Economic considerations in the prescribing of third-generation antidepressants

Hippocampal MicroRNAs Respond to Administration of Antidepressant Fluoxetine in Adult Mice

Current antidepressant treatments to anxiety and depression remain inadequate, burdened by a significant percentage of misuse and drug side-effects, due to unclear mechanisms of actions of antidepressants. To better understand the regulatory roles of antidepressant fluoxetine-related drug reactions, we here investigate changes of expression levels of hippocampal microRNAs (miRNAs) after administration of fluoxetine in normal adult mice. We find that 64 miRNAs showed significant changes between fluoxetine treatment and control groups by analyzing 626 mouse miRNAs. Many miRNAs in response to fluoxetine are involved in neural-related signaling pathways by analyzing miRNA-target gene pairs using the Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes (KEGG) and Gene Ontology (GO). Moreover, miRNAs with altered expression are mainly associated with the repression of the dopaminergic synapse signals, which may affect hippocampal function after fluoxetine treatment. Our results demonstrate that a number of miRNAs respond to antidepressants even in normal mice and may affect target gene expression, which supports the safety consideration of inappropriate treatment and off-label use of antidepressant drugs.

Economic evaluation of St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) for the treatment of mild to moderate depression

BACKGROUND

The burden of rising health care expenditures has created a demand for information regarding the clinical and economic outcomes associated with Complementary and Alternative Medicines. Clinical controlled trials have found St. John's wort to be as effective as antidepressants in the treatment of mild to moderate depression. The objective of this study was to develop a model to assess the cost-effectiveness of St. John's wort based on this evidence.

METHODS

A Markov model was constructed to estimate health and economic impacts of St. John's wort versus antidepressants. Outcomes were treatment costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and Net Monetary Benefits (NMB). Probabilistic analyses were conducted on key model parameters.

RESULTS

The average NMB across 5000 simulations identified St. John's wort as the strategy with the highest net benefit. The total cost savings for SJW were $359.66 and $202.56 per individual for venlafaxine and sertraline respectively, with a gain of 0.08 to 0.12 QALYs over the 72 weeks of the model.

LIMITATIONS

A lack of direct comparative clinical trial data comparing SJW to venlafaxine and limited data with sertraline as a comparator was a major limitation.

CONCLUSIONS

In this model, St. John's wort was shown to be a cost-effective alternative to generic antidepressants. Patients are more likely to receive treatment for a duration consistent with professional guidelines for treatment of major depression due to reduced incidence of adverse effects, improving outcomes. This represents an important option in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder.

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.

Pharmacological and combined interventions for the acute depressive episode: focus on efficacy and tolerability

BACKGROUND

Use of antidepressants is the gold standard therapy for major depression. However, despite the large number of commercially available antidepressant drugs there are several differences among them in efficacy, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness. In addition the optimal augmentation strategy is still not clear when dealing with treatment-resistant depression, a condition that affects 15% to 40% of depressed patients.

METHODS

We therefore reviewed the main characteristics of these drugs regarding their efficacy, tolerability, side effects and cost-effectiveness, by accessing all meta-analyses and systematic reviews published from 2004 to 2009. In addition, we reviewed the augmentation strategy of associated antidepressants with neurostimulation therapies (such as transcranial magnetic stimulation [TMS] and transcranial direct current stimulation [tDCS]). A search was undertaken in MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scielo databases. We included: 21 meta-analyses of antidepressant trials, 15 neurostimulation clinical trials and 8 studies of pharmacoeconomics. We then performed a comprehensive review on these articles.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Although recent meta-analyses suggest sertraline and escitalopram might have increased efficacy/tolerability, other studies and large pragmatic trials have not found these to be superior to other antidepressant drugs. Also, we did not identify any superior drug in terms of cost-effectiveness due to the different designs observed among pharmacoecomics studies. Side effects such as sexual dysfunction, gastrointestinal problems and weight gain were common causes of discontinuation. Tolerability was an important issue for novel neurostimulation interventions, such as TMS and tDCS. These therapies might be interesting augmentation strategies, considering their benign profile of side effects, if proper safety parameters are adopted.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-induced sexual dysfunction

INTRODUCTION

Sexual dysfunctions are often present in subjects with mood disturbances; however. antidepressants can induce per se sexual dysfunctions.

AIM

To explore the relationship between the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), non-SSRIs antidepressants and benzodiazepines (BDZ), hormonal parameters, and reported sexual dysfunction (as assessed by the Structured Interview on Erectile Dysfunction [SIEDY]) in male subjects with comparable psychopathological symptoms (as assessed by the Middlesex Hospital Questionnaire [MHQ] a self-reported test for the screening of mental disorders in a non-psychiatric setting).

METHODS

A consecutive series of 2,040 (mean age 51 +/- 13 years) male patients with sexual dysfunction was studied.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Several hormonal and biochemical parameters were investigated, along with SIEDY and the MHQ.

RESULTS

Higher prolactin was observed only in patients using SSRIs, whereas no other hormonal difference was found after adjustment for confounders. Use of SSRIs was associated with a twofold risk for patient hypoactive sexual desire and with a higher impairment of reported erectile function. However, no difference in penile blood flow was observed. A very high risk (sevenfold) for delayed ejaculation (DE) was observed in SSRI users. Interestingly, the association with the mild, but not severe, form of DE was observed also in subjects using non-SSRI antidepressants (3.35 [1.48-7.59]; P < 0.005). Different life stressors and relational parameters were also associated with SSRI use. SSRI users reported less enjoyment with masturbation and decreased partner desire and climax. Conversely, a lack of significant association was observed among BDZ or non-SSRI antidepressant users and all the aforementioned life-stressors and relational parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

SSRIs can negatively affect all the steps of the male sexual response cycle (desire-arousal-excitement-orgasm). SSRI-associated sexual dysfunction has a deleterious effect on both auto- and couple-erotic performances. Conversely, other antidepressants and BDZ are less often associated with sexual impairment.

Fluoxetine and imipramine: are there differences in cost-utility for depression in primary care?

RATIONALE

Depressive disorders generate severe personal burden and high economic costs. Cost-utility analyses of the different therapeutical options are crucial to policy-makers and clinicians. Previous cost-utility studies, comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants, have used modelling techniques or have not included indirect costs in the economic analyses.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-utility of fluoxetine compared with imipramine for treating depressive disorders in primary care.

METHODS

A 6-month randomized prospective naturalistic study comparing fluoxetine with imipramine was conducted in three primary care centres in Spain. One hundred and three patients requiring antidepressant treatment for a DSM-IV depressive disorder were included in the study. Patients were randomized either to fluoxetine (53 patients) or to imipramine (50 patients) treatment. Patients were treated with antidepressants according to their general practitioner's usual clinical practice. Outcome measures were the quality of life tariff of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire: EuroQoL-5D (five domains), direct costs, indirect costs and total costs. Subjects were evaluated at the beginning of treatment and after 1, 3 and 6 months. Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were obtained. To address uncertainty in the ICUR's sampling distribution, non-parametric bootstrapping was carried out.

RESULTS

Taking into account adjusted total costs and incremental quality of life gained, imipramine dominated fluoxetine with 81.5% of the bootstrap replications in the dominance quadrant.

CONCLUSION

Imipramine seems to be a better cost-utility antidepressant option for treating depressive disorders in primary care.

Psychosocial and pharmacological interventions for depressed adults in primary care: a critical review

Primary care settings are the principal context for treating clinical depression, with researchers beginning to explore the efficacy of psychosocial and pharmacological treatments for depression within this infrastructure. Feasibility and process variables also are being assessed, including issues of cost-effectiveness, viability of collaborative care models, predictors of treatment outcome, and effectiveness of treatment providers without specialized mental health training. The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research and American Psychiatric Association initially released guidelines for the treatment of depression in primary care [American Psychiatric Association, 1993. Practice Guidelines for major depressive disorder in adults. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 1-26., American Psychiatric Association, 2000. Practice Guideline for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder (revision). American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1-45], however, a vast literature has accumulated over the past several years, calling for a systematic re-evaluation of the status of depression treatment in primary care. The present study provides a contemporary review of outcome data for psychosocial and pharmacological interventions in primary care and extends beyond AHCPR guidelines insofar as focusing on feasibility and process variables, including the training and proficiency of primary care treatment providers, cost-effectiveness of primary care interventions, and predictors of treatment response and relapse. Based on current guidelines, problem-solving therapy (PST-PC), interpersonal psychotherapy, and pharmacotherapy would be considered efficacious interventions for major depression, with cognitive-behavioral and cognitive therapy considered possibly efficacious. Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy generally are of comparable efficacy, and both modalities are superior to usual care in treating depression. Methodological limitations and directions for future research are discussed.

The economic impact of introducing serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors into the Brazilian national drug formulary: cost-effectiveness and budget-impact analyses

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost effectiveness, from the Brazilian Ministry of Health viewpoint, of three antidepressant classes for major depressive disorder (MDD), and the budget impact of introducing serotonin-noradrenaline (norepinephrine) reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) into the current Brazilian national drug formulary, assuming a 6-month treatment duration.

METHODS

An existing decision-tree model was adapted to Brazil, based on local guidelines. Clinical data were obtained from published meta-analyses. Patients included adults aged > or =18 years with MDD, diagnosed using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, third and fourth editions (DSM-III/IV), with moderate-to-severe disease (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HAMD] > or =15 or Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] > or =18), without co-morbidities or co-medications, receiving > or =6 weeks of treatment with SNRIs, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and/or tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). Clinical outcome was remission (HAMD < or =7 or MADRS < or =12). Direct costs (drugs, physician visits, hospitalisations) were included. Drug costs were obtained from the 2006 Brazilian National Drug Price List, and hospitalisation and physician costs from the 2006 Healthcare System database. Costs were valued in Brazilian Reais ($Brz), year 2006 values ($Brz1 = $US0.47). Univariate and Monte Carlo sensitivity analyses tested model robustness.

RESULTS

Expected costs per patient treated were SNRIs $Brz4848; SSRIs $Brz5466; and TCAs $Brz5046, and overall success rates (primary plus secondary treatment across all decision tree branches) were SNRIs 78.1%; SSRIs 74.0%; and TCAs 76.4%. Average costs/success were SNRIs $Brz6209; SSRIs $Brz7385; and TCAs $Brz6602. SNRIs dominated in incremental cost-effectiveness analyses. Monte Carlo analysis confirmed drug classes' relative positions; however, there was considerable uncertainty. Introducing SNRIs into the formulary could generate average savings of 1% of the total budget, with a 52% probability of savings.

CONCLUSIONS

SNRIs appear to be cost effective against SSRIs and TCAs when prescribed to patients with MDD in Brazil. However, their inclusion into the national drug list would generate minor savings compared with the current formulary of SSRIs and TCAs. Thus, we considered such inclusion as 'cost-neutral', since no major probability of savings or increased expenditures were observed.

Effectiveness of antidepressants in the treatment of major depressive disorder in Latin America

Objective. Painful physical symptoms occur frequently in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD), and although numerous studies report the effect of antidepressants on emotional aspects of depression, few focus on their effect on physical symptoms. This observational study was conducted, in a clinical practice setting, to determine antidepressant treatment decisions and their outcome on the physical and emotional symptoms of MDD. Methods. Patients with a mean score ≥2 for pain-related items on the Somatic Symptom Inventory (SSI) were classified with painful physical symptoms (PPS +) and differentiated from the remaining patients (PPS -). Severity of depression and physical pain were determined using the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD17) and Clinical Global Impressions of Severity Scale (CGI-S), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS), respectively. Results. At baseline, 72.6% of patients were PPS+. Compared to PPS- patients, PPS +patients were, on average, significantly more depressed at baseline (mean difference [95% CI]: HAMD17 4.6 [3.6, 5.5] and CGI-S 0.3 [0.2, 0.4]; all p<0.0001), and remained more depressed and in greater pain at endpoint (HAMD17p=0.0074, CGI-S P =0.0151, and VAS P <0.0001). In addition, fewer PPS+ patients (65.8%) achieved remission (total HAMD17≤7) compared to PPS- patients (74.6%, P =0.0180). Conclusions. Painful physical symptoms are prevalent in MDD patients, highlighting the importance of addressing both the physical and emotional symptoms of depression.