 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 23 were administrative database analyses, 12 were observational studies, and 3 were randomized clinical trials. Experimental data indicated that tricyclic antidepressants are equivalent to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in terms of total expenditure. While the database analyses are susceptible to bias and confounding variables, they provided an added dimension based on observations from everyday clinical practice. The majority of these studies failed to show any significant difference. Taken together, available pharmacoeconomic studies indicate that tricyclic drugs and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have similar cost effectiveness in the health care systems where these comparisons have been made.

Pharmacoeconomic studies of antidepressants: focus on venlafaxine

Newer antidepressants are more expensive in terms of acquisition costs than older drugs. However, cost effectiveness simulations and retrospective analyses of administrative databases of newer antidepressants, including venlafaxine, suggest that the higher acquisition costs may be offset or more than offset by savings of other treatment costs. Because simulations and retrospective studies are vulnerable to multiple methodologic uncertainties, large scale randomized "real-world" cost effectiveness experiments are needed. If venlafaxine in actual practice is more effective or has a more rapid onset of action than SSRIs as suggested by efficacy studies and existing meta-analyses, these effects could translate into pharmacoeconomic advantages.