Drug Expenditure, Price, and Utilization in the U.S. Medicaid: A Trend Analysis for SSRI and SNRI Antidepressants from 1991 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: SSRIs and SNRIs are antidepressants that have largely substituted old antidepressants like Monoamine Oxidase Inhibitors (MAOIs) and Tricyclic Antidepressants (TCAs). They have been widely used since 1987 when the FDA approved the first SSRI Fluoxetine and the first SNRI Venlafaxine in 1993. Since then, several new SSRIs and SNRIs have been approved and entered the market. Utilization, pricing, and spending trends of SSRIs and SNRIs have not been analyzed yet in Medicaid. AIM: To assess the trends of drug expenditure, utilization, and price of SSRI and SNRI antidepressants in the US Medicaid program, and to highlight the market share of SSRIs and SNRIs and the effect of generic drug entry on Medicaid drug expenditure. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive data analysis was conducted for this study. National pharmacy summary data for study brand and generic drugs were retrieved from the Medicaid State Outpatient Drug Utilization Data. These data were collected by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The study period was between 1991 and 2018. Study drugs include 12 different SSRI and SNRI brands and their generics available in the market, such as citalopram, escitalopram, paroxetine, fluoxetine, sertraline, venlafaxine, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, and levomilnacipran. Data were analyzed annually and categorized by total prescriptions (utilization), total reimbursement (spending), and cost per prescription as the proxy of the price for each drug. RESULTS: From 1991 to 2018, total prescriptions of SSRI and SNRI drugs rose by 3001%. Total Medicaid spending on SSRIs and SNRIs increased from USD 64.5 million to USD 2 billion in 2004, then decreased steadily until it reached USD 755 million in 2018. The SSRIs average utilization market share was 87% compared to 13% of the SNRIs utilization market share. About 72% of total Medicaid spending on the two groups goes to SSRIs, while the remaining 28% goes to SNRIs. Brand SSRIs and SNRIs prices increased over time. On the contrary, generic drugs prices steadily decreased over time. DISCUSSION: An increase in utilization and spending for both SSRI and SNRI drugs was observed. After each generic drug entered the market, utilization shifted from the brand name to the respective generic due to their lower price. These generic substitutions demonstrate a meaningful cost-containment policy for Medicaid programs. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Our findings show the overall view of Medicaid expenditure on one of the most commonly prescribed drug classes in the US. They also provide an important insight toward the antidepressant market and the importance of monitoring different drugs and their alternatives.

Surging trends in prescriptions and costs of antidepressants in England amid COVID-19.

The social restrictions amid coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have posed a serious threat to mental health and have implications in the use of medications for mental health including antidepressants (ADs). This study investigated the trends in prescriptions and costs of various ADs in England during COVID-19 pandemic. National prescribing rates and net ingredient costs (NIC) of all ADs prescriptions during 2016 to 2020 were analyed. The total number of ADs prescriptions dispensed during COVID-19 pandemic (January to December 2020) were 78 million, 4 million more than in 2019 that costed NHS England £ 139 million more than in 2019. Sertraline, an SSRI antidepressant drug, alone accounted for an extra £113 million during 2020 than in 2019. The peak dispensing for ADs was observed in March 2020 while the total costs for AD drugs peaked in April 2020. The rising prescription costs for ADs during COVID-19 pandemic is a potential cause of concern, in particular the increasing use in adolescents and younger adults needs attention, who are at a higher risk of life-threatening adverse drug reactions.

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.

A retrospective chart review study to quantify the monthly medical resource use and costs of treating patients with treatment resistant depression in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a globally prevalent chronic psychiatric illness with a significant disease impact. As many as 30% of patients with MDD do not adequately respond to two therapies and are considered to be treatment resistant. This study aimed to quantify healthcare costs associated with treatment resistant depression (TRD) in the UK. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with TRD was conducted in primary and secondary care settings over a 2 year period. Data abstracted from medical records of patients included demographics, clinical characteristics and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU; number of consultations, use of Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Teams [CRHTTs], non-drug and drug interventions, and hospitalizations). HCRU per patient per month (28 days) was calculated for three health states: major depressive episode (MDE), remission and recovery. Unit costs were from the British National Formulary (BNF) and the Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU). RESULTS: A total of 295 patients with TRD were recruited between January 2016 and May 2018. The mean age of the total sample was 43.3 years; 60.3% were female. Costs per patient, per 28 days, were highest in the MDE state, with the average cost (£992) mainly driven by consultations, non-drug treatment, hospitalizations and CRHTT, with a considerable fall in costs as patients moved into remission and subsequent recovery. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that antidepressant treatments for TRD that are more effective in reducing the time spent in an MDE health state, and helping patients achieve remission and recovery, are essential for reducing the overall HCRU and costs in patients with TRD. Cost of TRD in the UK Strengths and limitations of this study This observational study of TRD is the first to assess the HCRU impact associated with different predefined health states. Using retrospective data from both primary and secondary care physicians from regions across the UK ensures a representative real-world patient population. One limitation is that the selection of patients is based on criteria that define TRD that rely on physician judgement. Although the study captures direct HCRU costs, the indirect costs of lost productivity and care are not included in the overall burden. This study has defined the current clinical management of patients with TRD in the UK and provides an estimate of the associated HCRU and associated costs.

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.

Effect of income level on adherence to antidepressant treatment in first onset depression outpatients.

Clinical guidelines for depression management recommend continuous antidepressant medication; however, poor adherence to medication is commonly seen in the treatment of depression. Income is an important factor influencing antidepressant medication adherence. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between income level and adherence to antidepressant medication in outpatients with depression. This was a retrospective cohort study using National Health Insurance claim data for services provided between January 1 and December 31, 2012. We examined data from a total of 142,336 individuals aged 18 years or older who were continuously enrolled in treatment after a new episode of major depression and who had initiated antidepressant treatment. The operational definition of adherence to antidepressant treatment was medication being dispensed to the patient at least 80% of the time during 3 and 6 months (ie. MPR ≥80%). To investigate the relationship between income level and adherence to antidepressants, we estimated adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals using hierarchical logistic regression analysis, adjusting for sociodemographic, clinical, and medical use characteristics. A total of 22.64% and 15.13% of depression patients showed adherence to antidepressants during 3 and 6 months, respectively. A statistically significant association was found between income level and adherence to antidepressants over 3 and 6 months for individuals with employee and self-employed subscribers. In addition, adherence to antidepressants was lower among those with a lower income than those with a higher income. We confirmed that social disparities exist in adherence to antidepressant treatment by income level in this Korean population-based retrospective cohort of depression outpatients.

A retrospective analysis to estimate the healthcare resource utilization and cost associated with treatment-resistant depression in commercially insured US patients.

OBJECTIVE: The economic burden of commercially insured patients in the United States with treatment-resistant depression and patients with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder was compared using data from the Optum Clinformatics™ claims database. METHODS: Patients 18-63 years on antidepressant treatment between 1/1/13 and 9/30/13, who had no treatment claims for depression 6 months before the index date (first antidepressant dispensing), and who had a major depressive disorder or depression diagnosis within 30 days of the index date, were included. Treatment-resistant depression was defined as receiving 3 antidepressant regimens during 1 major depressive disorder episode. Patients with treatment-resistant depression were matched with patients with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder at a 1:4 ratio using propensity score matching. The study consisted of 1-year baseline (pre-index) and 2-year follow-up (post index) periods. Cost outcomes were compared using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: 2,370 treatment-resistant depression and 9,289 non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder patients were included. In year 1 of the follow-up period, compared with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, patients with treatment-resistant depression had: more emergency department visits (odds ratio = 1.39, 95% confidence interval = 1.24-1.56); more inpatient hospitalizations (odds ratio = 1.73, 95% confidence interval = 1.46-2.05); longer hospital stays (mean difference vs non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder = 2.86, 95% confidence interval = 0.86-4.86 days); and more total healthcare costs (mean difference vs non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder = US$3,846, 95% confidence interval = $2,855-$4,928). These patterns remained consistent in year 2 of the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Treatment-resistant depression was associated with higher healthcare resource utilization and costs versus non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder in this commercially insured cohort of patients in the United States.

Antidepressant Augmentation: A Review of the Literature and a Review of the Pharmacoeconomic Considerations.

PURPOSE: Antidepressant augmentation strategies for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) are discussed here with an analysis of patient out-of-pocket costs for various medications. The choice of agent ranges from newer atypical antipsychotics (aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, quetiapine) to older agents including buspirone, liothyronine (T3), and lithium. We sought to better understand the differences among these agents to aid in clinical decision making. METHODS: We conducted a focused review of the support for each of the aforementioned agents in antidepressant augmentation. We then compared the approximate out-of-pocket cost for each medication during a typical augmentation trial using the typical prescription costs on ClinCalc.com derived from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We calculated the cost to achieve response for one patient with TRD based on the number needed to treat (NNT). FINDINGS: We observed significant variance in cost to achieve response based on the NNT derived from our review of each of the medications. For example, the overall out-of-pocket cost for one patient to achieve response with aripiprazole (the costliest generic agent) could cover lithium prescriptions for 4 to 5 patients with TRD to achieve response. Although brexpiprazole was estimated separately because of its brand name cost, we estimated that 324 patients receiving lithium could achieve response for same cost of single patient receiving brexpiprazole. IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest that among augmentation agents, there are differences in cost that may be highly important in clinical decision making. Other issues of medication monitoring may incur additional costs, and brand name medications offer significantly greater complexity and potential out-of-pocket costs to patients. The use of lithium as a first-line agent for TRD should be considered based on low cost, lowest NNT, and data in support of its efficacy.

The benefits and costs of changing treatment technique in electroconvulsive therapy due to insufficient improvement of a major depressive episode.

BACKGROUND: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) technique is often changed after insufficient improvement, yet there has been little research on switching strategies. OBJECTIVE: To document clinical outcome in ECT nonresponders who were received a second course using high dose, brief pulse, bifrontotemporal (HD BP BL) ECT, and compare relapse rates and cognitive effects relative to patients who received only one ECT course and as a function of the type of ECT first received. METHODS: Patients were classified as receiving Weak, Strong, or HD BP BL ECT during three randomized trials at Columbia University. Nonresponders received HD BP BL ECT. In a separate multi-site trial, Optimization of ECT, patients were randomized to right unilateral or BL ECT and nonresponders also received further treatment with HD BP BL ECT. RESULTS: Remission rates with a second course of HD BP BL ECT were high in ECT nonresponders, approximately 60% and 40% in the Columbia University and Optimization of ECT studies, respectively. Clinical outcome was independent of the type of ECT first received. A second course with HD BP BL ECT resulted in greater retrograde amnesia immediately, two months, and six months following ECT. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest samples of ECT nonresponders studied to date, a second course of ECT had marked antidepressant effects. Since the therapeutic effects were independent of the technique first administered, it is possible that many patients may benefit simply from longer courses of ECT. Randomized trials are needed to determine whether, when, and how to change treatment technique in ECT.

Antidepressant Prescribing in England: Patterns and Costs.

OBJECTIVE: The number of prescriptions for antidepressants (ADs) in England and Wales has almost doubled in the past decade. The objective of this article is to describe the current prescribing rates of different antidepressants by general practice (GP) practice. METHODS: We collated the prescribing behavior in each GP practice in the year April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018. The monthly GP practice prescribing data reports for medication prescribing for each British National Formulary code and practice, as well as the prescriptions, quantity, and costs were examined in relation to prescribing practice. RESULTS: The data showed that 2.1 billion doses of antidepressant were prescribed to a total population of 52 million people. That equates to 11% of individuals taking ≥ 1 antidepressants on any day. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) were the most prescribed class of ADs, with sertraline the most prescribed SSRI. The other most prescribed ADs were citalopram, fluoxetine, and mirtazapine. Some older agents, such as trimipramine and doxepin, are prescribed at a very high tariff. CONCLUSIONS: Broadly, the findings are in keeping with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance in that the bulk of prescriptions were for SSRIs. Regular audit of patient treatment at a general practice level will ensure appropriate targeted use of licensed medications as supported by the evidence base.

Cost analysis of depression using the national insurance system in South Korea: a comparison of depression and treatment-resistant depression.

BACKGROUND: The incidence and burden of depressive disorders are increasing in South Korea. There are many differences between pharmaceutically treated depression (PTD) and treatment-resistant depression (TRD), including the economic consequences; however, to our knowledge, the economic burden of depression is understudied in South Korea. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to calculate the different economic costs of PTD and TRD in South Korea, specifically by comparing several aspects of medical care. METHODS: This study comprised patients aged 18 and over who were newly prescribed antidepressants for more than 28 days with a depression code included from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2012, by the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service (HIRA). TRD was classified as more than two antidepressant regimen failures in PTD patients. The cost was calculated based on the cost reflected on the receipt registered with HIRA. RESULTS: Of the 834,694 patients with PTD, 34,812 patients (4.17%) were converted to TRD. The cost of medical care for TRD (6,610,487 KRW, 5881 USD) was approximately 5 times higher than the cost of non-TRD (1,273,045 KRW, 1133 USD) and was significantly higher for patients with or without depression and suicide codes. Medical expenses incurred by non-psychiatrists were roughly 1.7 times higher than those incurred by psychiatrists. CONCLUSIONS: TRD patients had significantly higher healthcare costs than PTD patients. Identifying these financial aspects of care for depression can help to establish a more effective policy to reduce the burden on mentally ill patients.

Incremental Health Care Burden of Treatment-Resistant Depression Among Commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare Payers.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared health care use and costs among patients with treatment-resistant versus treatment-responsive depression across Medicaid, Medicare, and commercial payers. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by using Truven Health Analytics' commercial (2006-2017; N=111,544), Medicaid (2007-2017; N=24,036), and Medicare supplemental (2006-2017; N=8,889) claims databases. Participants were adults with major depressive disorder who had received one or more antidepressant treatments. Treatment resistance was defined as failure of two or more antidepressant treatments of adequate dose and duration. Annual use (hospitalizations and outpatient and emergency department [ED] visits) and costs were compared across patients by treatment-resistant status in each payer population. Incremental burden of treatment-resistant depression was estimated with regression analyses. Monthly changes in costs during 1-year follow-up were assessed to understand differential cost trends by treatment-resistant status. RESULTS: In the three payer populations, patients with treatment-resistant depression incurred higher health care utilization than those with treatment-responsive depression (hospitalization, odds ratios [ORs]=1.32-1.76; ED visits, ORs=1.38-1.45; outpatient visits, incident rate ratio=1.29-1.54; p<0.001 for all). Compared with those with treatment-responsive depression, those with treatment resistance incurred higher annual costs (from $4,093 to $8,054 higher; p<0.001). Patients with treatment-resistant depression had higher costs at baseline compared with patients with treatment-responsive depression and incurred higher costs each month throughout follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment-resistant depression imposes a significant health care burden on insurers. Treatment-resistant depression may exist and affect health care burden before a patient is identified as having treatment-resistant depression. Findings underscore the need for effective and timely treatment of treatment-resistant depression.

The Authors Respond.

DISCLOSURES: The writing of the original report referred to in this letter was sponsored by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Agboola, Fazioli, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette reports grants from ICER during the course of the original work and personal fees from Monument Analytics, unrelated to this work. Atlas has nothing to disclose.

Cost analysis of registered brands of oral antidepressant drugs in Pakistan: a descriptive analysis.

Background and objective: Depression is a global public health threat, and its treatment constitutes drugs in psychopharmacology, a domain that is rapidly growing with the addition of newer agents in market that are of high cost. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the number of registered brands and price variation of oral antidepressants in Pakistan. Methods: A descriptive observational study was carried out to analyze the cost of oral antidepressants in Pakistan. Pharma guide 2019 was used to derive the cost of antidepressants marketed in Pakistan. The details about the number of registered brands and maximum and minimum prices of antidepressant drugs were calculated. Results: Sixteen drugs in 38 formulations were registered in 607 brands in Pakistan. Variations among 38 different formulations range from 0% to 746.39%. Out of these 38 formulations, 31 had variations below 200%, while 7 formulations had price variation above 200%. The highest price (746.39%) variation was observed for citalopram 20 mg (price per tablet PKR 6.79 to PKR 57.47) and no (0%) price variation was for bupropion 75 mg (price per tablet PKR 10). Conclusion: The study revealed wide variations in the number of registered brands and prices of oral tablets of antidepressants in Pakistan. The government needs to devise effective strategies to implement established policies to ensure uniformity in price, quality, and effectiveness with the ultimate goal to reduce treatment cost. Also, measures should be taken to inform prescribers about cost variation of drugs as prerequisite for cost-effective treatments to ultimately reduce treatment cost and financial burden and improve patient's adherence to therapy.

Economic Outcomes Following Combinatorial Pharmacogenomic Testing for Elderly Psychiatric Patients.

OBJECTIVE: We compared economic outcomes when elderly patients with neuropsychiatric disorders received psychotropic medications guided by a combinatorial pharmacogenomic (PGx) test. METHODS: This is a subanalysis of a 1-year prospective assessment of medication cost for patients with neuropsychiatric disorders receiving combinatorial PGx testing. Pharmacy claims were used to compare per member per year (PMPY) medication cost for patients ≥65 and <65 years old when medications were congruent or incongruent with the PGx test. Polypharmacy was also assessed. RESULTS: Congruent prescribing was associated with savings of US$3497 PMPY (P < .001) for patients ≥65 years and US$2467 PMPY (P < .001) for patients <65, compared to incongruent prescribing. Congruent prescribing in patients ≥65 treated by primary care providers was associated with US$4113 PMPY (P = .026) in savings, while congruent prescribing by psychiatrists was associated with US$120 PMPY (P = .719). Congruent prescribing was also associated with one fewer neuropsychiatric medication for patients ≥65 (P = .070). CONCLUSION: Congruence with PGx testing was associated with medication cost savings in elderly patients.

The Effectiveness and Value of Esketamine for the Management of Treatment-Resistant Depression.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, National Institute for Health Care Management, California Health Care Foundation, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AstraZeneca, Allergan, Alnylam, Biogen, Blue Shield of California, Cambia Health Services, CVS Caremark, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthPartners, HealthFirst, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinkrodt Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Fazioli, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette reports grants from ICER during the course of this work and personal fees from Monument Analytics, unrelated to this work. Atlas has nothing to disclose.

Dissociating the Clinical Role and Economic Value of Intranasal Esketamine.

DISCLOSURES: No funding supported the writing of this commentary. The author has nothing to disclose.

Value of monitoring negative emotional bias in primary care in England for personalised antidepressant treatment: a modelling study.

BACKGROUND: Depressed patients often focus on negative life events. Effective antidepressant therapy reverses this negative emotional bias (NEB) within 1 week. Clinical therapeutic effect usually requires 4-6 weeks. The value of implementing NEB monitoring for the personalisation of antidepressant therapy is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the likely outcome and cost consequences of adopting the P1vital Oxford Emotional Test Battery (ETB) for this purpose in routine primary care in England. METHODS: A hybrid decision analytic model (decision tree plus Markov model) was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ETB monitoring versus no ETB over 52 weeks using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Differences in depression severity, episode type and analytical perspectives were considered. Input data were derived from relevant guidelines, literature, national databases, expert opinion and the developers for the year 2013. Multiple sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty. FINDINGS: The mean number of ETB tests is 2.162 per newly diagnosed patient and 2.166 per patient with recurrent depression. The incremental cost-effectiveness of ETB versus 'no ETB' is £4355/QALY from the healthcare perspective. From the broader societal perspective, ETB is more effective and cost saving. CONCLUSIONS: Monitoring negative emotional bias in primary care in England for personalised antidepressant treatment using ETB seems as an effective and cost-effective option under all considered scenarios (including worst case). Its main economic value seems to lie in reduced productivity loss as opposed to healthcare savings. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The test supports accelerated application of evidence-based depression care. Further optimisation and implementation in the ongoing European PReDicT trial is ongoing.

Prevalence and economic burden of comorbid anxiety and depression among patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis.

Objective: To describe the prevalence and costs of anxiety and depression among moderate-to-severe psoriasis (PsO) patients in a commercially-insured US population.Methods: The IBM MarketScan Commercial database was used to select adults with moderate-to-severe PsO (≥1 PsO diagnosis and ≥1 systemic or biologic medication) within each calendar year from 2014 to 2016. Adults with no diagnosis of PsO or similar disorders were randomly selected (2014-2016) and matched 1:1 to PsO patients to compare the prevalence of anxiety and depression each year. Moderate-to-severe PsO patients identified in 2014 with continuous enrollment through 2015 were stratified into those with treated anxiety and/or depression (≥1 anxiety or depression diagnosis plus any anxiolytics, antidepressants, or antipsychotics within 30 days) vs those without anxiety/depression, and then matched 1:1 to determine the incremental burden of treated anxiety/depression among PsO patients. All-cause and PsO-related healthcare costs were compared between the matched cohorts using generalized linear models.Results: In total, 69,644 matched PsO and non-PsO patients were identified in 2014, 61,478 in 2015, and 66,880 in 2016. The prevalence of anxiety/depression among PsO patients increased more than for matched controls, from 18.2% vs 12.2% in 2014 (p < 0.01) to 19.6% vs 13.1% in 2016 (p < 0.01). Prevalence of treated anxiety/depression followed the same trend, with increases from 14.5% vs 8.9% in 2014 (p < 0.01) to 15.9% vs 9.9% in 2016 (p < 0.01). For patients with moderate-to-severe PsO, unadjusted incremental all-cause healthcare costs associated with treated anxiety/depression were $8,077 (p < 0.01); 91% was due to utilization of medical services such as hospitalizations, ER visits, office visits, and other outpatient services (all p < 0.01).Conclusions: The prevalence of psychiatric disorders is higher among PsO patients than the general population, and the incremental burden of treated anxiety/depression is substantial. Further research is needed, but PsO treatments that improve psychiatric symptoms such as anxiety/depression may benefit patients and reduce their economic burden.

A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Studies of Drug-Based Non-Malignant Chronic Pain Treatment.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Chronic pain is a highly prevalent problem, involving high costs and seriously affecting a patient's quality of life. This review aimed to systematically review economic evaluations of pharmacological-based treatments for non-malignant chronic pain and to compare different treatment approaches with regard to their economic profile. METHODS: PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched in April 2016. Studies were included if quality-adjusted life years and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported. Quality assessment was carried out by using La Torre's weighted scale on the Drummond checklist. Costs were converted into US$2014. RESULTS: Fourteen economic evaluations met the inclusion criteria. Three treatment categories identified were: opioids, anticonvulsants, and anti-depressants. Compared to anticonvulsants and antidepressant, opioids had lower ICER. Transdermal buprenorphine showed an ICER of about US$11,000.00 while pregabalin showed an ICER of US$19,200. Studies included showed a diversity of methodological approaches, such as different modeling approaches and different perspectives (NHS and private payer). CONCLUSION: There are limitations to the success of making appropriate recommendations about which treatment is most cost-effective due to considerable variability between treatments, pain syndromes, and drug dosages. Opioids may have lower ICER, but the societal implications of the opioid epidemic and overdose deaths should be taken into account when coming to general conclusions about their cost-effectiveness. To ensure correct resource allocation as well as the best benefit for patients, uniform and standardized approaches of cost and outcome measurement in economic evaluations of chronic are needed.