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.

Health resource use and costs of vilazodone and other selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors in treating major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are widely prescribed antidepressants. This claims database study compared healthcare resource use and costs among patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with vilazodone vs other SSRIs. METHODS: Adults with an MDD diagnosis and ≥ 1 prescription fill for vilazodone, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, or sertraline were identified from administrative claims data (2010-2012). Patients who concomitantly used adjunctive medication, either a second-generation antidepressant or antipsychotic, were excluded. All-cause and MDD-related healthcare resource use and costs (in 2012 USD) were compared between patients treated with vilazodone vs other SSRIs over a 6-month follow-up period using unadjusted and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: The study cohort included 49 861 patients (mean age = 44.0 years; 70% female). Compared with the vilazodone cohort (n = 3527), patients in the citalopram (n = 12 187), escitalopram (n = 8275), fluoxetine (n = 10 142), paroxetine (n = 3146), and sertraline (n = 12 584) cohorts had significantly more all-cause inpatient hospital visits, longer hospital stays and more frequent emergency department visits, following the index date, after adjusting for baseline characteristics. All-cause medical service costs (inpatient + outpatient + emergency department visits) were significantly higher across all other SSRI cohorts vs vilazodone by $758-$1165 (p < 0.05). Similarly, all-cause total costs, were significantly or numerically (non-significantly) higher across all SSRI cohorts vs vilazodone by $351-$780. LIMITATIONS: The was no clinical measurement of disease severity, partial coverage of the Medicare-eligible population, and short follow-up. CONCLUSION: MDD treatment with vilazodone was associated with significantly lower rates of inpatient and emergency services, and with significantly lower all-cause medical service costs and numerically (non-significantly) lower total costs to payers than with the other SSRIs included in this study.