A comparison of the direct costs and cost effectiveness of serotonin reuptake inhibitors and associated adverse drug reactions

Differences in sexual adverse events for premature ejaculation medications from a public federal database

American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines recommend selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) as first-line pharmacotherapy for premature ejaculation (PE). While previous studies have described sexual adverse events (AE) associated with each medication, there is limited data directly comparing rates of specific sexual AEs across SSRIs. This study investigates the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database for reports of monotherapy use of fluoxetine 20 mg, paroxetine 20 mg, sertraline 50 mg, and sertraline 100 mg in males from January 2004-June 2021. We examined 2608 reports from patients using SSRIs for PE or other psychiatric conditions. The average number of AEs was significantly different (p < 0.01) with paroxetine 20 mg having the highest (5.1 AEs/case report). Changes in libido was the most common sexual AE for fluoxetine 20 mg (6.7% of reports), paroxetine 20 mg (4.2%), and sertraline 50 mg (7.2%) while orgasm disorder was the most reported for sertraline 100 mg (3.9%). The SSRIs had different rates of changes in libido, erection disorder, orgasm disorder, and other sexual dysfunction (outside those listed). The SSRIs also differed in the rates of fatigue, ear/hearing changes, headache, and psychological AEs. The differences in specific AEs warrant future studies to determine true differences that would affect patient counseling.

Screening and Treatment of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Wildfire Evacuees: A Cost-Utility Analysis

Background. Global climate change is resulting in dramatic increases in wildfires. Individuals exposed to wildfires experience a high burden of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the cost-effectiveness of the treatment options to address PTSD from wildfires has not been studied. The objective of this study was to conduct a cost-utility analysis comparing screening followed by treatment with paroxetine or trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) versus no screening in Canadian adult wildfire evacuees. Methods. Using a Markov model, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and costs were evaluated over a 5-y time horizon using health care and societal perspectives. All costs and utilities in the model were discounted at 1.5%. Probabilistic and deterministic sensitivity analyses examined the uncertainty in the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) under a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000. Results. From a societal perspective, no screening (NMB = $177,641) was dominated by screening followed by treatment with paroxetine (NMB = $180,733) and TF-CBT (NMB = $181,787), with TF-CBT having the highest likelihood of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY (probability = 0.649). The initial prevalence of PTSD, probability of acceptance of treatment, and costs of productivity had the largest impact on the INMB of both paroxetine or TF-CBT versus no screening. Neither intervention was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY from a health care perspective. Interpretation. Screening followed by treatment with paroxetine or TF-CBT compared with no screening was found to be cost-saving while providing additional QALYs in wildfire evacuees. Governments should consider funding screening programs for PTSD followed by treatment with TF-CBT for wildfire evacuees.

Highlights

Two prior studies examined the cost-effectiveness of screening followed by treatment for PTSD among individuals exposed to other disaster-type events (i.e., terrorist attack and Hurricane Sandy) and found screening followed by treatment (i.e., cognitive behavioral therapy [CBT]) to be highly cost-effective.Among wildfire evacuees, screening followed by treatment with paroxetine or trauma-focused (TF)-CBT provides additional quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and is cost-saving from a societal perspective. TF-CBT was the treatment option found most likely to be cost-effective.Neither treatment option was cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000 per QALY from a health care perspective.Screening programs for PTSD should be considered for wildfire evacuees, and individuals diagnosed with PTSD could be prescribed either TF-CBT or paroxetine depending on their preference and resources availability.

Economic evaluation of interventions for treatment-resistant depression: A systematic review

Background

The extraordinarily high prevalence of treatment-resistant depression (TRD), coupled with its high economic burden to both healthcare systems and society, underscore how critical it is that resources are managed optimally to address the significant challenge it presents.

Objective

To review the literature on economic evaluation in TRD systematically, with the aim of informing future studies by identifying key challenges specific to the area, and highlighting good practices.

Methods

A systematic literature search across seven electronic databases was conducted to identify both within-trial and model-based economic evaluations in TRD. Quality of reporting and study design was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC). A narrative synthesis was conducted.

Results

We identified 31 evaluations, including 11 conducted alongside a clinical trial and 20 model-based evaluations. There was considerable heterogeneity in the definition of treatment-resistant depression, although with a trend for more recent studies to use a definition of inadequate response to two or more antidepressive treatments. A broad range of interventions were considered, including non-pharmacological neuromodulation, pharmacological, psychological, and service-level interventions. Study quality as assessed by CHEC was generally high. Frequently poorly reported items related to discussion of ethical and distributional issues, and model validation. Most evaluations considered comparable core clinical outcomes - encompassing remission, response, and relapse. There was good agreement on the definitions and thresholds for these outcomes, and a relatively small pool of outcome measures were used. Resource criteria used to inform the estimation of direct costs, were reasonably uniform. Predominantly, however, there was a high level of heterogeneity in terms of evaluation design and sophistication, quality of evidence used (particularly health state utility data), time horizon, population considered, and cost perspective.

Conclusion

Economic evidence for interventions in TRD is underdeveloped, particularly so for service-level interventions. Where evidence does exist, it is hampered by inconsistency in study design, methodological quality, and availability of high quality long-term outcomes evidence. This review identifies a number of key considerations and challenges for the design of future economic evaluations. Recommendations for research and suggestions for good practice are made.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=259848&VersionID=1542096, identifier CRD42021259848.

A Double-Blind Randomized Trial to Investigate Mechanisms of Antidepressant-Related Dysfunctional Arousal in Depressed or Anxious Youth at Familial Risk for Bipolar Disorder

Antidepressants are standardly used to treat moderate to severe symptoms of depression and/or anxiety in youth but may also be associated with rare but serious psychiatric adverse events such as irritability, agitation, aggression, or suicidal ideation. Adverse events are especially common in youth with a family history of bipolar disorder (BD) who are at heightened risk for dysfunction in neurobiological systems that regulate emotion and arousal. To further understand this phenomenon, this study will examine (a) baseline risk factors associated with dysfunctional arousal in a sample of youth at high-risk for BD treated with or without an antidepressant, (b) whether antidepressant-related changes in arousal are mediated by changes in prefrontal-limbic circuitry, and (c) whether pharmacogenetic factors influence antidepressant-related changes in arousal. High-risk youth (aged 12-17 years with moderate to severe depressive and/or anxiety symptoms and at least one first-degree relative with bipolar I disorder) will be randomized to receive psychotherapy plus escitalopram or psychotherapy plus placebo. Neuroimaging and behavioral measures of arousal will be collected prior to randomization and at 4 weeks. Samples for pharmacogenetic analysis (serum escitalopram concentration, CYP2C19 metabolizer phenotype, and HTR2A and SLC6A4 genotypes) will be collected at 8 weeks. Youth will be followed for up to 16 weeks to assess change in arousal measures.

The Incidence and Costs of Adverse Events Associated with Antidepressants: Results from a Systematic Review, Network Meta-Analysis and Multi-Country Economic Model

PURPOSE

There is variation in the safety profile of antidepressants. Rates of adverse events along with the costs of treating them can be an important factor influencing the choice of depression treatment. This study sought to estimate the comparative safety of commonly prescribed antidepressants, and how the costs of treating these varied across European countries.

METHODS

A systematic literature review was conducted (in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CENTRAL) to identify placebo-controlled trials reporting rates of at least one type of sexual dysfunction, weight change, insomnia, anxiety, and anhedonia. Eight antidepressants were considered: duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, trazodone, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine. This evidence was synthesised via Bayesian random effects network meta-analyses to provide comparative estimates of safety. A systematic search identified country-specific costs of managing depression and adverse events of antidepressants. Evidence on costs and safety was combined in an economic model to provide country-specific costs for Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Romania, Slovakia, Portugal, and Poland.

RESULTS

Trazodone had the lowest rates of both insomnia (odds ratio 0.66, 95% credible interval 0.31 to 1.38) and anxiety (0.13, <0.01 to 1.80). All antidepressants were associated with increased rates of sexual dysfunction relative to placebo. Weight change was largest for fluoxetine (kg change -1.01, -1.40 to -0.60) and sertraline (-1.00, -1.36 to -0.65), although heterogeneity was extreme for this outcome. No evidence was identified for anhedonia. Total costs were lowest for trazodone in all nine of the countries evaluated. This was primarily due to reduced rates of treatment discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

Trazodone generally had the best safety profile of the antidepressants evaluated. This led to healthcare costs being lowest for trazodone in all nine European countries, emphasising the importance of considering rates of adverse events when choosing a pharmacological treatment to treat symptoms of depression.

Neurostimulation therapies in major depressive disorder: A decision-analytic model

AIM

Neurostimulation techniques are effective treatments for major depressive disorders (MDD). However, the optimal sequence of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) as part of antidepressant treatment algorithm is unclear. We examined the cost-effectiveness of ECT and TMS in MDD.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed to determine total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for 10 strategies. Each strategy comprised four treatment lines with ECT and TMS incorporated as second, third, or fourth line. A scenario analysis that explored the cost-effectiveness of maintenance approach by continuing ECT and TMS after acute treatment was performed.

RESULTS

In the base case, fourth-line TMS after three preceding trials of antidepressants was least costly at US$ 5523 yielding 1.424 QALYs. Compared with this strategy, fourth-line ECT and third-line TMS followed by ECT were cost-effective with ICERs of US$ 7601 per QALY gained and US$ 11 388 per QALY gained, respectively. In the scenario analysis where continuation treatments of ECT and TMS were provided, third-line TMS followed by ECT was cost-effective, with an ICER of US$ 17 198 per QALY gained. Effectiveness of ECT and cost of managing severe depression were influential parameters affecting the cost-effectiveness results.

CONCLUSIONS

In acute treatment of MDD, fourth-line ECT was the most cost-effective strategy. In maintenance treatment, the strategy that incorporated third-line TMS and fourth-line ECT was cost-effective. The overall findings confirmed the value of neurostimulation therapies which should be offered early in the process of managing depression.

Time trends in pharmacological treatment of major depressive disorder: Results from the AMSP Pharmacovigilance Program from 2001-2017

BACKGROUND

Currently available data on the prescription practice among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) reflect the outpatient setting. This is the first study to provide information on time trends of psychotropic drug utilization in psychiatric inpatients.

METHOD

Data stems from German-speaking psychiatric hospitals collected by the program "Drug Safety in Psychiatry" (Arzneimittelsicherheit in der Psychiatrie, AMSP) between 2001 and 2017. 44,418 psychiatric inpatients with MDD were included. Time trends in drug utilization were analyzed by comparing the first (2001-2003) and last time point (2015-2017) using risk ratios (RR).

RESULTS

Antidepressant drugs (ADD) were the most used psychotropic drug class with utilization decreasing slightly from 2001-2003 (89.7%) to 2015-2017 (85.5%). Use of tricyclic ADDs showed the greatest decline (RR 0.35), while use of selective serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (RR 1.72) and "other ADDs" increased the most. Use of antipsychotic drugs (APD), especially second-generation antipsychotic drugs (RR 1.46), increased. Use of tranquilizing (RR 0.71) and hypnotic drugs (RR 0.43) both decreased. Most patients were treated with more than one psychotropic drug, most often ADD + APD, which was utilized more often in 2015-2017 (51.1%) than in 2001-2003 (45.1%; RR 1.13). Combination of two ADDs increased from 2001-2003 (24.5%) to 2015-2017 (33.0%; RR 1.35).

LIMITATIONS

The cross-sectional design does not allow conclusions to be drawn about causal relationship of findings. Further, only certain clinical and sociodemographic data was available.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of MDD has shown significant changes from 2001 to 2017.

Cost-Effectiveness of Providing the Depression Care for People With Cancer Program to Patients With Prostate Cancer in the United States

OBJECTIVES

The Depression Care for People with Cancer program (DCPC) is a cost-effective depression care model for UK patients with cancer. However, DCPC's cost-effectiveness in the United States is unknown, particularly for patients with prostate cancer in the United States. This study evaluates the health and economic impact of providing DCPC to patients with prostate cancer.

METHODS

DCPC was compared with usual care in a mathematical model that simulates depression and its outcomes in a hypothetical cohort of US patients with prostate cancer. DCPC was modeled as a sequential combination of universal depression screening, post-screening evaluations, and first-line combination therapy. Primary outcomes were lifetime direct costs of depression care, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Secondary outcomes included life expectancy, number of depression-free months and lifetime depressive episodes, duration of depressive episodes, cumulative incidence of depression, lifetime depression diagnoses/misdiagnoses, and the cumulative incidence of maintenance therapy for depression. Sensitivity analyses were used to examine uncertainty.

RESULTS

In the base case, DCPC dominated usual care by offering 0.11 more QALYs for $2500 less per patient (from averted misdiagnoses). DCPC also offered 5 extra depression-free months, shorter depressive episodes, and a lower chance of maintenance therapy. DCPC's trade-offs were a higher cumulative incidence of depression and more lifetime depressive episodes. Life expectancy was identical under usual care and DCPC. Sensitivity analyses indicate that DCPC was almost always preferable to usual care.

CONCLUSION

Compared with usual care, DCPC may offer more value to US patients with prostate cancer. DCPC should be considered for inclusion in prostate cancer survivorship care guidelines.

Cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine compared with levomilnacipran and vilazodone in patients with major depressive disorder switching from an initial antidepressant

Introduction: Many patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not achieve remission with their first antidepressant (AD), resulting in a high burden due to treatment failure. Vortioxetine is a valid treatment option for patients with MDD only partially responding to their first AD. Characterization of vortioxetine's potential benefits versus other approved treatments is important. Areas covered: The cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine, including cognitive outcomes, was modeled in comparison with levomilnacipran and vilazodone for patients switched to these medications after inadequate responses to a first AD. Expert opinion: Vortioxetine was associated with incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains versus levomilnacipran (0.008) or vilazodone (0.009). Vortioxetine was dominant versus levomilnacipran and cost-effective versus vilazodone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER],33,829 USD/QALY). In sensitivity analyses using residual cognitive dysfunction rates (vortioxetine, 49%; levomilnacipran, 58%, and vilazodone, 64%), incremental QALY gains for vortioxetine versus levomilnacipran (0.0085) or vilazodone (0.0109) were found. Vortioxetine remained dominant versus levomilnacipran and cost-effective versus vilazodone (ICER, 27,633 USD/QALY). ICER reduction was found with cognition outcomes inclusion. This model provides additional support for considering vortioxetine for patients requiring a switch of MDD treatments, although its conclusions are limited by the data available for inclusion. Additional research and real-world trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Does screening for depressive symptoms help optimize duloxetine use in knee OA patients with moderate pain? A cost-effectiveness analysis

OBJECTIVE

Duloxetine is an FDA-approved treatment for both osteoarthritis (OA) pain and depression, but uptake of duloxetine in knee OA management varies. We examined the cost-effectiveness of adding duloxetine to knee OA care with or without depression screening.

METHODS

We used the Osteoarthritis Policy Model, a validated computer microsimulation of knee OA, to examine the value of duloxetine for knee OA patients with moderate pain by comparing three strategies: 1) usual care (UC); 2) duloxetine for those who screen positive for depression on the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) + UC; and 3) universal duloxetine + UC. Outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime direct medical costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), discounted at 3% annually. Model inputs, drawn from published literature and national databases, included: annual cost of duloxetine, $721-$937; average pain reduction for duloxetine, 17.5 points on the WOMAC pain scale (0-100); likelihood of depression remission with duloxetine, 27.4%. We considered two willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY. We varied parameters related to the PHQ-9 and duloxetine's cost, efficacy, and toxicities to address uncertainty in model inputs.

RESULTS

The screening strategy led to an additional 17 QALYs per 1,000 subjects and increased costs by $289/subject (ICER=$17,000/QALY). Universal duloxetine led to an additional 31 QALYs per 1,000 subjects and $1,205/subject (ICER=$39,300/QALY). Under the majority of sensitivity analyses, universal duloxetine was cost-effective at the $100,000/QALY threshold.

CONCLUSION

Adding duloxetine to usual care for knee OA patients with moderate pain, regardless of depressive symptoms, is cost-effective at frequently-used WTP thresholds.

Cost-effectiveness of psychological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults

BACKGROUND

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a severe and disabling condition that may lead to functional impairment and reduced productivity. Psychological interventions have been shown to be effective in its management. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a range of interventions for adults with PTSD.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was constructed to compare costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of 10 interventions and no treatment for adults with PTSD, from the perspective of the National Health Service and personal social services in England. Effectiveness data were derived from a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Other model input parameters were based on published sources, supplemented by expert opinion.

RESULTS

Eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing (EMDR) appeared to be the most cost-effective intervention for adults with PTSD (with a probability of 0.34 amongst the 11 evaluated options at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000/QALY), followed by combined somatic/cognitive therapies, self-help with support, psychoeducation, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy (TF-CBT), self-help without support, non-TF-CBT and combined TF-CBT/SSRIs. Counselling appeared to be less cost-effective than no treatment. TF-CBT had the largest evidence base.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of interventions appear to be cost-effective for the management of PTSD in adults. EMDR appears to be the most cost-effective amongst them. TF-CBT has the largest evidence base. There remains a need for well-conducted studies that examine the long-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of a range of treatments for adults with PTSD.

The burden of treatment-resistant depression: A systematic review of the economic and quality of life literature

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a global public health concern. In particular, treatment-resistant depression (TRD) represents a key unmet need in the management of MDD. A systematic review of the epidemiological and economic literature on the burden associated with an increasing number of treatment steps due to TRD/non-response within an MDD episode was performed to quantify the burden of TRD.

METHODS

Studies were identified in the PubMed/Medline databases through April 27th, 2017. Articles were limited to full-length peer-reviewed journal publications with no date restrictions. Economic and patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data on non-response by the number of treatment steps were quantified and, where appropriate, compared across studies; otherwise, comparative data within studies were reported.

RESULTS

The 12 studies on economic burden found an association between increasing levels of TRD/non-response and elevations in direct and indirect costs. Likewise, the 19 studies studying HRQoL burden found that increasing levels of TRD/non-response correlated with reduced patient HRQoL and health status.

LIMITATIONS

TRD is defined inconsistently, which results in notable heterogeneity between published studies and poses methodological challenges for between-study comparisons. It is unknown if the increased economic and patient HRQoL burden are due to factors associated with TRD/non-response in addition to those due to depression persistence or severity.

CONCLUSIONS

A consistent trend was observed such that medical costs increased and patient HRQoL and health status decreased by increasing level of TRD/non-response within an MDD episode. These findings highlight the need for improved therapies for TRD to help reduce disease burden.

Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies

In countries such as Australia, the UK and Canada, decisions on whether to fund new health technologies are commonly informed by decision analytic models. While the impact of making inappropriate structural choices/assumptions on model predictions is well noted, there is a lack of clarity about the definition of key structural aspects, the process of developing model structure (including the development of conceptual models) and uncertainty associated with the structuring process (structural uncertainty) in guidelines developed by national funding bodies. This forms the focus of this article. Building on the reports of good modelling practice, and recognising the fundamental role of model structuring within the model development process, we specified key structural choices and provided ideas about model structuring for the future direction. This will help to further standardise guidelines developed by national funding bodies, with potential impact on transparency, comprehensiveness and consistency of model structuring. We argue that the process of model structuring and structural sensitivity analysis should be documented in a more systematic and transparent way in submissions to national funding bodies. Within the decision-making process, the development of conceptual models and presentation of all key structural choices would mean that national funding bodies could be more confident of maximising value for money when making public funding decisions.

Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Treatments for Depression: A Systematic Literature Review

BACKGROUND

An increasing number of model-based studies that evaluate the cost effectiveness of treatments for depression are being published. These studies have different characteristics and use different simulation methods.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to systematically review model-based studies evaluating the cost effectiveness of treatments for depression and examine which modelling technique is most appropriate for simulating the natural course of depression.

METHODS

The literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, EMBASE and PsycInfo between 1 January 2002 and 1 October 2016. Studies were eligible if they used a health economic model with quality-adjusted life-years or disability-adjusted life-years as an outcome measure. Data related to various methodological characteristics were extracted from the included studies. The available modelling techniques were evaluated based on 11 predefined criteria.

RESULTS

This methodological review included 41 model-based studies, of which 21 used decision trees (DTs), 15 used cohort-based state-transition Markov models (CMMs), two used individual-based state-transition models (ISMs), and three used discrete-event simulation (DES) models. Just over half of the studies (54%) evaluated antidepressants compared with a control condition. The data sources, time horizons, cycle lengths, perspectives adopted and number of health states/events all varied widely between the included studies. DTs scored positively in four of the 11 criteria, CMMs in five, ISMs in six, and DES models in seven.

CONCLUSION

There were substantial methodological differences between the studies. Since the individual history of each patient is important for the prognosis of depression, DES and ISM simulation methods may be more appropriate than the others for a pragmatic representation of the course of depression. However, direct comparisons between the available modelling techniques are necessary to yield firm conclusions.

Cost-utility evaluation of vortioxetine in patients with Major Depressive Disorder experiencing inadequate response to alternative antidepressants in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND

Patients frequently require several lines of therapy for treatment of major depressive episodes. This economic analysis details the management of patients who responded inadequately due to lack of efficacy or intolerability to two previous antidepressants in the UK.

METHODS

The model included a decision tree and a Markov component. Health states considered in the decision tree were remission, response, no response, withdrawal due to adverse events, relapse, recovery, and recurrence. The time horizon was 24 months. Patients were on third-line treatment for up to a 3-month acute phase and a 6-month maintenance phase. As third-line efficacy data were not available, inputs were calculated by adjusting original second-line data to third-line based on proportionate reductions observed in STAR*D. Equivalent efficacy was assumed for all comparators. Healthcare resource use and utilities were based on UK estimates.

RESULTS

Vortioxetine was a cost-effective treatment option at a threshold of £20,000/QALY vs. escitalopram, citalopram, sertraline, and was associated with more health benefits, less costs (was dominant) versus relevant third-line comparators venlafaxine and duloxetine. Agomelatine was found not to be a cost-effective option. The 22-month maintenance phase treatment scenario results were similar to the 6-month base case.

LIMITATIONS

Third-line efficacy data were not available. This highlights the need for studies in patients receiving third-line treatment.

CONCLUSION

This model provides an overview for the management of patients receiving third-line treatment where limited evidence currently exists. Vortioxetine, with its novel mechanism of action, is expected to be a dominant treatment option versus relevant comparators in the UK.

The impact of pharmacists' input to reduce serotonin syndrome drug interactions in an Australian hospital

BACKGROUND

Drug interactions contribute significantly to adverse-related events and hospital admissions. Example of common drug interactions includes combinations of medications that induces serotonin syndrome. Pharmacists are well placed in the multidisciplinary team to alert prescribers of these drug interactions and offer an alternative management.

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacists' input in preventing patients being discharged on clinically relevant drug interactions that have the potential to cause serotonin syndrome in an Australian hospital.

METHOD

A retrospective cross-sectional audit of patients' case notes who were prescribed a combination of drugs likely to induce serotonin syndrome on admission were examined over a 3-month period. A predefined list of serotonin syndrome-inducing drugs of severity 1 and 2 was used to search for patients on these drug combinations on admission. The severities of the drug combinations were classified as per the Monthly Index of Medical Specialties drug interactions guide. Subsequent pharmacists' interventions were recorded on discharge to observe any change in prescribing practice. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. P values were obtained using the Student's t-test and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

A total of 144 patients over 3 months were identified to have been prescribed a combination of drugs with a potential to cause serotonin syndrome during admission. Of these patients, 79 and 21% were prescribed combination of serotonergic drugs that were classified as severity 1 and 2, respectively, according to Monthly Index of Medical Specialties. A total of 56% (n = 81) of the audited patients were discharged with no serotonin syndrome-inducing drug combinations and 44% (n = 63) were discharged on serotonin syndrome-inducing drug combinations of severity 1 or 2. Pharmacist input has led to a significant reduction (relative risk reduction 44%; P < 0.0001) in the total number of patients who were discharged on severity 1 and 2 serotonin syndrome-inducing drug combinations. There were 87 patients (60%) who had a pharmacist input during admission. In this subset of the cohort, 36% (n = 31) of patients were discharged on serotonin syndrome-inducing drug combinations (combined both severity 1 and 2) compared with 56% (n = 32) in those who did not get a pharmacist input, P = 0.017. In addition, 64% (n = 56) of patients in this group were discharged on no serotonin syndrome-inducing drug combinations compared with 44% (n =  25) in the nonpharmacist group, P = 0.017.

CONCLUSION

The audit highlights the pharmacists' role in significantly reducing clinically relevant drug interaction in patients prescribed serotonin syndrome-inducing drug combination in a single-center Australian hospital on discharge.

Better guidelines for better care: accounting for multimorbidity in clinical guidelines – structured examination of exemplar guidelines and health economic modelling

Background

Multimorbidity is common but most clinical guidelines focus on single diseases.

Aim

To test the feasibility of new approaches to developing single-disease guidelines to better account for multimorbidity.

Design

Literature-based and economic modelling project focused on areas where multimorbidity makes guideline application problematic.

Methods

(1) Examination of accounting for multimorbidity in three exemplar National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines (type 2 diabetes, depression, heart failure); (2) examination of the applicability of evidence in multimorbidity for the exemplar conditions; (3) exploration of methods for comparing absolute benefit of treatment; (4) incorporation of treatment pay-off time and competing risk of death in an exemplar economic model for long-term preventative treatments with slowly accruing benefit; and (5) development of a discrete event simulation model-based cost-effectiveness analysis for people with both depression and coronary heart disease.

Results

(1) Comorbidity was rarely accounted for in the clinical research questions that framed the development of the exemplar guidelines, and was rarely accounted for in treatment recommendations. Drug–disease interactions were common only for comorbid chronic kidney disease, but potentially serious drug–drug interactions between recommended drugs were common and rarely accounted for in guidelines. (2) For all three conditions, the trials underpinning treatment recommendations largely excluded older, more comorbid and more coprescribed patients. The implications of low applicability varied by condition, with type 2 diabetes having large differences in comorbidity, whereas potentially serious drug–drug interactions were more important for depression. (3) Comparing absolute benefit of treatments for different conditions was shown to be technically feasible, but only if guideline developers are willing to make a number of significant assumptions. (4) The lifetime absolute benefit of statins for primary prevention is highly sensitive to the presence of both the direct treatment disutility of taking a daily tablet and competing risk of death. (5) It was feasible to use a discrete event simulation-based model to represent the relevant care pathways to estimate the relative cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments of major depressive disorder in primary care for patients who are also likely to go on and receive treatment for coronary heart disease but the analysis was reliant on eliciting some parameter values from experts, which increases the inherent uncertainty in the results. The key limitation was that real-life use in guideline development was not examined.

Conclusions

Guideline developers could feasibly (1) use epidemiological data characterising the guideline population to inform consideration of applicability and interactions; (2) systematically compare the absolute benefit of long-term preventative treatments to inform decision-making in people with multimorbidity and high treatment burden; and (3) modify the output from economic models used in guideline development to examine time to benefit in terms of the pay-off time and varying competing risk of death from other conditions.

Future work

Further research is needed to optimise presentation of comparative absolute benefit information to clinicians and patients, to evaluate the use of epidemiological and time-to-benefit data in guideline development, to better quantify direct treatment disutility and to better quantify benefit and harm in people with multimorbidity.

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Cognitive Behavioral Insomnia Therapy for Those With Insomnia and Depression: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Study Objective

To compare cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) + antidepressant medication (AD) against treatments that target solely depression or solely insomnia.

Design

A blinded, randomized split-plot experimental study.

Setting

Two urban academic clinical centers.

Participants

107 participants (68% female, mean age 42 ± 11) with major depressive disorder and insomnia.

Interventions

Randomization was to one of three groups: antidepressant (AD; escitalopram) + CBT-I (4 sessions), CBT-I + placebo pill, or AD + 4-session sleep hygiene control (SH).

Measurements and Results

Subjective sleep was assessed via 2 weeks of daily sleep diaries (use of medication was covaried in all analyses); although there were no statistically significant group differences detected, all groups improved from baseline to posttreatment on subjective sleep efficiency (SE) and total wake time (TWT) and the effect sizes were large. Objective sleep was assessed via overnight polysomnographic monitoring at baseline and posttreatment; analyses revealed both CBT groups improved on TWT (p = .03), but the AD + SH group worsened. There was no statistically significant effect for PSG SE (p = .07). There was a between groups medium effect observed for the AD + SH and CBT + placebo group differences on diary TWT and both PSG variables. All groups improved significantly from baseline to posttreatment on the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD-17); the groups did not differ.

Conclusions

Although all groups self-reported sleeping better after treatment, only the CBT-I groups improved on objective sleep, and AD + SH's sleep worsened. This suggests that we should be treating sleep in those with depression with an effective insomnia treatment and relying on self-report obscures sleep worsening effects. All groups improved on depression, even a group with absolutely no depression-focused treatment component (CBT-I + placebo). The depression effect in CBT-I only group has been reported in other studies, suggesting that we should further investigate the antidepressant properties of CBT-I.

The Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of Vortioxetine for the Treatment of a Major Depressive Episode in Patients With Failed Prior Antidepressant Therapy: A Critique of the Evidence

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the manufacturer of vortioxetine (Lundbeck) to submit clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence for vortioxetine for the treatment of major depressive episodes (MDEs), as part of the Institute's Single Technology Appraisal (STA) process. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Centre for Health Economics at the University of York were commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). This article provides a description of the company submission, the ERG review and the resulting NICE guidance TA367 issued in November 2015. The ERG critically reviewed the evidence presented in the manufacturer's submission and identified areas requiring clarification, for which the manufacturer provided additional evidence. Two phase III randomised controlled trials for a second-line population involving vortioxetine were identified-REVIVE and TAK318. These two trials represent only 972 of over 7000 patients included in trials of vortioxetine. In REVIVE, there was a statistically significant difference in depression scores favouring vortioxetine compared with agomelatine [mean Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score difference of 2.16 points; 95 % confidence interval 0.81-3.51]. The ERG concluded that, based on all the evidence, rather than the substantially restricted subset of evidence originally considered by the manufacturer, vortioxetine is likely to be similar in efficacy to other analysed antidepressants [citalopram, sertraline, escitalopram and venlafaxine extended release (XR)], and may be more efficacious than agomelatine and inferior to duloxetine. The ERG concluded that vortioxetine may be more tolerable than other analysed antidepressants (sertraline, venlafaxine XR and bupropion), although the limited data prevent firm conclusions. The base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of vortioxetine reported by the manufacturer was £378 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) compared with venlafaxine. Given considerable concerns about the indirect treatment comparison undertaken by the manufacturer, the use of only a restrictive subset of the available evidence, and concerns regarding comparators and structural model assumptions, the ERG believes that this is not a valid estimate of the cost effectiveness of vortioxetine. Following corrections made to the model made by the ERG, the estimated cost effectiveness of vortioxetine was sensitive to the source of evidence used, in addition to whether certain comparators were excluded. The NICE thus asked the manufacturer to provide a revised economic model, which incorporated the broader evidence base and considered the cost effectiveness of vortioxetine as a third-line treatment. Assuming equal efficacy, vortioxetine was shown to be less costly and generate a higher QALY gain than relevant comparators at the third-line of treatment owing to its tolerability and adverse event profile. The NICE Appraisal Committee recommended vortioxetine as an option for treating MDEs in adults whose condition has responded inadequately to two antidepressants within the current episode.

Cost-Effectiveness of Capsaicin 8% Patch Compared with Pregabalin for the Treatment of Patients with Peripheral Neuropathic Pain in Scotland

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of capsaicin 8% patch (QUTENZA™) versus pregabalin in patients with PNP from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) and Personal and Social Services in Scotland, UK. A decision-tree cost-effectiveness model was developed for non-diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathic pain (PNP) who were pregabalin-naïve and had not achieved adequate pain relief or tolerated conventional first- or second-line treatments. Patients entering the model received either a single application of capsaicin 8% patch or titrated daily dosing with pregabalin; after 8 weeks patients were classified as responders, non-responders, or were assumed to discontinue treatment due to intolerable adverse events. Responders continued to receive baseline treatment at intervals observed in clinical practice. Non-responders and those who discontinued treatment were assumed to receive last-line therapy (duloxetine). The base-case time horizon was 2 years. Model inputs for effectiveness, discontinuations and health-state utilities were taken from a head-to-head non-inferiority study (ELEVATE, NCT01713426). Other inputs were obtained from published sources or clinical expert opinion. Costs were expressed in GBP 2013/14. Results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER), i.e. cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Model assumptions were tested with scenario analyses. Parameter uncertainty was tested using one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Compared with dose-optimized pregabalin, capsaicin 8% patch was the dominant treatment strategy (total cost difference, –£11; total QALY gain, 0.049). Capsaicin 8% patch was also the dominant treatment strategy versus pregabalin in 6 out of 7 scenario analyses. The model was most sensitive to variation in time to capsaicin 8% patch retreatment (maximum ICER, £7,951/QALY at lower-bound 95% confidence interval). At a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000/QALY, the probability of capsaicin 8% patch being cost-effective versus pregabalin was 97%. Capsaicin 8% patch is a cost-effective treatment option compared with dose-optimized pregabalin in patients with PNP who have failed one or more previous systemic treatments.

Cost-Effectiveness of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation versus Antidepressant Therapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression

BACKGROUND

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) therapy is a clinically safe, noninvasive, nonsystemic treatment for major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of rTMS versus pharmacotherapy for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder who have failed at least two adequate courses of antidepressant medications.

METHODS

A 3-year Markov microsimulation model with 2-monthly cycles was used to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of rTMS and a mix of antidepressant medications (including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclics, noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants, and monoamine oxidase inhibitors). The model synthesized data sourced from published literature, national cost reports, and expert opinions. Incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated, and uncertainty of the results was assessed using univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Compared with pharmacotherapy, rTMS is a dominant/cost-effective alternative for patients with treatment-resistant depressive disorder. The model predicted that QALYs gained with rTMS were higher than those gained with antidepressant medications (1.25 vs. 1.18 QALYs) while costs were slightly less (AU $31,003 vs. AU $31,190). In the Australian context, at the willingness-to-pay threshold of AU $50,000 per QALY gain, the probability that rTMS was cost-effective was 73%. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the superiority of rTMS in terms of value for money compared with antidepressant medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Although both pharmacotherapy and rTMS are clinically effective treatments for major depressive disorder, rTMS is shown to outperform antidepressants in terms of cost-effectiveness for patients who have failed at least two adequate courses of antidepressant medications.

[Evidence-based choice and antidepressants treatment in psychiatry]

Depression is a severe and usually recurrent mental disorder which leads to a prominent impairment of physical and social functioning, a reduced quality of life of the patients, implies as well an increased morbidity and mortality. Reducing the social-economic depression burden is possible in the optimization of decision-making process of antidepressant choice (including SSRIs and SNRIs) based on the evidence-based risk/benefit ratio and resource saving potential treatment involving target psychosocial interventions and monitoring of long-term treatment adherence.

Efficacy and safety of generic escitalopram (Lexacure(®)) in patients with major depressive disorder: a 6-week multicenter, randomized, rater-blinded, escitalopram-comparative, non-inferiority study

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this non-inferiority study was to investigate the clinical effectiveness and safety of generic escitalopram (Lexacure(®)) versus branded escitalopram (Lexapro(®)) for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).

METHODS

The present study included 158 patients, who were randomized (1:1) to receive a flexible dose of generic escitalopram (n=78) or branded escitalopram (n=80) over a 6-week single-blind treatment period. The clinical benefits in the two groups were evaluated using the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), the 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS), the Clinical Global Impressions-Severity scale (CGI-S), and the Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement scale (CGI-I) at baseline, week 1, week 2, week 4, and week 6. The frequency of adverse events (AEs) was also assessed to determine safety at each follow-up visit.

RESULTS

During the 6-week study period, 30 patients (38.5%) from the generic escitalopram group and 28 patients (30.0%) from the branded escitalopram group dropped out of the study (P=0.727). The MADRS, HDRS, CGI-S, and CGI-I scores significantly decreased in both groups, and there were no significant differences between the groups. At week 6, 28 patients (57.1%) in the generic escitalopram group and 35 patients (67.3%) in the branded escitalopram group had responded to treatment (as indicated by a ≥50% decrease from the baseline MADRS score; P=0.126), and the remission rates (MADRS score: ≤10) were 42.9% (n=21) in generic escitalopram group and 53.8% (n=28) in the branded escitalopram group (P=0.135). The most frequently reported AEs were nausea (17.9%), sleepiness/somnolence (7.7%), weight gain (3.8%), and dry mouth (2.6%) in the generic escitalopram group and nausea (20.0%), sleepiness/somnolence (3.8%), weight gain (2.5%), and dry mouth (2.5%) in the branded escitalopram group.

CONCLUSION

The present non-inferiority study demonstrated that generic escitalopram is a safe and an effective initial treatment for patients with MDD and may also be considered as an additional therapeutic option for this population.

Core discrete event simulation model for the evaluation of health care technologies in major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

A review of existing economic models in major depressive disorder (MDD) highlighted the need for models with longer time horizons that also account for heterogeneity in treatment pathways between patients. A core discrete event simulation model was developed to estimate health and cost outcomes associated with alternative treatment strategies.

METHODS

This model simulated short- and long-term clinical events (partial response, remission, relapse, recovery, and recurrence), adverse events, and treatment changes (titration, switch, addition, and discontinuation) over up to 5 years. Several treatment pathways were defined on the basis of fictitious antidepressants with three levels of efficacy, tolerability, and price (low, medium, and high) from first line to third line. The model was populated with input data from the literature for the UK setting. Model outputs include time in different health states, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs from National Health Service and societal perspectives. The codes are open source.

RESULTS

Predicted costs and QALYs from this model are within the range of results from previous economic evaluations. The largest cost components from the payer perspective were physician visits and hospitalizations. Key parameters driving the predicted costs and QALYs were utility values, effectiveness, and frequency of physician visits. Differences in QALYs and costs between two strategies with different effectiveness increased approximately twofold when the time horizon increased from 1 to 5 years.

CONCLUSION

The discrete event simulation model can provide a more comprehensive evaluation of different therapeutic options in MDD, compared with existing Markov models, and can be used to compare a wide range of health care technologies in various groups of patients with MDD.

Practice nurse involvement in primary care depression management: an observational cost-effectiveness analysis

Background

Most evidence on the effect of collaborative care for depression is derived in the selective environment of randomised controlled trials. In collaborative care, practice nurses may act as case managers. The Primary Care Services Improvement Project (PCSIP) aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative models of practice nurse involvement in a real world Australian setting. Previous analyses have demonstrated the value of high level practice nurse involvement in the management of diabetes and obesity. This paper reports on their value in the management of depression.

Methods

General practices were assigned to a low or high model of care based on observed levels of practice nurse involvement in clinical-based activities for the management of depression (i.e. percentage of depression patients seen, percentage of consultation time spent on clinical-based activities). Linked, routinely collected data was used to determine patient level depression outcomes (proportion of depression-free days) and health service usage costs. Standardised depression assessment tools were not routinely used, therefore a classification framework to determine the patient’s depressive state was developed using proxy measures (e.g. symptoms, medications, referrals, hospitalisations and suicide attempts). Regression analyses of costs and depression outcomes were conducted, using propensity weighting to control for potential confounders.

Results

Capacity to determine depressive state using the classification framework was dependent upon the level of detail provided in medical records. While antidepressant medication prescriptions were a strong indicator of depressive state, they could not be relied upon as the sole measure. Propensity score weighted analyses of total depression-related costs and depression outcomes, found that the high level model of care cost more (95% CI: -$314.76 to $584) and resulted in 5% less depression-free days (95% CI: -0.15 to 0.05), compared to the low level model. However, this result was highly uncertain, as shown by the confidence intervals.

Conclusions

Classification of patients’ depressive state was feasible, but time consuming, using the classification framework proposed. Further validation of the framework is required. Unlike the analyses of diabetes and obesity management, no significant differences in the proportion of depression-free days or health service costs were found between the alternative levels of practice nurse involvement.

The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review approaches and instruments used to derive utility weights in cost-utility analyses (CUAs) within the field of mental disorders and to identify factors that may have influenced the choice of the approach.

METHODS

We searched the databases DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects), NHS EED (National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), HTA (Health Technology Assessment), and PubMed for CUAs. Studies were included if they were full economic evaluations and reported quality-adjusted life-years as the health outcome. Study characteristics and instruments used to estimate utility weights were described and a logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with the choice of either the direct (e.g. standard gamble) or the preference-based measure (PBM) approach (e.g. EQ-5D).

RESULTS

We identified 227 CUAs with a maximum in 2009, 2010, and 2012. Most CUAs were conducted in depression, dementia, or psychosis, and came from the US or the UK, with the EQ-5D being the most frequently used instrument. The application of the direct approach was significantly associated with depression, psychosis, and model-based studies. The PBM approach was more likely to be used in recent studies, dementia, Europe, and empirical studies. Utility weights used in model-based studies were derived from only a small number of studies.

LIMITATIONS

We only searched four databases and did not evaluate the quality of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct instruments and PBMs are used to elicit utility weights in CUAs with different frequencies regarding study type, mental disorder, and country.

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.

Economic evaluation of agomelatine relative to other antidepressants for treatment of major depressive disorders in Greece

Background

Major depressive disorder (MDD) constitutes an important public health problem, as it is highly prevalent in the industrialized world and it is associated with substantial economic consequences for patients, health care providers, insurance and social security organizations and employers. To conduct an economic evaluation comparing agomelatine with other commonly used alternatives for treating patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in Greece.

Methods

An existing international Markov model designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of agomelatine was adapted to the Greek setting. It reflects six different health states, in which patients may move on a monthly basis. The analysis was undertaken from a societal perspective. Transition probabilities, utilities and costs assigned to each health state were extracted from the published literature, government sources and expert opinion. Data reflects the year 2012 and was discounted using a rate of 3.5%. Probabilistic analysis was undertaken to deal with uncertainty.

Results

Base case analyses revealed that agomelatine is a dominant therapy for MDD relative to escitalopram, fluoxetine and sertraline, and it appeared to be cost-effective compared to venlafaxine (ICER: €547/QALY). Agomelatine remained a dominant treatment against generic sertraline and fluoxetine, and it appeared to be a cost-effective alternative compared to generic venlafaxine and escitalopram (ICER: €1,446/QALY and €3,303/QALY, respectively). Excluding the indirect cost from the analysis, agomelatine remained a cost-effective alternative over all comparators. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis agomelatine was dominant in 44.5%, 89.6%, 70.6% and 84.6% of simulated samples against branded venlafaxine, escitalopram, fluoxetine and sertraline, respectively.

Conclusion

The present evaluation indicates that agomelatine is either a dominant or a cost-effective alternative relative to branded or generic alternatives, in Greece.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of escitalopram in major depressive disorder in Italy

Background

Depression has a lifetime prevalence of 10%–25% among women and 5%–12% among men. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most used and the most cost-effective treatment for long-term major depressive disorder. Since the introduction of generic SSRIs, the costs of branded drugs have been questioned. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness (€ per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) of escitalopram (which is still covered by a patent) compared with paroxetine, sertraline, and citalopram, the patents for which have expired.

Methods

A decision analytic model was adapted from the Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical benefits agency model to reflect current clinical practice in the treatment of depression in Italy in collaboration with an expert panel of Italian psychiatrists and health economists. The population comprised patients with a first diagnosis of major depressive disorder and receiving for the first time one of the following SSRIs: escitalopram, sertraline, paroxetine, and citalopram. The time frame used was 12 months. Efficacy and utility data for the original model were validated by our expert panel. Local data were considered for resource utilization and for treatment costs based on the Lombardy region health service perspective. Several scenario simulations, oneway sensitivity analyses, and Monte Carlo simulations were performed to test the robustness of the model.

Results

The base case scenario showed that escitalopram had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €4395 and €1080 per QALY compared with sertraline and paroxetine, respectively. Escitalopram was dominant over citalopram, which was confirmed by most one-way sensitivity analyses. The escitalopram strategy gained 0.011 QALYs more than citalopram, 0.008 more than paroxetine, and around 0.007 more than sertraline. Monte Carlo simulations indicated that ICER values for escitalopram were centered around €1100 and €4400 per QALY compared with paroxetine and sertraline, respectively. Although there is no official cost-effectiveness threshold in Italy, the value of €25,000 per QALY could be acceptable. All ICER values retrieved in all analyses were lower than this threshold.

Conclusion

The findings from this cost-effectiveness analysis indicate that escitalopram could be accepted as a cost-effective strategy for the Lombardy region health service compared with the other SSRIs studied. The present assessment is based on ICER values resulting from this analysis, which are lower than the thresholds proposed by health care authorities in other European Union countries. These benefits are driven by the effectiveness of escitalopram, which result in an improved health-related quality of life, a higher probability of sustained remission, and better utilization of health care resources. The study results are robust and in line with other pharmacoeconomic analyses comparing escitalopram with other SSRIs.

Efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency of escitalopram in the treatment of major depressive and anxiety disorders

In addition to the large personal challenge that depression and anxiety present, these disorders are associated with a substantial burden of disability and lost productivity, and are responsible for considerable strain on healthcare resources and on society. Escitalopram is recommended as first-line therapy for the treatment of major depressive disorder and severe depression, and is indicated in anxiety disorders. Compared with other antidepressants, escitalopram has equal or superior efficacy, as proven in clinical trial settings, equal or superior real-life effectiveness, established in both clinical and observational studies, and a better tolerability profile. While drug acquisition costs are higher for escitalopram than for generic drugs such as fluoxetine and citalopram, numerous prospective and modeled economic analyses show that associated direct and indirect costs of treatment are lower with escitalopram than with citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline and venlafaxine. Thus, escitalopram appears to be more economically efficient than many antidepressants currently available. Escitalopram has a prominent role in the treatment of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders, and may also prove to be important in the treatment of mixed depressive anxiety disorder.

A proposed model for economic evaluations of major depressive disorder

In countries like UK and Australia, the comparability of model-based analyses is an essential aspect of reimbursement decisions for new pharmaceuticals, medical services and technologies. Within disease areas, the use of models with alternative structures, type of modelling techniques and/or data sources for common parameters reduces the comparability of evaluations of alternative technologies for the same condition. The aim of this paper is to propose a decision analytic model to evaluate long-term costs and benefits of alternative management options in patients with depression. The structure of the proposed model is based on the natural history of depression and includes clinical events that are important from both clinical and economic perspectives. Considering its greater flexibility with respect to handling time, discrete event simulation (DES) is an appropriate simulation platform for modelling studies of depression. We argue that the proposed model can be used as a reference model in model-based studies of depression improving the quality and comparability of studies.

A critical review of model-based economic studies of depression: modelling techniques, model structure and data sources

Depression is the most common mental health disorder and is recognized as a chronic disease characterized by multiple acute episodes/relapses. Although modelling techniques play an increasingly important role in the economic evaluation of depression interventions, comparatively little attention has been paid to issues around modelling studies with a focus on potential biases. This, however, is important as different modelling approaches, variations in model structure and input parameters may produce different results, and hence different policy decisions. This paper presents a critical review of literature on recently published model-based cost-utility studies of depression. Taking depression as an illustrative example, through this review, we discuss a number of specific issues in relation to the use of decision-analytic models including the type of modelling techniques, structure of models and data sources. The potential benefits and limitations of each modelling technique are discussed and factors influencing the choice of modelling techniques are addressed. This review found that model-based studies of depression used various simulation techniques. We note that a discrete-event simulation may be the preferred technique for the economic evaluation of depression due to the greater flexibility with respect to handling time compared with other individual-based modelling techniques. Considering prognosis and management of depression, the structure of the reviewed models are discussed. We argue that a few reviewed models did not include some important structural aspects such as the possibility of relapse or the increased risk of suicide in patients with depression. Finally, the appropriateness of data sources used to estimate input parameters with a focus on transition probabilities is addressed. We argue that the above issues can potentially bias results and reduce the comparability of economic evaluations.

Cost-effectiveness of escitalopram in major depressive disorder in the Dutch health care setting

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram for the treatment of depression in the Netherlands from a societal perspective.

METHODS

A decision tree model was constructed using decision analytical techniques. Data sources included published literature, clinical trials, official price/tariff lists, national population statistics, and Delphi panel data. The comparators were venlafaxine XR and citalopram. The primary perspective of this health economic evaluation was that of the society in the Netherlands in 2010. The time horizon was 26 weeks. The effectiveness outcomes of the study were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

Escitalopram was associated with a cost savings per patient of €263 versus venlafaxine XR and €1992 versus citalopram over a period of 26 weeks from a societal perspective. Escitalopram was also associated with a gains QALYs: 0.0062 versus venlafaxine XR and 0.0166 versus citalopram. Escitalopram was dominant over both venlafaxine XR and citalopram.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings from this cost-effectiveness analysis, the favorable clinical benefit of escitalopram resulted in a positive health economic benefit in the Netherlands.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation in Sweden of escitalopram compared with venlafaxine extended-release as first-line treatment in major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVES

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a major public health concern associated with a high burden to society, the health-care system, and patients and an estimated cost of €3.5 billion in Sweden. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram versus generic venlafaxine extended-release (XR) in MDD, accounting for the full clinical profile of each, adopting the Swedish societal perspective, and identifying major cost drivers.

METHODS

Cost-effectiveness of escitalopram versus venlafaxine XR was analyzed over a 6-month time frame, on the basis of a decision tree, for patients with MDD seeking primary care treatment in Sweden. Effectiveness outcomes for the model were quality-adjusted life-years and probability of sustained remission after acute treatment (first 8 weeks) and sustained for 6 months. Cost outcomes included direct treatment costs and indirect costs associated with sick leave.

RESULTS

Compared with generic venlafaxine XR, escitalopram was less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (expected gain 0.00865) and expected 6-month sustained remission probability (incremental gain 0.0374). The better tolerability profile of escitalopram contributed to higher expected quality-adjusted life-years and lower health-care resource utilization in terms of pharmacological treatment of adverse events (though only a minor component of treatment costs). Expected per-patient saving was €169.15 for escitalopram versus venlafaxine. Cost from sick leave constituted about 85% of total costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Escitalopram was estimated as more effective and cost saving than generic venlafaxine XR in first-line MDD treatment in Sweden, driven by the effectiveness and tolerability advantages of escitalopram. The study findings are robust and in line with similar pharmacoeconomic analyses.

Methodologies used in cost-effectiveness models for evaluating treatments in major depressive disorder: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Decision makers in many jurisdictions use cost-effectiveness estimates as an aid for selecting interventions with an appropriate balance between health benefits and costs. This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of published cost-effectiveness models in major depressive disorder (MDD) with a focus on the methods employed. Key components of the identified models are discussed and any challenges in developing models are highlighted.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed to identify all primary model-based economic evaluations of MDD interventions indexed in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EconLit, and PsycINFO between January 2000 and May 2010.

RESULTS

A total of 37 studies were included in the review. These studies predominantly evaluated antidepressant medications. The analyses were performed across a broad set of countries. The majority of models were decision-trees; eight were Markov models. Most models had a time horizon of less than 1 year. The majority of analyses took a payer perspective. Clinical input data were obtained from pooled placebo-controlled comparative trials, single head-to-head trials, or meta-analyses. The majority of studies (24 of 37) used treatment success or symptom-free days as main outcomes, 14 studies incorporated health state utilities, and 2 used disability-adjusted life-years. A few models (14 of 37) incorporated probabilities and costs associated with suicide and/or suicide attempts. Two models examined the cost-effectiveness of second-line treatment in patients who had failed to respond to initial therapy. Resource use data used in the models were obtained mostly from expert opinion. All studies, with the exception of one, explored parameter uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

The review identified several model input data gaps, including utility values in partial responders, efficacy of second-line treatments, and resource utilisation estimates obtained from relevant, high-quality studies. It highlighted the differences in outcome measures among the trials of MDD interventions, which can lead to difficulty in performing indirect comparisons, and the inconsistencies in definitions of health states used in the clinical trials and those used in utility studies. Clinical outcomes contributed to the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness estimates to a greater degree than costs or utility weights.

Should pharmacogenetics be incorporated in major depression treatment? Economic evaluation in high- and middle-income European countries

The serotonin transporter 5-HTTLPR polymorphism moderates response to SSRIs and side-effect burden. The aim of this study is to quantify the cost-utility of incorporating 5-HTTLPR genotyping in drug treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). We previously reported a theoretical model to simulate antidepressant treatment with citalopram or bupropion for 12 weeks. The drugs were alternatively selected according to an 'as usual' algorithm or based on response and tolerability predicted by 5-HTTLPR profile. Here we apply this model to conduct a cost-utility analysis in three European regions with high GDP (Euro A), middle GDP (Euro B) and middle-high GDP (Euro C). In addition we test a verification scenario in which citalopram+bupropion augmentation is administered to individuals with the least favorable 5-HTTLPR genotype. Treatment outcomes are remission and Quality Adjusted-Life Weeks (QALW). Cost data (international $, year 2009) are retrieved from the World Health Organization (WHO) and national official sources. In base-case scenario incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values are $1147 (Euro A), $1185 (Euro B) and $1178 (Euro C). From cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC), the probability of having an ICER value below WHO recommended cost-utility threshold (3 GDP per capita=$1926) is >90% in high-income countries (Euro A). In middle- income regions, these probabilities are <30% (Euro B) and <55% (Euro C) respectively. All estimates are robust against variations in treatment parameters, but if genetic test cost decreases to $100, pharmacogenetic approach becomes cost-effective in middle-income countries (Euro B). This simulation using data from 27 European states suggests that choosing antidepressant treatment from the results of 5-HTTLPR might be a cost-effective solution in high income countries. Its feasibility in middle income countries needs further research.

Rates of 5 common antidepressant side effects among new adult and adolescent cases of depression: a retrospective US claims study

BACKGROUND

Antidepressants are the first-line treatment for depression, yet medication-related side effects may be associated with antidepressant discontinuation before reaching a period of exposure believed to result in effectiveness. There is a gap in knowledge of the prevalence of side effects across commonly prescribed antidepressants and the effect of the type of antidepressant on the likelihood of side effects in real-world clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to estimate and compare the prevalence of headaches, nausea or vomiting, agitation, sedation, and sexual dysfunction among patients diagnosed with depression who initiated monotherapy across different classes of antidepressants and to estimate the effect of the type of antidepressant on the likelihood of each of the 5 side effects.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of patients aged ≥13 who were newly diagnosed with depression and began antidepressant monotherapy was created using LifeLink managed care claims from 1998 to 2008. Antidepressant groups included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), bupropion, phenylpiperazine, and tetracyclic antidepressants. Prevalence of headache, nausea or vomiting, agitation, sedation, and sexual dysfunction were compared across antidepressant groups. Propensity-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the likelihood of each of the 5 side effects for each antidepressant group compared with SSRIs, adjusted for demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 40,017 patients (3617 adolescents, aged 13-18 years, and 36,400 adults, aged ≥19 years; mean age = 45 years; 67% female) with a new episode of depression who were initiated on antidepressant monotherapy within 30 days of diagnosis (SSRI [66%], bupropion [14%], SNRI [12%], other [8%]). The most common side effects were headache (up to 17/1000 person-months of therapy in adults and adolescents) and nausea (up to 7.2/1000 in adults, 9.3/1000 in adolescents). Relative to adults receiving SSRIs, adults receiving SNRIs had a higher risk of nausea (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.26; 95%CI,1.05-1.51). Adults (HR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.96) and adolescents (HR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21-0.87) taking bupropion were less likely to experience headaches compared with adults and adolescents, respectively, taking an SSRI. Adolescents receiving a tetracyclic were more likely to experience headaches than adolescents receiving an SSRI (HR = 3.16; 95%CI, 1.13-8.84).

CONCLUSIONS

Prevalence and risk of the 5 side effects varied across types of antidepressants for both adults and adolescents. Results from this study were consistent with prior clinical trials, suggesting that variation in side effect profiles exists in a more generalized managed care population.

A model to incorporate genetic testing (5-HTTLPR) in pharmacological treatment of major depressive disorders

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the benefit of pharmacogenetics in antidepressant treatment.

METHODS

In a simulated trial 100,000 subjects in a current episode of major depressive disorder (MDD) received citalopram or bupropion based on the clinician's decision (algorithm A) or following indications from 5-HTTLPR genetic testing (algorithm B), which effect size of was estimated from a meta-analysis of pharmacogenetic trials. A and B were compared in a cost-utility analysis (12 weeks). Costs (international $, 2010) were drawn from official sources. Treatment effects were expressed as quality-adjusted life weeks (QALWs). Outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

Under base-case conditions, genetic test use was associated with increases in antidepressant response (0.062 QALWs) and tolerability (0.016 QALWs) but cost benefit was not acceptable (ICER = $2,890; $1,800-$4,091). However, when the joint effect on antidepressant response and tolerability was analyzed in two recurrent episodes, ICER dropped to $1,392 ($837-$1,982). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) showed a >80% probability that ICER value fell below the commonly accepted 3 times Gross Domestic Product (GDP) threshold (World Health Organization) and therefore suggesting cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Notwithstanding some caveats (exclusion of gene-gene and gene-environment interactions; simple 5-HTTLPR architecture), this simulation is favourable to incorporate pharmacogenetic test in antidepressant treatment.

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.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of a new 8% capsaicin patch compared to existing therapies for postherpetic neuralgia

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the cost effectiveness of a new 8% capsaicin patch, compared to the current treatments for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), including tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), topical lidocaine patches, duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregabalin.

METHODS

A 1-year Markov model was constructed for PHN with monthly cycles, including dose titration and management of adverse events. The perspective of the analysis was from a payer perspective, managed-care organization. Clinical trials were used to determine the proportion of patients achieving at least a 30% improvement in PHN pain, the efficacy parameter. The outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY); second-order probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The effectiveness results indicated that 8% capsaicin patch and topical lidocaine patch were significantly more effective than the oral PHN products. TCAs were least costly and significantly less costly than duloxetine, pregabalin, topical lidocaine patch, 8% capsaicin patch, but not gabapentin. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the 8% capsaicin patch overlapped with the topical lidocaine patch and was within the accepted threshold of cost per QALY gained compared to TCAs, duloxetine, gabapentin, and pregablin. The frequency of the 8% capsaicin patch retreatment assumption significantly impacts its cost-effectiveness results. There are several limitations to this analysis. Since no head-to-head studies were identified, this model used inputs from multiple clinical trials. Also, a last observation carried forward process was assumed to have continued for the duration of the model. Additionally, the trials with duloxetine may have over-predicted its efficacy in PHN. Although a 30% improvement in pain is often an endpoint in clinical trials, some patients may require greater or less improvement in pain to be considered a clinical success.

CONCLUSIONS

The effectiveness results demonstrated that 8% capsaicin and topical lidocaine patches had significantly higher effectiveness rates than the oral agents used to treat PHN. In addition, this cost-effectiveness analysis found that the 8% capsaicin patch was similar to topical lidocaine patch and within an accepted cost per QALY gained threshold compared to the oral products.

Cost of adverse drug reactions in a South Indian tertiary care teaching hospital

In India, very few reports on the cost of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are available. There is a need to study this aspect of health care in order to understand the economic burden imposed by ADRs. The aim of the current work was to study the costs associated with documented ADRs in a tertiary care teaching hospital. This study was conducted in medical wards of a south Indian tertiary care teaching hospital over a 6-month period. The study protocol was assessed and approved by the institutional ethics committee. A total of 317 ADRs from 246 patients were identified during the study period. The present study used an intensive monitoring method to detect ADRs and assessed an incidence of 32.7% adverse reactions in the monitored group. The causality, severity, predictability, and preventability of the documented ADRs were assessed. The total cost to the hospital due to ADRs was found to be Rs. 1,567,397 (US$36 451). The average cost per patient hospitalized with an ADR was Rs. 4,945 (US$115). The cost per reaction was found to be higher in the Indian context, as the per capita annual expenditure on health in this country is around US$109.

Economic Impact of Therapeutic Substitution of a Brand Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor with an Alternative Generic Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder

Background

To reduce pharmacy costs, managed care organizations encourage therapeutic substitution from brand to a generic product. However, little is known about whether these cost-containment strategies can also potentially lower total expenditures for payers in treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD).

Objective:

To compare economic outcomes of patients with MDD who were switched from a brand selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) to an alternative generic SSRI for nonmedical reasons versus patients who continued on the brand SSRI.

Methods:

Adult MDD patients in the Ingenix Impact Database (2003–2007) were considered “switchers” if they received treatment with a brand SSRI and were later switched to an alternative generic SSRI for nonmedical reasons. Patients who remained on the brand SSRI (nonswitchers) were matched 1:1 with switchers. All-cause, mental health-related, and MDD-related rates of hospitalizations/emergency department (ED) visits and costs over 6 months were compared both descriptively and by using adjusted regression models. A subgroup analysis on patients who were switched from escitalopram (Lexapro) to an alternative generic SSRI was also performed.

Results:

The study included 4449 matched pairs. Compared with nonswitchers, switchers had higher risk of all-cause, mental health–related, and MDD-related use of hospitalizations/ED visits (OR 1.15, 1.34, and 1.54, respectively; all p < 0.01) and higher risk-adjusted mental health–related and MDD-related medical costs ($219 and $222, respectively; both p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis on escitalopram showed similar results; switchers experienced higher risk of any-cause, mental health–related, and MDD-related use of hospitalizations/ED visits (OR 1.21, 1.41, and 1.53, respectively; all p<0.01) and higher risk-adjusted MDD-related medical costs ($151; p<0.05).

Conclusions:

Compared with patients who continued on their patented SSRIs, patients who switched to a generic SSRI incurred more resource use of hospitalizations/ED visits and higher MDD-related health-care costs. The effects of therapeutic substitution should be carefully examined, because use of generic alternatives may not be a cost-saving strategy when total health-care costs are considered.

Potential of St John's Wort for the treatment of depression: the economic perspective

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. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials have found Hypericum perforatum preparations to be superior to placebo and similarly effective as standard antidepressants in the acute treatment of mild to moderate depression. A clear advantage over antidepressants has been demonstrated in terms of the reduced frequency of adverse effects and lower treatment withdrawal rates, low rates of side effects and good compliance, key variables affecting the cost-effectiveness of a given form of therapy. The most important risk associated with use is potential interactions with other drugs, but this may be mitigated by using extracts with low hyperforin content. As the indirect costs of depression are greater than five times direct treatment costs, given the rising cost of pharmaceutical antidepressants, the comparatively low cost of Hypericum perforatum extract makes it worthy of consideration in the economic evaluation of mild to moderate depression treatments.

Desvenlafaxine in major depressive disorder: an evidence-based review of its place in therapy

INTRODUCTION

Desvenlafaxine, the active metabolite of venlafaxine, is a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) recently approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder. It is one of only three medications in this class available in the United States.

AIMS

The objective of this article is to review the published evidence for the safety and efficacy of desvenlafaxine, and to compare it to other antidepressants to delineate its role in the treatment of depression.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

At the recommended dose of 50 mg per day the rate of response and remission was similar to other SNRIs, as was the adverse effect profile. The rate of discontinuation was no greater than placebo, and a discontinuation syndrome was not observed at this dose. Higher doses were not associated with greater efficacy, but they did lead to more side effects, and the use of a taper prior to discontinuation. The most common side effects reported were insomnia, somnolence, dizziness, and nausea. Some subjects experienced clinically significant blood pressure elevation.

PLACE IN THERAPY

Like duloxetine, desvenlafaxine inhibits the reuptake of both norepinephrine and serotonin at the starting dose. Dual reuptake inhibitors have been shown to have small but statistically significantly greater rates of response and remission compared to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and they have also shown early promise in the treatment of neuropathic pain. Desvenlafaxine may prove to be a valuable treatment option by expanding the limited number of available dual reuptake inhibitors.

Baseline anxiety effect on outcome of SSRI treatment in patients with severe depression: escitalopram vs paroxetine

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if treatment outcome for severely depressed patients depends on their baseline level of anxiety.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients with a primary diagnosis of severe major depressive disorder (n = 459) were randomised to 24 weeks of double-blind treatment with escitalopram (20 mg) or paroxetine (40 mg). Post hoc analyses of efficacy in patients with a baseline HAM-A total score < or =20 (n = 171) or >20 (n = 280) were based on analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) (ITT, LOCF).

RESULTS

At week 24, the mean change from baseline in MADRS total scores was -24.2 for escitalopram-treated patients (n = 141) and -21.5 for paroxetine-treated patients (n = 139) (p < 0.05) in high baseline anxiety patients and the mean change from baseline in HAM-A total score was -17.4 (escitalopram) and -15.1 (paroxetine) (p < 0.05). When examining the proportion of complete remitters (CGI-S = 1) after 24 weeks of treatment, there was an increasing treatment difference as a function of baseline HAM-A total score in favour of escitalopram (ITT, LOCF). There was no treatment difference in the low baseline anxiety group. Significantly more patients (p < 0.01) withdrew from the paroxetine group (31%) than from the escitalopram group (17%), partly as the result of significantly more withdrawals due to AEs (p < 0.05). Incidence of AEs and withdrawals were not related to baseline anxiety and there were no significant differences in the incidence of individual AEs with escitalopram compared to paroxetine.

LIMITATIONS

The post hoc nature of these analyses, the absence of placebo control group, and the requirement that patients should be suffering from severe depression, limit the generalisability of the results.

CONCLUSION

Patients with severe depression together with comorbid anxiety symptoms responded significantly better to treatment with escitalopram 20 mg compared with paroxetine 40 mg. Contrary to paroxetine, escitalopram maintained its efficacy with increasing baseline anxiety levels.

Healthcare utilization and costs incurred by patients with major depression after being switched from escitalopram to another SSRI for non-medical reasons

OBJECTIVE

To compare healthcare utilization and costs for major depressive disorder (MDD) patients treated with escitalopram and who were switched to another SSRI for non-medical reasons versus those who did not switch.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Patients were identified in the Ingenix Impact Database (2003-2006). The analysis group included patients who remained on escitalopram for ≥ 90 days and switched to another SSRI within 45 days of end of supply days for non-medical reasons; the control group included matched individuals who did not switch within 45 days. Switching for medical reasons was defined as switching within 7 days after having a hospitalization, an emergency room (ER) visit, or a psychotherapy visit. Outcomes (all-cause and MDD-related) were analyzed over 3 months and included use of hospital, ER, outpatient visits and professional services, and healthcare costs. Outcomes were compared between the two groups using descriptive statistics and regression analyses controlling for differences in baseline characteristics. Costs were inflation adjusted to 2006 US dollars.

RESULTS

The study included 2,805 matched pairs. Compared to controls, switchers had higher rates of all-cause and MDD-related hospitalizations (relative risk [RR] = 1.4 and 2.0, respectively) and all-cause and MDD-related ER visits (RR = 1.2 and 1.6, respectively, all p ≤ 0.05). Results from multivariate analyses show that switchers had higher medical costs (+$138), drug costs (+$149) and total healthcare costs (+$322) compared to patients in the control group (all p < 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS

This study's limitations include its short observational period and definition of switching for non-medical reasons.

CONCLUSION

Patients who were switched to another SSRI for non-medical reasons after being stabilized on escitalopram used more resources and had higher healthcare costs within 3 months of switching than patients who did not switch.

Economic consequence of switching to citalopram after its generic entry for adult patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with escitalopram: a 6-month retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To estimate, from a third-party payer's perspective, the effects of switching from escitalopram to citalopram, after the generic entry of citalopram, on hospitalization and healthcare costs among adult MDD patients who were on escitalopram therapy.

METHODS

Adult MDD patients treated with escitalopram were identified from Ingenix Impact claims database. MDD- and mental health (MH)-related hospitalization rates and healthcare costs were compared between 'switchers' (patients who switched to citalopram after its generic entry) and 'non-switchers'. MDD- and MH-related outcomes were defined as having a primary or a secondary diagnosis of ICD-9-CM = 296.2x, 296.3x and ICD-9-CM = 290-319, respectively. A propensity score matching method that estimated the likelihood of switching using baseline characteristics was used. Outcomes were examined for both 3-month and 6-month post-index periods.

RESULTS

The sample included 3,427 matched pairs with balanced baseline characteristics. Switchers were more likely to incur an MDD-related (odds ratio [OR] = 1.52) and MH-related hospitalization (OR = 1.34) during the 6-month post-index period (both p < 0.05). Compared to switchers, non-switchers had significantly lower MDD- and MH-related hospitalization costs ($248.3 and $219.8 lower, respectively) and medical costs ($277.4 and $246.4 lower, respectively) (all p < 0.05). Although non-switchers had significantly higher MDD- and MH-related prescription drug costs, overall they had significantly lower total MDD- and MH-related healthcare costs ($109.9 and $93.6 lower, respectively; both p < 0.001). The 3-month results were consistent with these 6-month findings.

LIMITATIONS

The study limitations included limited generalizability of study findings, inability to differentiate switching from escitalopram to citalopram due to medical reasons versus non-medical reasons, and exclusion of indirect costs from cost calculations.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to patients maintaining on escitalopram, switchers from escitalopram to citalopram experienced higher risk of MDD- and MH-related hospitalization and incurred higher total MDD- and MH-related healthcare costs. The economic consequences of therapeutic substitution should take into account total healthcare costs, not just drug acquisition costs.