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.

The 6-month persistence on SSRIs and associated economic burden.

OBJECTIVES: To assess persistence on SSRIs (most prescribed antidepressants) and associated healthcare costs in a naturalistic setting. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study based on a US reimbursement claims database, all adults with a claim for a SSRI (citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine or sertraline) related to a diagnosis of depression were included. Patients should have had no previous reimbursement for any antidepressant within the previous 6 months. Non-persistence was defined as failing to renew prescription within 30 days in the 6-month period after the index date. RESULTS: In the 45,481 patients included, persistence decreased from 95.5% at 1 month, to 52.6% at 2 months, 37.6% at 3 months and 18.9% at 6 months. Among factors associated with higher 6-month persistence were age 18-34 years, physician's specialty, treatment with escitalopram, absence of abuse history and psychotropic prescription history. During the 6-month after index date, healthcare costs tended to be higher in non-persistent than in persistent patients although not significantly (RR=1.05, adjusted p=0.055). CONCLUSION: Despite some limitations associated with the use of computerized administrative claims data (residual unmeasured confounding), these results highlight a generally low persistence rate at 6 months. Special attention should be given to persistence on treatment, with consideration of potential antidepressant impact.