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.

Cost-utility analysis of vortioxetine versus agomelatine, bupropion SR, sertraline and venlafaxine XR after treatment switch in major depressive disorder in Finland.

BACKGROUND: To assess the cost-utility of vortioxetine versus relevant comparators (agomelatine, bupropion SR, sertraline, and venlafaxine XR) in the finnish setting in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients with inadequate response to selective serotonin- /serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. METHODS: A one-year analysis was conducted using a decision tree with a Markov state transition component. The health states were remission, relapse and recovery. A Finnish healthcare payer perspective was adopted. RESULTS: Vortioxetine was less costly and more effective versus all comparators in both direct and societal perspectives. Vortioxetine reduced the average annual direct costs by 4% versus venlafaxine XR and 8% versus sertraline. The greater efficacy associated with vortioxetine was translated into a higher percentage of patients in remission and recovery. The model was most sensitive to changes in remission rates at 8 weeks. CONCLUSION: This cost-utility analysis showed vortioxetine to be a good alternative for MDD patients switching therapy in Finland.

Cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine versus venlafaxine (extended release) in the treatment of major depressive disorder in South Korea.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine versus venlafaxine XR (extended-release) in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients in South Korea. METHODS: A 1-year cost-effectiveness analysis from a limited societal perspective was performed using a combined model consisting of a decision-tree and a Markov model. Patients entered the model when initiating or switching antidepressant treatment following inadequate response to previous treatment. Remission, relapse and recovery were the main health states. RESULTS: Vortioxetine dominated venlafaxine XR, with quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.0131 and cost savings of KRW 623,229/year [US$530/year] from a limited societal perspective. Safety contributed more than efficacy to the incremental QALY gains. More patients were in recovery after initial treatment and after 1 year with vortioxetine (31%, 40%) compared to venlafaxine XR (23%, 36%). Vortioxetine remained dominant in 98% of probabilistic simulations. CONCLUSION: Vortioxetine dominated venlafaxine XR in South Korea and is a relevant treatment option for MDD patients initiating or switching therapy.

Can we well assess the relative efficacy and tolerability of a new drug versus others at the time of marketing authorization using mixed treatment comparisons? A detailed illustration with escitalopram.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the variation of relative efficacy and tolerability of an antidepressant versus others based on both pre-marketing (registration studies) and post-marketing studies versus pre-marketing studies only in patients with major depressive disorder. METHODS: The relative efficacy and tolerability of antidepressants was assessed by mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) using data acquired over two time periods: before registration of the reference drug escitalopram (1989-2002) and up to 5 years later (1989-2007). Ranking probability outputs were presented for efficacy, using change from baseline to 8 weeks on Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score, and tolerability, using withdrawals due to adverse events. RESULTS: The relative efficacy and tolerability of some selected antidepressants, including escitalopram, varied considerably over the two time periods. The improved relative efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram over time, compared with citalopram, was demonstrated by greater separation of ranking probability curves for efficacy and tolerability. In 2002, escitalopram ranked low with 13.9% and 5.1% probability of being in the top four antidepressants' relative efficacy and tolerability, respectively. In 2007, ranking probabilities for relative efficacy and tolerability of escitalopram increased to 52.5% and 82.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Time of marketing authorization may not be the most appropriate time to evaluate the relative efficacy and tolerability of a new antidepressant based on MTC approach due to the asymmetry of information between new and older compounds. However, the first evaluation of relative effect of a new drug for health technology assessment recommendations is commonly done at this time. Re-evaluation of a drug several years after its launch is likely to provide a more accurate indication of its relative efficacy and tolerability.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmaceutical treatment options in the first-line management of major depressive disorder in Belgium.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of commonly used antidepressants as first-line treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in Belgium. METHODS: The model structure was based on a decision tree developed by the Swedish TLV (Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverket) and adapted to the Belgium healthcare setting, using primary local data on the patterns of treatment and following KCE [Federal Knowledge Center (Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg)] recommendations. Comparators were escitalopram, citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, duloxetine, venlafaxine, and mirtazapine. In the model, patients not achieving remission or relapsing after remission on the assessed treatment moved to a second therapeutic step (titration, switch, add-on, or transfer to a specialist). In case of failure in the second step or following a suicide attempt, patients were assumed to be referred to secondary care. The time horizon was 1 year and the analysis was conducted from the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI; national health insurance) and societal perspectives. Remission rates were obtained from the TLV network meta-analysis and risk of relapse, efficacy following therapeutic change, risk of suicide attempts and related death, utilities, costs (2012), and resources were derived from the published literature and expert opinion. The effect of uncertainty in model parameters was estimated through scenario analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, escitalopram was identified as the optimal strategy: it dominated all other treatments except venlafaxine from the NIHDI perspective, against which it was cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of 6,352 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Escitalopram also dominated all other treatments from the societal perspective. At a threshold of 30,000 per QALY and from the NIHDI perspective, the PSA showed that the probability of escitalopram being identified as the optimal strategy ranged from 61 % (vs. venlafaxine) to 100 % (vs. fluoxetine). CONCLUSION: Escitalopram was associated with the highest probability of being the optimal treatment from the NIHDI and societal perspectives. This analysis, based on new Belgian clinical practice data and following KCE requirements, provides additional information that may be used to guide the choice of treatments in the management of MDD in Belgium.

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.