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

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

Value-based Pricing for Rifaximin Increases Access of Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Diarrhea to Therapy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Increasing drug prices lead to payer coverage restrictions, which limit access to therapy. We assessed the cost effectiveness of rifaximin in management of patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) under common payer coverage restrictions and determined the maximum price at which rifaximin would be cost effective using contemporary cost-effectiveness thresholds. METHODS: A decision analytic model was constructed to evaluate quality of life, cost, and cost effectiveness of rifaximin for patients with IBS-D and complete noncoverage (insurer pays none of the drug cost), unrestricted access (insurer pays 100% of the drug cost), and formulary-restricted access (insurer pays 100% of the drug cost after for patients failed by initial therapy). The maximum cost-effective drug price was determined for each level of drug coverage using threshold analysis adjusted for willingness to pay thresholds from $50,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Analysis was performed from a payer perspective with a 1-year time horizon. RESULTS: Unrestricted and formulary-restricted access were more effective than complete non-coverage, resulting in additional 0.03 and 0.05 QALYs gained over noncoverage. However, unrestricted and formulary-restricted coverage were more expensive. At current drug prices, unrestricted or formulary-restricted coverage would cost an additional $1,207,136 or $171,850/QALY gained, compared to complete non-coverage. A 12% to 62% price reduction ($18.46 to $26.34/pill) for formulary-restricted access and 84% to 88% price reduction ($3.53 to $4.71/pill) for unrestricted access would be needed for rifaximin to be a cost-effective treatment strategy. Rifaximin retreatment intervals, response rates, and adverse events were important factors in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Using a decision analytic model, we show that payer coverage for rifaximin for patients with IBS-D exceeds generally accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds at current drug prices. Improved payer coverage could be justified using value-based pricing methods.

Treatment patterns of postherpetic neuralgia patients before and after the launch of pregabalin and its effect on medical costs: Analysis of Japanese claims data provided by Japan Medical Data Center.

Except for neurotrophin, no drug had an indication for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) in Japan prior to pregabalin approval. This approval might have changed PHN treatment patterns. This study aimed to compare PHN treatment patterns and medical costs between patients who started treatment before and after pregabalin approval. Japanese claims data were used to identify patients aged 18 years or more with PHN, postherpetic trigeminal neuralgia or postherpetic polyneuropathy who were initiated on their first PHN-associated prescription through May 2010 (before approval) or from June 2010 (after approval). From these claims, 6-month treatment patterns from first prescription were compared for the periods before and after approval. These patterns included pain-related medications and the frequency of pain-relief procedures. All-cause and pain-related medical costs were also compared for these periods. The number of PHN patients who were initiated on treatment before and after approval were 107 (mean age, 47.4 ± 13.0 years) and 505 (45.9 ± 13.0), respectively. Post-approval, significant reductions were observed for prescription of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, tricyclic antidepressants and neurotrophin relative to before approval. Excluding pregabalin acquisition costs, mean costs per patient for medications associated with PHN for 6 months from the first prescription were significantly lower after approval, ¥2882 vs ¥4185. Total medical costs were similar in both periods. Approval of pregabalin appeared to result in a treatment paradigm toward use of an approved therapy with demonstrated efficacy.

Pharmacological treatment of depression with and without headache disorders: an appraisal of cost effectiveness and cost utility of antidepressants.

BACKGROUND: Depression and headache are highly prevalent in clinical settings. The co-occurrence of headache may impact choice of antidepressants, healthcare utilisation, and outcomes in patients with depression. The current study aims to examine the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of different antidepressants for treating patients with depression and comorbid headache disorders. METHODS: Adult patients prescribed with antidepressants for depression (n=96,501) were identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis was conducted comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and by the presence of comorbid headache disorders and other pain conditions. RESULTS: In this study, SSRIs dominated SNRIs in both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. As revealed in the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, TCAs were likely to have a cost-utility advantage compared to SSRIs and SNRIs in improving quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for patients with comorbid headache; SSRIs remained as the most cost-effective option for patients with other pain conditions. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the use of proxy definition of remission as effectiveness measure and the adoption of utility values from previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: Given a pre-determined willingness-to-pay level, TCAs can be considered as a cost-effective option to improve QALYs for depressed patients with headache disorders. Future research is needed to further clarify factors influencing the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of pharmacological treatments in depressed patients with specific pain conditions.

An update on the drug treatment of neuropathic pain. Part 1: antidepressants.

Neuropathic pain refers to pain that arises as a direct consequence of a lesion or disease affecting the somatosensory nervous system.(1) Many cases of neuropathic pain run a chronic course, and treatment may be difficult because commonly used analgesics, including NSAIDs and to some extent opioids, are often ineffective. In addition, the use of other pharmacological treatments can be limited by unwanted effects. Management requires a multidisciplinary approach and may involve the use of drug therapy (including antidepressants, anticonvulsants and opioids) with non-pharmacological interventions (including psychological therapies, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and interventional procedures). This month and next month we review the drug treatment of neuropathic pain. In this first part we discuss neuropathic pain and the use of antidepressants.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmacologic treatment of fibromyalgia in Mexico.

OBJECTIVE: To identify, from the Mexican Public Health System perspective, which would be the most cost-effective treatment for patients with Fibromyalgia (FM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A Markov model including three health states, divided by pain intensity (absence or presence of mild, moderate or severe pain) and considering three-month cycles; costs and effectiveness were estimated for amitriptyline (50mg/day), fluoxetine (80 mg/day), duloxetine (120 mg/day), gabapentin (900 mg/day), pregabalin (450 mg/day), tramadol/acetaminophen (150 mg/1300 mg/día) and amitriptyline/fluoxetine (50mg/80 mg/día) for the treatment of FM. The clinical outcome considered was the annual rate of pain control. Probabilities assigned to the model were collected from published literature. Direct medical costs for FM treatment were retrieved from the 2006 data of the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) databases and were expressed in 2010 Mexican Pesos. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The best pain control rate was obtained with pregabalin (44.8%), followed by gabapentin (38.1%) and duloxetine (34.2%). The lowest treatment costs was for amitriptyline ($ 9047.01), followed by fluoxetine ($ 10,183.89) and amitriptyline/fluoxetine ($ 10,866.01). By comparing pregabalin vs amitriptyline, additional annual cost per patient for pain control would be around $ 50.000 and $ 75.000 and would result cost-effective in 70% and 80% of all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Among all treatment options for FM, pregabalin achieved the highest pain control and was cost-effective in 80% of patients of the Mexican Public Health System.

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 effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for the prevention of migraine: a Markov model application.

BACKGROUND: There are few data about the cost effectiveness of prophylactic medications for migraine. Clinical trials have shown several preventive agents to be useful in reducing the frequency of migraine attack while having tolerable side effects. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost effectiveness of adding preventive treatment to abortive therapy for acute migraine with abortive therapy for acute migraine alone in the primary care setting. METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model with a cycle length of 1 day, a time horizon of 365 days and three health states was used to perform an analysis comparing the cost effectiveness and utility of five treatments for migraine prophylaxis (amitriptyline 75 mg/day, topiramate 100 and 200 mg/day, timolol 20 mg/day, divalproex sodium 1000 mg/day or propranolol 160 mg/day) with treatment of acute migraine alone for the management of migraine in the primary care setting. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the results. RESULTS: The expected total annual cost for the use of preventive agents ranged from $US2932 to $US3887, compared with $US3960 for the use of abortive medications only. In the baseline analysis, use of each of the five preventive agents generated more quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incurred lower costs compared with abortive medications only. Monte Carlo Simulation suggested that amitriptyline 75 mg/day was most likely to be considered a cost-effective option versus the other five therapies, followed by timolol 20 mg/day, topiramate 200 mg/day, topiramate 100 mg/day, divalproex sodium 1000 mg/day and propranolol 160 mg/day when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) for society is <$US18 000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive medications appear to be a cost-effective approach to the management of migraine in the primary care setting compared with the approach of abortive treatment only. Among those preventive agents, probabilistic sensitivity analysis suggests that, when the societal WTP is <$US18 000 per QALY gained, amitriptyline 75 mg/day is most likely to be considered a cost-effective option.

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

RATIONALE: Depressive disorders generate severe personal burden and high economic costs. Cost-utility analyses of the different therapeutical options are crucial to policy-makers and clinicians. Previous cost-utility studies, comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants, have used modelling techniques or have not included indirect costs in the economic analyses. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-utility of fluoxetine compared with imipramine for treating depressive disorders in primary care. METHODS: A 6-month randomized prospective naturalistic study comparing fluoxetine with imipramine was conducted in three primary care centres in Spain. One hundred and three patients requiring antidepressant treatment for a DSM-IV depressive disorder were included in the study. Patients were randomized either to fluoxetine (53 patients) or to imipramine (50 patients) treatment. Patients were treated with antidepressants according to their general practitioner's usual clinical practice. Outcome measures were the quality of life tariff of the European Quality of Life Questionnaire: EuroQoL-5D (five domains), direct costs, indirect costs and total costs. Subjects were evaluated at the beginning of treatment and after 1, 3 and 6 months. Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were obtained. To address uncertainty in the ICUR's sampling distribution, non-parametric bootstrapping was carried out. RESULTS: Taking into account adjusted total costs and incremental quality of life gained, imipramine dominated fluoxetine with 81.5% of the bootstrap replications in the dominance quadrant. CONCLUSION: Imipramine seems to be a better cost-utility antidepressant option for treating depressive disorders in primary care.

Cost effectiveness of venlafaxine compared with generic fluoxetine or generic amitriptyline in major depressive disorder in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of venlafaxine compared with generic fluoxetine and generic amitriptyline used in major depressive disorder in primary care in the UK. METHODS: A decision-tree model for the treatment of major depressive disorder was constructed using a Delphi panel. The tree was populated with clinical success rates from a pooled analysis of fluoxetine compared with venlafaxine and a clinical trial of amitriptyline compared with venlafaxine using remission as the key endpoint. Where there was insufficient data from clinical trials, the Delphi panel was used. Costs within the tree were taken from contemporary UK sources. Six-monthly costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were then estimated. RESULTS: Treatment costs for 6 months were pound1530 for venlafaxine, pound1539 for fluoxetine and pound1558 for amitriptyline (year of costing 2006). Cost effectiveness as assessed by incremental cost per QALY ratio at 8 weeks was pound20 600 for venlafaxine compared with fluoxetine, with fluoxetine dominating (being less costly and more effective than) amitriptyline. To test the robustness of the model a Rank Order Stability Assessment was performed that showed that even if fluoxetine and/or amitriptyline were given away free, a scenario starting with venlafaxine would still be the least costly treatment over a 6-month period. CONCLUSION: In this model, venlafaxine was shown to be a cost-effective alternative to generic fluoxetine and amitriptyline when used as a first-line therapy. Thus, cost of therapy should not be a barrier to use of venlafaxine as a first-line option in treating major depressive disorder in primary care in the UK.

A cost-utility comparison of four first-line medications in painful diabetic neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Painful diabetic neuropathy is common and adversely affects patients' quality of life and function. Several treatment options exist, but their relative efficacy and value are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative efficacy, costs and cost effectiveness of the first-line treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy. METHODS: Published and unpublished clinical trial and cross-sectional data were incorporated into a decision analytic model to estimate the net health and cost consequences of treatment for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy over 3-month (base case), 1-month and 6-month timeframes. Efficacy was measured in QALYs, and costs were measured in $US, year 2006 values, using a US third-party payer perspective. The patients included in the model were outpatients with moderate to severe pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy and no contraindications to treatment with tricyclic antidepressants. Four medications were compared: desipramine 100 mg/day, gabapentin 2400 mg/day, pregabalin 300 mg/day and duloxetine 60 mg/day. RESULTS: Desipramine and duloxetine were both more effective and less expensive than gabapentin and pregabalin in the base-case analysis and through a wide range of sensitivity analyses. Duloxetine offered borderline value compared with desipramine in the base case ($US47,700 per QALY), but not when incorporating baseline-observation-carried-forward analyses of the clinical trial data ($US867,000 per QALY). The results were also sensitive to the probability of obtaining pain relief with duloxetine. CONCLUSIONS: Desipramine (100 mg/day) and duloxetine (60 mg/day) appear to be more cost effective than gabapentin or pregabalin for treating painful diabetic neuropathy. The estimated value of duloxetine relative to desipramine depends on the assumptions made in the statistical analyses of clinical trial data.

Cost-efficacy of individual and combined treatments for panic disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the relative cost-efficacy of empirically supported treatments for panic disorder. As psychosocial, pharmacologic, and combined treatments have all demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of panic disorder, cost-efficacy analysis provides an additional source of information to guide clinical decision making. METHOD: Cost-efficacy was examined based on results from the Multicenter Comparative Treatment Study of Panic Disorder, a randomized controlled trial of treatment for panic disorder (DSM-III-R). The trial was conducted from May 1991 to April 1998. Cost-efficacy ratios representing the cost per 1-unit improvement in Panic Disorder Severity Scale mean item score were calculated for 3 monotherapies (cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], imipramine, and paroxetine) and 2 combination treatments (CBT-imipramine and CBT-paroxetine) at the end of acute, maintenance, and follow-up phases. RESULTS: Results demonstrated consistently greater cost-efficacy for individual over combined treatments, with imipramine representing the most cost-efficacious treatment option at the completion of the acute phase (cost-efficacy ratio = $972) and CBT representing the most cost-efficacious option at the end of maintenance treatment (cost efficacy ratio = $1449) and 6 months after treatment termination (cost-efficacy ratio = $1227). CONCLUSION: In the context of similar efficacy for combined treatments, but poorer cost-efficacy, current monotherapies should be considered the first-line treatment of choice for panic disorder. Additionally, CBT emerged as the most durable and cost-effective monotherapy and, hence, should be considered as a particularly valuable treatment from the perspective of cost accountability.

A cost-effectiveness comparison of desipramine, gabapentin, and pregabalin for treating postherpetic neuralgia.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the net health effects and costs resulting from treatment with different first-line postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) medications. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis using published literature. PARTICIPANTS: Hypothetical cohort of patients aged 60 to 80 with PHN. INTERVENTIONS: Desipramine 100 mg/d, gabapentin 1,800 mg/d, and pregabalin 450 mg/d. MEASUREMENTS: A decision model was designed to describe possible treatment outcomes, including different combinations of analgesia and side effects, during the first 3 months of therapy for moderate to severe PHN. The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Costs were estimated using the perspective of a third-party payer. Multivariate, univariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, and the time frame of the model was varied to 1-month and 6-month horizons. RESULTS: Desipramine was more effective and less expensive than gabapentin or pregabalin (dominant) under all conditions tested. Gabapentin was more effective than pregabalin but at an incremental cost of $216,000/QALY. Below $140/month, gabapentin became more cost-effective than pregabalin at a threshold of $50,000/QALY, and below $115/month gabapentin dominated pregabalin. CONCLUSION: Desipramine appears to be more effective and less expensive than gabapentin or pregabalin for the treatment of older patients with PHN in whom it is not contraindicated. After its price falls, generic gabapentin will likely be more cost-effective than pregabalin.

Analysis of antidepressant prescribing tendencies in Lithuania in 2003-2004.

Depression is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide, affecting 121 million people in whole world. In many developed countries, the number of prescriptions for antidepressants increased steeply during the 1990s. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the antidepressant prescribing patterns in all regions of Lithuania during 2003-2004, to analyze the use within different antidepressant groups, and to examine trends in age- and gender-specific antidepressant use. Antidepressants were classified into three groups according to Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classification specifying the defined daily doses. The results of our study show an increase in the use of reimbursed antidepressants except tricyclic in 2004 when compared to 2003. Increase in the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and other nontricyclic antidepressants is probably related to their better tolerability, improved risk-benefit ratio, and less toxicity in overdose. There was no increase in the percentage of consumed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in elderly patients when compared with younger ones, despite elderly patients are most likely to benefit from reduced sedation, less antimuscarinic and less cardiac toxicity of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The prevalence of the antidepressant use is the highest among middle-aged people (40-59 years), while the young (under 20) and elderly (older than 70) patients receive mostly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Additional studies should be carried out in order to assess drug-prescribing patterns in accordance with the guidelines of depression treatment in Lithuania considering diagnosis, dosage, and duration of treatment.

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and lofepramine: randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The cost-effectiveness of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) has not been compared in a prospective study in primary care. AIMS: To determine the relative cost-effectiveness of TCAs, SSRIs and lofepramine in UK primary care. METHOD: An open-label, three-arm randomised trial with a preference arm. Practitioners referred 327 patients with incident depression. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. The numbers of depression-free weeks over 12 months (on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) were 25.3 (95% CI 21.3-29.0) for TCAs, 28.3 (95% CI 24.3-32.2) for SSRIs and 24.6 (95% CI 20.6-28.9) for lofepramine. Mean health service costs per patient were pound 762 (95% CI 553-1059) for TCAs, pound 875 (95% CI 675-1355) for SSRIs and pound 867 (95% CI 634-1521) for lofepramine. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves suggested SSRIs were most cost-effective (with a probability of up to 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: The findings support a policy of recommending SSRIs as first-choice antidepressants in primary care.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antidepressant treatment in primary health care: a six-month randomised study comparing fluoxetine to imipramine.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, studies of the effectiveness of pharmacological treatment for depression have often been based on research designs intended to measure efficacy, and for this reason the results are of limited generalizability. Research is needed comparing the clinical and economic outcomes of antidepressants in day-to-day clinical practice. METHODS: A six-month randomised prospective naturalistic study comparing fluoxetine to imipramine carried out in three primary care health centres. Outcome measures were the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), direct costs, indirect costs and total costs. Subjects were evaluated at the beginning of treatment and at one, three and six months thereafter. RESULTS: Of the 103 patients, 38.8% (n = 40) were diagnosed with major depressive disorder, 14.6% (n = 15) with dysthymic disorder, and 46.6% (n = 48) with depressive disorder not otherwise specified. Patients with major depressive disorder or dysthymic disorder achieved similar clinical improvement in both treatment groups (mean MADRS ratings decrease in major depressive disorder from baseline to 6 months of 18.3 for imipramine and 18.8 for fluoxetine). For patients with major depressive disorder and dysthymic disorder, the imipramine group had fewer treatment-associated costs (imipramine 469.66 Euro versus fluoxetine 1,585.93 Euro in major depressive disorder, p < 0.05; imipramine 175.39 Euro versus fluoxetine 2,929.36 Euro in dysthymic disorder, p < 0.05). The group with depressive disorder not otherwise specified did not experience statistically significant differences in clinical and costs outcomes between treatment groups. LIMITATIONS: Exclusion criteria, participating physicians may not represent GPs. CONCLUSIONS: In a primary care context, imipramine may represent a more cost-effective treatment option than fluoxetine for treating major depressive disorder or dysthymic disorder. There were no differences in cost-effectiveness in the treatment of depressive disorder not otherwise specified.

Trends in the consumption of antidepressant drugs in Lithuania in 2002-2004.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trends in the use of antidepressant drugs in Lithuania between 2002 and 2004 and to perform cost-minimization and reference price analysis enabling more rational use of financial resources of national health system. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The data on sales of antidepressant drugs in Lithuanian over a 3-year period (2002-2004) were obtained from IMS Health Inc. database. Data were calculated by defined daily dose (DDD) methodology and expressed in DDDs per 1000 inhabitants per day. DU90% was used as the quality indicator of the drug prescribing. The pharmacoeconomic analysis of antidepressant drugs was performed by cost-minimization and reference price methodology. RESULTS: The consumption of antidepressants in Lithuanian increased by 30.55% over a 3-year period (2002-2004) reaching the value of 10.00 DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day. Since 2002, the proportion of use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors has increased by 27.82%, and the use of tricyclic antidepressants has declined by 10.78%, while the use of other (newer) antidepressant drugs expanded almost three times. The expenditures of antidepressant drugs have reached 26 million Lt in 2004, of which 68.15% were costs for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Choosing the second lowest price in different antidepressant drug class, it is estimated the possible savings of 4.34 million Lt lowering the total expenses by 16.5% (1 euro=3.4528 Lt). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the use of total antidepressant drugs continues to increase because of the increased use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and other (newer) antidepressant drugs. In comparison with the data in other countries, the consumption of antidepressant drugs in Lithuania is low.

Does the use of SSRIs reduce medical care utilization and expenditures?

BACKGROUND: Although selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are more expensive than tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), SSRIs may reduce overall health costs compared with TCAs through improved compliance and reduced need for other medical care services. Economic evaluation studies using clinical trial or claims data have not accurately estimated the actual costs associated with antidepressants because they did not appropriately address two issues: the heterogeneity of SSRI and TCA users and the use of antidepressants for non-indicated symptoms. AIMS OF THE STUDY: This study estimates the relative substitution effect of SSRIs on the overall utilization of outpatient and inpatient care and other prescription drugs compared to TCAs. This study identifies and controls for heterogeneities in diagnosis among SSRI and TCA users and looks for variations in substitution effects across utilization. METHODS: To estimate the direct effect of SSRIs compared with TCAs on the utilization of other medical care resources in a naturalistic setting, this study uses the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, national panel survey data, from 1996 to 1998. The main model of analysis is a two-part regression: the first part is a probit model of any use and the second part is a log linear model of expenditures among users. Baseline physical health status, depression severity, and socioeconomic factors that could affect antidepressant choice and medical care utilization are controlled for. RESULTS: A considerable fraction of antidepressant use, especially among TCA users, is for reasons other than depression. After controlling for the heterogeneity in SSRI and TCA users, this study does not find consistent evidence of the substitution of SSRIs for other medical care. Although SSRIs, compared with TCAs, reduce overall outpatient visits and other prescription drugs, they increase the utilization of these services for depression. Antidepressant choice does not influence the utilization or expenditure level for inpatient services which composed the largest part of medical expenditure in this study sample. Results are robust when the analysis is restricted to the SSRI or TCA users with a depression diagnosis. DISCUSSION: The potential cost-incremental effect of SSRIs over TCAs for the treatment of depression can be compromised by the reduced utilization for symptoms other than depression among SSRI users. This study uses national survey data and takes into account the heterogeneity of SSRI and TCA users so the results can be generalized to real clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION: The costs associated with antidepressants are not only for the treatment of depression symptoms. Antidepressants are commonly prescribed for conditions for which the clinical and economic benefits are not established. This practice may lead to significant unnecessary healthcare expenses. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Antidepressant prescriptions for non-indicated conditions should be considered in setting policies designed to control costs associated with antidepressants and in developing clinical guidelines for antidepressant prescription. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH: Future research on the economic evaluation of antidepressants should consider the use of antidepressants for health conditions other than depression. The economic incentives for and clinical benefits of the prescription of antidepressants for non-indicated conditions could be explored in future research.

A randomised controlled trial to compare the cost-effectiveness of tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and lofepramine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative cost-effectiveness of three classes of antidepressants: tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and the modified TCA lofepramine, as first choice treatments for depression in primary care. DESIGN: Open, pragmatic, controlled trial with three randomised arms and one preference arm. Patients were followed up for 12 months. SETTING: UK primary care: 73 practices in urban and rural areas in England. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a new episode of depressive illness according to GP diagnosis. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to receive a TCA (amitriptyline, dothiepin or imipramine), an SSRI (fluoxetine, sertraline or paroxetine) or lofepramine. Patients or GPs were able to choose an alternative treatment if preferred. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At baseline the Clinical Interview Schedule, Revised (CIS-R PROQSY computerised version) was administered to establish symptom profiles. Outcome measures over the 12-month follow-up included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale self-rating of depression (HAD-D), CIS-R, EuroQol (EQ-5D) for quality of life, Short Form (SF-36) for generic health status, and patient and practice records of use of health and social services. The primary effectiveness outcome was the number of depression-free weeks (HAD-D less than 8, with interpolation of intervening values) and the primary cost outcome total direct NHS costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used as the outcome measure in a secondary analysis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were computed. Estimates were bootstrapped with 5000 replications. RESULTS: In total, 327 patients were randomised. Follow-up rates were 68% at 3 months and 52% at 1 year. Linear regression analysis revealed no significant differences between groups in number of depression-free weeks when adjusted for baseline HAD-D. A higher proportion of patients randomised to TCAs entered the preference arm than those allocated to the other choices. Switching to another class of antidepressant in the first few weeks of treatment occurred significantly more often in the lofepramine arm and less in the preference arm. There were no significant differences between arms in mean cost per depression-free week. For values placed on an additional QALY of over 5000 pounds, treatment with SSRIs was likely to be the most cost-effective strategy. TCAs were the least likely to be cost-effective as first choice of antidepressant for most values of a depression-free week or QALY respectively, but these differences were relatively modest. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the different treatment options, no significant differences were found in outcomes or costs within the sample, but when outcomes and costs were analysed together, the resulting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves suggested that SSRIs were likely to be the most cost-effective option, although the probability of this did not rise above 0.6. Choosing lofepramine is likely to lead to a greater proportion of patients switching treatment in the first few weeks. Further research is still needed on the management of depressive illness in primary care. This should address areas such as the optimum severity threshold at which medication should be used; the feasibility and effectiveness of adopting structured depression management programmes in the UK context; the importance of factors such as physical co-morbidity and recent life events in GPs' prescribing decisions; alternative ways of collecting data; and the factors that give rise to many patients being reluctant to accept medication and discontinue treatment early.

Cost-effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological interventions for generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To assess from a health sector perspective the incremental cost-effectiveness of interventions for generalized anxiety disorder (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs]) and panic disorder (CBT, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs] and tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]). METHOD: The health benefit is measured as a reduction in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), based on effect size calculations from meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. An assessment on second stage filter criteria ("equity", "strength of evidence", "feasibility" and "acceptability to stakeholders") is also undertaken to incorporate additional factors that impact on resource allocation decisions. Costs and benefits are calculated for a period of one year for the eligible population (prevalent cases of generalized anxiety disorder/panic disorder identified in the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, extrapolated to the Australian population in the year 2000 for those aged 18 years and older). Simulation modelling techniques are used to present 95% uncertainty intervals (UI) around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS: Compared to current practice, CBT by a psychologist on a public salary is the most cost-effective intervention for both generalized anxiety disorder (A$6900/DALY saved; 95% UI A$4000 to A$12 000) and panic disorder (A$6800/DALY saved; 95% UI A$2900 to A$15 000). Cognitive behavioural therapy results in a greater total health benefit than the drug interventions for both anxiety disorders, although equity and feasibility concerns for CBT interventions are also greater. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive behavioural therapy is the most effective and cost-effective intervention for generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder. However, its implementation would require policy change to enable more widespread access to a sufficient number of trained therapists for the treatment of anxiety disorders.