Incremental health care resource use and costs among adult patients with depression and treated for insomnia with zolpidem, trazodone, or benzodiazepines.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify health care resource utilization (HCRU) and costs associated with insomnia treated with commonly prescribed insomnia medications among patients with depression. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental Databases to identify adults with: (1) ≥1 ICD-9/ICD-10 code for depression; (2) ≥1 commonly prescribed medication for insomnia (zolpidem immediate release [IR], zolpidem extended release [ER], trazodone, or benzodiazepines); and (3) ≥12 months of eligibility before and after initiating insomnia medication. A 1:1 age- and sex-matched control cohort with depression but without sleep-related disorders was identified. Adjusted HCRU and costs were compared using generalized linear models. RESULTS: A total of 21,027 patients (mean age = 48.3 years, 69.5% female) with depression and treated insomnia (D + TI; 1.9% zolpidem ER, 32.0% zolpidem IR, 50.0% trazodone, 16.1% benzodiazepines) were matched to controls. Although mean number of inpatient visits were similar (0.1 for both), relative to controls, D + TI had a higher mean number of ED (0.2 vs 0.1, p < .001) and outpatient visits (2.2 vs 1.3, p < .001). Adjusted total costs per patient per month were higher among D + TI patients ($2450 vs $1095, p < .001). Inpatient and ED costs were higher among patients prescribed zolpidem IR, trazodone, or benzodiazepines, but not zolpidem ER. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to controls with depression but without sleep disorders, overall, health care costs for adults with D + TI were 2.2-fold higher; costs and HCRU varied by insomnia medication. Further study of the impact of newer insomnia treatments on patient outcomes in depression and comorbid insomnia is warranted.

Patterns and predictors of off-label prescription of psychiatric drugs.

Off-label prescribing of psychiatric drugs is common, despite lacking strong scientific evidence of efficacy and potentially increasing risk for adverse events. The goal of this study was to characterize prevalence of off-label prescriptions of psychiatric drugs and examine patient and clinician predictors of off-label use. This manuscript presents a retrospective, cross-sectional study using data from the 2012 and 2013 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (NAMCS). The study examined all adult outpatient visits to psychiatric practices for chronic care management with a single listed visit diagnosis in which at least one psychiatric drug was prescribed. The main outcome measure was off-label prescribing of at least one psychiatric drug, defined as prescription for a condition for which it has not been approved for use by the FDA. Among our sample representative of 1.85 billion outpatient visits, 18.5 million (1.3%) visits were to psychiatrists for chronic care management in which at least one psychiatric drug was prescribed. Overall, the rate of off-label use was 12.9% (95% CI: 12.2-15.7). The most common off-label uses were for manic-depressive psychosis treated with citalopram and primary insomnia treated with trazodone. Several patient and clinician characteristics were positively associated with off-label prescribing, including seeing a psychiatrist (OR: 1.06, 95% CI, 1.01-1.12; p = 0.03) instead of another type of clinician, the office visit taking place in the Western region of the country (OR: 1.09, 95% CI, 1.01-1.17; p = 0.02), and the patient having 3 or more chronic conditions (OR: 1.12, 95% CI, 1.02-1.14; p = 0.003). In contrast, having Medicare coverage (OR: 0.93, 95% CI, 0.84-0.97; p = 0.04) and receiving payment assistance from a medical charity (OR: 0.91, 95% CI, 0.88-0.96; p = 0.03) instead of private insurance were negatively associated with off-label prescribing. These results suggest that certain classes of psychiatric medications are being commonly prescribed to treat conditions for which they have not been determined by the FDA to be clinically efficacious and/or safe.

Antidepressant Medication Prescribing Practices for Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the prescribing practices of clinicians for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). METHODS: This population-based, descriptive study of insured patients (N=54,107) identified people who were 18 years or older, had a claim for MDD, had at least one prescription for an antidepressant medication in 2013, and had continuous insurance coverage during the study period. Prescription claims were evaluated to determine the most commonly prescribed antidepressant medication and most common dose. RESULTS: The three most commonly prescribed antidepressant medications were citalopram (N=11,995, 22.2%), sertraline (N=10,791, 19.9%), and trazodone (N=9,501, 17.6%). The most common daily doses were 20 mg citalopram (N=6,304, 52.6%), 50 mg sertraline (N=4,173, 38.7%), and 100 mg trazodone (N=3,220, 33.9%). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report of its kind that provides drug- and dosage-level details to demonstrate that antidepressant prescribing in clinical practice is largely within recommended guidelines.

Assessment and treatment of insomnia in adult patients with alcohol use disorders.

Insomnia in patients with alcohol dependence has increasingly become a target of treatment due to its prevalence, persistence, and associations with relapse and suicidal thoughts, as well as randomized controlled studies demonstrating efficacy with behavior therapies and non-addictive medications. This article focuses on assessing and treating insomnia that persists despite 4 or more weeks of sobriety in alcohol-dependent adults. Selecting among the various options for treatment follows a comprehensive assessment of insomnia and its multifactorial causes. In addition to chronic, heavy alcohol consumption and its effects on sleep regulatory systems, contributing factors include premorbid insomnia; co-occurring medical, psychiatric, and other sleep disorders; use of other substances and medications; stress; environmental factors; and inadequate sleep hygiene. The assessment makes use of history, rating scales, and sleep diaries as well as physical, mental status, and laboratory examinations to rule out these factors. Polysomnography is indicated when another sleep disorder is suspected, such as sleep apnea or periodic limb movement disorder, or when insomnia is resistant to treatment. Sobriety remains a necessary, first-line treatment for insomnia, and most patients will have some improvement. If insomnia-specific treatment is needed, then brief behavioral therapies are the treatment of choice, because they have shown long-lasting benefit without worsening of drinking outcomes. Medications work faster, but they generally work only as long as they are taken. Melatonin agonists; sedating antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and antipsychotics; and benzodiazepine receptor agonists each have their benefits and risks, which must be weighed and monitored to optimize outcomes. Some relapse prevention medications may also have sleep-promoting activity. Although it is assumed that treatment for insomnia will help prevent relapse, this has not been firmly established. Therefore, insomnia and alcohol dependence might be best thought of as co-occurring disorders, each of which requires its own treatment.

Initiation of Antidepressant Medication After Hip Fracture in Community-Dwelling Older Adults.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence, characteristics, and correlates of antidepressant drug therapy initiation among community-dwelling older adults following hip fracture. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using linked, population-based administrative data. SETTING: Province of Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults, aged 65 years or older, with a hip fracture and hip fracture surgery between April 1, 2003, and February 28, 2011. The study sample was restricted to individuals who returned home following surgery and who had not been dispensed an antidepressant in the year prior to their fracture (N=25,436). MEASUREMENTS: We determined the incidence of new antidepressant use defined by the dispensing of antidepressant drug therapy within 90 days of discharge home. We identified independent correlates of antidepressant initiation using multivariate regression. RESULTS: Overall, antidepressants were newly initiated in 8.8% of older adults with hip fracture in the 90 days following hospital discharge. There was a statistically significant, 1.3-fold increase in incidence of antidepressant prescribing from 2003 to 2010. Trazodone, frequently prescribed at a low dose, accounted for 39.0% of newly dispensed antidepressants, followed by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (36.9%). Rehabilitation admission, psychiatric evaluation, a diagnosis of dementia, and baseline benzodiazepine use were the strongest independent correlates of antidepressant initiation. CONCLUSION: The period after a hip fracture is associated with a high rate of initiation of antidepressant therapy. The data raise the possibility that antidepressants are frequently prescribed off-label in these patients. Further research is needed to investigate the safety and efficacy of antidepressant use in this vulnerable population.

Eficácia e segurança da venlafaxina, duloxetina e trazodona no tratamento da depressão / Efficacy and safety of venlafaxine, duloxetine and trazodone in the treatment of depression / Eficacia y seguridad de la venlafaxina, de la duloxetina y de la trazodona en el tratamiento de la depresíon

TECNOLOGIAS: Duloxetina, venlafaxina e trazodona. INDICAÇÃO: Depressão moderada ou grave. CARACTERIZAÇÃO DA TECNOLOGIA: A duloxetina e a venlafaxina fazem parte do grupo de antidepressivos inibidores da recaptação de serotonina e noradrenalina (IRSN). A trazodona é um antidepressivo atípico, atua inibindo a recaptação da serotonina e bloqueia os receptores adrenérgicos e histaminérgicos. Esses medicamentos aumentam a quantidade de serotonina e/ ou noradrenalina na fenda sináptica, aumentando, portanto, a estimulação sináptica e a atividade destas monoaminas no SNC. PERGUNTA: Os medicamentos duloxetina, venlafaxina e trazodona são mais eficazes e seguros para o tratamento da depressão maior em adultos do que a fluoxetina? BUSCA E ANÁLISE DE EVIDÊNCIAS CIENTÍFICAS: Foram pesquisadas as bases Medline (via Pubmed), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), The Cochrane Library e LILACS. Buscaram-se revisões sistemáticas (RS) de ensaios clínicos que comparassem a eficácia e segurança dos medicamentos duloxetina, venlafaxina e trazodona comparados à fluoxetina para o tratamento do Transtorno Depressivo Maior, que utilizaram como critério de diagnóstico as classificações internacionais CID-10 e o DSM IV. A qualidade da evidência foi avaliada pelo sistema GRADE. Para avaliar desfechos secundários relacionados ao abandono do tratamento e efeitos adversos, dados de estudos observacionais presentes nas RS foram considerados. Avaliações de Tecnologias de Saúde e guias terapêuticos foram pesquisadas em sites de agências internacionais e na Rede Brasileira de Avaliação de Tecnologia em Saúde. RESUMO DOS RESULTADOS DOS ESTUDOS SELECIONADOS: Foram incluídas doze revisões sistemáticas (RS) com meta-análise. Na avaliação da eficácia, os resultados das RS demonstraram uma discreta superioridade da venlafaxina frente à fluoxetina. Na avaliação da segurança, ao verificar as taxas de abandono do tratamento e incidência de eventos adversos, grande parte dos estudos se mostrou inconclusiva ou levemente desfavorável à duloxetina ou venlafaxina comparados à fluoxetina. A maioria das RS apresentou evidência de baixa qualidade e todas contribuíram para uma recomendação fraca a favor da venlafaxina. Foram incluídos três guias terapêuticos que não fizeram distinção entre os medicamentos antidepressivos de segunda geração (ex. duloxetina, venlafaxina e trazodona) e os ISRS (ex. fluoxetina) para o desfecho de eficácia. RECOMENDAÇÕES: Os resultados de eficácia encontrados neste PTC apontam para a indicação da venlafaxina em caso de resposta inadequada ao tratamento com ISRS. Ao mesmo tempo em que o mecanismo de ação da venlafaxina parece estar relacionado à sua superioridade terapêutica, também estaria relacionado às suas limitações clinicas, principalmente em pacientes hipertensos ou com problemas cardíacos. A escolha inicial do medicamento deve ser pautada em vários critérios como: potenciais reações adversas e o custo do tratamento. Considerando a baixa qualidade da evidência dos resultados apresentados e o maior custo de tratamento frente às alternativas terapêuticas existentes, a fluoxetina ainda se apresenta como medicamento de primeira escolha para o tratamento do TDM em pacientes adultos, uma vez que sua eficácia é comparável às tecnologias avaliadas, com melhor tolerância. Ressalta-se que apesar de não ter sido objeto de comparação neste PTC outros ISRS, tais como: sertralina, citalopram ou escitalopram parecem possuir eficácia comparável entre si. Quanto a duloxetina e trazodona, não foram encontradas evidências de comparação direta com fluoxetina.(AU)

TECHNOLOGIES: duloxetine, venlafaxine and trazodone. INDICATION: moderate or major depression. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE TECHNOLOGY: Duloxetine and venlafaxine are part of the group of antidepressants reuptake of serotonin and norepinephrine (IRSR). Trazodone is an atypical antidepressant, works by inhibiting the reuptake of serotonin and blocks the adrenergic and histaminergic. These drugs increase the amount of serotonin and / or noradrenaline in the synaptic cleft, thereby increasing synaptic stimulation and the activity of these monoamines in the CNS. QUESTION: Are duloxetine, venlafaxine and trazodone more effective and safe than fluoxetine for the treatment of major depression in adults? SEARCH AND ANALYSIS OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: We searched Medline (via Pubmed) Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), The Cochrane Library and LILACS. Sought to systematic reviews (SR) clinical trials that compared the efficacy and safety of duloxetine drugs, venlafaxine and trazodone compared to fluoxetine for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder, which used as a diagnostic criterion the international classifications ICD-10 and DSM IV. The quality of evidence was evaluated by the GRADE system. To evaluate secondary endpoints related to the abandonment of treatment and adverse effects data from observational studies present in the SR were considered. Health Technology Assessments and therapeutic guidelines were searched in international agency sites and the Brazilian Network for Health Technology Assessment. SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE SELECTED STUDIES: Twelve systematic reviews with meta-analysis were included. In assessing effectiveness, the results of SR showed a slight superiority of venlafaxine front of fluoxetine. In safety assessment, to check the dropout rates of treatment and incidence of adverse events, most studies proved inconclusive or slightly unfavorable to duloxetine or venlafaxine compared to fluoxetine. Most SR presented evidence of low quality and all contributed to a weak recommendation in favor of venlafaxine. Were included three therapeutic guides who didn't distinguish between second-generation antidepressant medications (eg, duloxetine, venlafaxine and trazodone) and SSRIs (eg, fluoxetine) for efficacy endpoint. RECOMMENDATIONS: Efficacy results of this study point to the indication of venlafaxine in case of inadequate response to treatment with SSRIs. While the mechanism of action of venlafaxine seems to be related to its therapeutic superiority it could also be related to its clinical limitations, especially in hypertensive patients or in patients with heart problems. The initial choice of drug should be based on various criteria such as potential adverse reactions and the cost of treatment. Given the low quality of the evidence and the higher cost of treatment in face of existing treatment alternatives, fluoxetine still presents itself as the first choice drug for the treatment of MDD in adult patients, since its effectiveness is comparable to the evaluated technologies and it is better tolerated. We emphasize that despite not having been the object of comparison in this study other SSRIs such as sertraline, citalopram or escitalopram seem to have comparable efficacy to each other. As for duloxetine and trazodone, we found no evidence of direct comparison with fluoxetine.(AU)

TECNOLOGÍA: Duloxetina, venlafaxina y trazodona. INDICACIÓN: Depresión moderada o grave. CARACTERIZACIÓN DE LA TECNOLOGÍA: La parte venlafaxina y duloxetina del grupo antidepresivos de la recaptación de serotonina y norepinefrina (IRSN). La trazodona es un antidepresivo atípico, actúa mediante la inhibición de la recaptación de serotonina y bloquea los receptores adrenérgicos e histamina. Estos fármacos aumentan la cantidad de serotonina y/o norepinefrina en la hendidura sináptica, lo que aumenta la estimulación sináptica y la actividad de estas monoaminas en el SNC. PREGUNTA: ¿Las drogasduloxetina, venlafaxina, trazodona y son más eficaces para el tratamiento de la depresión mayor en adultos que la fluoxetina? BÚSQUEDA Y ANÁLISIS DE LA EVIDENCIA CIENTÍFICA: Se hicieron búsquedas en las bases de datos Medline (viaPubmed), Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD), The Cochrane Library y en LILACS. Mucha demanda hasta Revisiones Sistemáticas (RS) de ensayos clínicos que compararon la eficacia y seguridad de medicamentos duloxetina, venlafaxina, trazodona en comparación con la para el tratamiento de la depresión moderada o grave, que utiliza como criterio diagnóstico de las clasificaciones internacionales de la CID-10 y DSM IV. Para evaluar los objetivos secundarios relacionados con el abandono del tratamiento y los efectos adversos, se consideraron los datos de estudios observacionales presentes en el RS. La calidad de la evidencia se evaluaron utilizando el sistema GRADE. Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias y las guias terapéuticas fueron encuestados en las agencias y sitios web internacionales de la Red Brasileña de Evaluación de Tecnologías Sanitarias. RESUMEN DE LOS RESULTADOS DE LOS ESTUDIOS SELECCIONADOS: Se incluyeron doce RS con y meta-análisis. En la evaluación de la eficacia, los resultados de RS mostraron una ligera superioridad de venlafaxina frente de la fluoxetina. Una evaluación de la seguridad, para comprobar las tasas de abandono del tratamiento y la incidencia de eventos adversos, la mayoría de los estudios demostró inconclusa o ligeramente desfavorable a la duloxetina o venlafaxina en comparación con la fluoxetina. La mayoría de RS mostraron evidencia de baja calidad y contribuyeron a una recomendación débil a favor de la venlafaxina. Se incluyeron tres guías terapéuticas que no hacía distinciones entre los antidepresivos de segunda generación (por ejemplo, duloxetina, venlafaxina y trazodona) y los ISRS (por ejemplo fluoxetina) para los resultados de eficacia. RECOMENDACIONES: Los resultados de eficacia de este estudio apuntan para la indicación de la venlafaxina en caso de respuesta inadecuada al tratamiento con ISRS. Mientras que el mecanismo de acción de la venlafaxina parece estar relacionada con su superioridad terapéutica también se relacionó con sus limitaciones clínicas, especialmente en pacientes hipertensos o con problemas del corazón. La elección inicial de drogas debe basarse en diversos criterios, tales como reacciones adversas potenciales y el costo del tratamiento. Dada la baja calidad de la evidencia de los resultados presentados y el mayor costo del tratamiento en frente a de las alternativas de tratamiento existentes, la fluoxetina todavía presentase como el fármaco de primera elección para el tratamiento del trastorno depresivo mayor en adultos, ya que su eficacia es comparable a las tecnologías evaluadas con mejor tolerancia. Es de destacar que a pesar de no haber sido objeto de comparación en este estudio otros ISRS tales como sertralina, citalopram o escitalopram parecen tener una eficacia comparable entre ellos. Cuanto a la duloxetina y la trazodona, no se encontraron pruebas de comparación directa con la fluoxetina.(AU)

Eficácia, segurança e custo-efetividade de duloxetina e trazodona no tratamento da dor neuropática diabética / Efficacy, safety and cost-effectiveness of duloxetine and trazodone for the treatment of neuropathic diabetic pain / Eficacia, seguridad y coste-efectividad de la duloxetina y de la trazodona para el tratamiento del dolor neuropático diabético

TECNOLOGIA: Duloxetina e trazodona. INDICAÇÃO: Tratamento da dor neuropática diabética. CARACTERIZAÇÃO DA TECNOLOGIA: Duloxetina é um medicamento antidepressivo inibidor da recaptação de serotonina e noradrenalina (IRSN). A trazodona é um antidepressivo de segunda geração cujo mecanismo da ação ainda não está completamente elucidado. PERGUNTA: A duloxetina e a trazodona são seguras, eficazes e custo-efetivas no tratamento da dor neuropática diabética? BUSCA E ANÁLISE DE EVIDÊNCIAS CIENTÍFICAS: Foi realizada uma busca por revisões sistemáticas com metanálise e por estudos econômicos nas bases de dados The Cochrane Library (via Bireme), Medline (via Pubmed), LILACS e Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). No caso da trazodona, devido à inexistência de revisões sistemáticas com metanálise, a busca foi refeita de modo a encontrar a melhor evidência disponível. Foram buscadas avaliações de tecnologias em saúde (ATS) em websites de agências internacionais e da Rede Brasileira de Avaliação de Tecnologias em Saúde (REBRATS). Foram selecionados estudos publicados em espanhol, inglês e português. RESUMO DOS RESULTADOS DOS ESTUDOS SELECIONADOS: Foram incluídos sete estudos: quatro revisões sistemáticas e dois estudos econômicos relacionados à duloxetina e uma série de casos sobre a trazodona. Consideraram-se os desfechos nas revisões sistemáticas que abordaram eficácia e segurança da duloxetina: a redução na intensidade da dor, a taxa de resposta ao tratamento (≥50% na redução da dor), a impressão do paciente em relação à melhora e a ocorrência de eventos adversos. Essas revisões apresentaram resultados a favor da duloxetina, porém, na maioria dos estudos incluídos, o medicamento foi comparado ao placebo. Os comparativos diretos com outros medicamentos não foram conclusivos. Em todos os estudos que avaliaram a segurança foram observadas maiores taxas de eventos adversos para o grupo que utilizou duloxetina (60 ou 120 mg) quando comparada a placebo, havendo relatos de tontura, sonolência, dor de cabeça e prisão de ventre. A publicação que avaliou a eficácia e a segurança do medicamento trazodona mostrou resultados a favor dessa tecnologia, entretanto, nesse estudo, o medicamento não foi comparado a nenhuma outra intervenção, nem mesmo ao placebo. Além do mais, é uma série de casos, que não apresenta um nível de evidência tão alto quanto às revisões sistemáticas com metanálises. Nos estudos de custo-utilidade para a duloxetina, a medida de eficácia foi o número de pacientes que reportaram boa resolução da dor por meio de um relato subjetivo ou pela escala de Impressão Global do Paciente em Relação à Mudança/Melhora da dor e a medida de utilidade foi o QALY (Anos de Vida Ajustados por Qualidade). Um dos estudos favoreceu o uso da desipramina, um antidepressivo tricíclico (ATC), enquanto que o outro favoreceu a gabapentina, um anticonvulsivante. Pela busca por publicações nas agências internacionais e na REBRATS foi encontrado um estudo de custo-utilidade que indicou superioridade dos ATC (amitriptilina, clomipramina, nortriptilina, imipramina e maprotilina) em relação aos anticonvulsivantes (gabapentina e pregabalina) e IRSN (duloxetina e venlafaxina). Em outra publicação é recomendado o uso de amitriptilina, duloxetina, gabapentina e pregabalina para o tratamento da dor neuropática, exceto nos casos de neuralgia trigemial. RECOMENDAÇÕES: Recomenda-se fracamente o uso de duloxetina somente nos casos de falha terapêutica no uso de medicamentos disponíveis no SUS como os antidepressivos tricíclicos e a gabapentina. Ressalta-se que são poucas as comparações com outros medicamentos e nenhum estudo avaliou a duloxetina por um longo período de tempo, o que seria relevante devido à cronicidade da doença. Quanto à trazodona, recomenda-se fortemente contra o seu uso, uma vez que não existem evidências robustas de eficácia e segurança no tratamento da dor neuropática diabética. O único estudo incluído apresenta baixo nível de evidência.(AU)

TECHNOLOGY: Duloxetine and trazodone. INDICATION: Treatment of neuropathic diabetic pain. TECHNOLOGY CHARACTERIZATION: Duloxetine is a serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor antidepressant (SNRI). Trazodone is a second generation antidepressant whose mechanism of action is not fully elucidated. QUESTION: Are duloexetine and trazodone safe, effective and cost-effective options in the treatment of neuropathic diabetic pain? SEARCH AND ANALYSIS OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE: We conducted a search for systematic reviews and economic studies in the databases The Cochrane Library (via Bireme), Medline (via Pubmed), LILACS and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). Manual search was also conducted on the internet and in the references of the studies found. Health Technology Assessments (HTA) were searched in international agencies: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Agencies y units of Evaluación Technologies Sanitarias (AUnETS), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), National Health Service (NHS) and the Brazilian Network for Health Technology Assessment (REBRATS). Studies published in English, Spanish and Portuguese could be selected. SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF THE SELECTED STUDIES: Seven studies were included, four systematic reviews and two economic studies related to duloxetine and a series of cases on trazodone. The outcomes in the systematic reviews were: reduction in pain intensity, the rate of treatment response (≥ 50% reduction in pain), the impression of the patient regarding the improvement and adverse events. These reviews showed results in favor of duloxetine, however, in most of the included studies the drug was compared with placebo. Direct comparisons with other medicines were not conclusive. In all studies that evaluated safety higher adverse event rates for the group receiving duloxetine (60 or 120 mg) compared to placebo were observed, there were reports of dizziness, drowsiness, headache and constipation. The publication that evaluated the efficacy and safety of trazodone showed results in favor of this technology, however, in this study, the drug was not compared to any other intervention, not even with placebo. Furthermore, it is a series of cases, which does not present a level of evidence as high as systematic reviews with meta-analyze. In cost-utility studies for duloxetine, the efficacy measure was the number of patients who reported good resolution of pain using a subjective report or the Global Impression Scale Patient in Relation to Change/ Improving pain and the utility measure was QALY (Quality Adjusted Life Years). One study favored the use of desipramine, a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA), while the other favored gabapentin, an anticonvulsant. After the search for publications in international HTA agencies and REBRATS we included a costutility study that indicated superiority of ATC (amitriptyline, clomipramine, nortriptyline, imipramine and maprotiline) compared to anticonvulsants (gabapentin and pregabalin) and SNRI (duloxetine and venlafaxine). Another study recommended the use of amitriptyline, duloxetine, pregabalin and gabapentin for the treatment of neuropathic pain, except in cases of neuralgia trigeminal. RECOMMENDATIONS: We weakly recommend the use of duloxetine in patients with treatment failure with tricyclic antidepressants or gabapentin, the two alternatives available through SUS. We emphasize that there are few fluoxetine comparisons with other medicines and no study evaluated duloxetine for a long period of time, which would be relevant due to chronicity of the disease. As for trazodone, we strongly recommend against it use since we did not find robust evidence on the efficacy and safety of this intervention in the treatment of neuropathic diabetic pain. The only included study represents a low level of evidence.(AU)

TECNOLOGÍA: Duloxetina y trazodona. INDICACIÓN: Tratamiento del dolor neuropático diabético. CARACTERIZACIÓN DE LA TECNOLOGÍA: La duloxetina es un antidepresivo inhibidor selectivo de la recaptación serotonina y norepinefrina (IRSN). La trazodona es un antidepresivo de segunda generación cuyo mecanismo de acción no está completamente dilucidado. PREGUNTA: ¿La duloxetina y trazodona son seguros, eficaces y costo-efectivos en el tratamiento del dolor neuropático diabético? BÚSQUEDA Y ANÁLISIS DE LA EVIDENCIA CIENTÍFICA: Una búsqueda de revisiones sistemáticas y estudios económicos se realizó en las bases de datos de la Cochrane Library (vía Bireme), MEDLINE (vía PubMed), LILACS y Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). Una búsqueda por Evaluaciones de Tecnologías Sanitarias se realizó en los sítios eletrónicos de: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Agencias y Unidades de Tecnologías Sanitarias Evaluation (AUnETS), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), National Health Service (NHS) y de la Rede Brasileira de Avaliação Tecnologia e Saúde (REBRATS). Los estudios publicados en Inglés, Español y Portugués se podrían seleccionar. RESUMEN DE LOS RESULTADOS DE LOS ESTUDIOS SELECCIONADOS: Siete estudios fueron incluidos, entre ellos, cuatro revisiones sistemáticas, un ensayo clínico y dos estudios económicos. Se consideró en las revisiones sistemáticas la ocurrencia de eventos adversos y las medidas de eficacia: reducción en la intensidad del dolor, la tasa de respuesta al tratamiento (≥ 50% de reducción en el dolor), la impresión del paciente con respecto a la mejora. Estos estudios mostraron resultados a favor de la duloxetina, pero solo en relación con el placebo. La comparación directa con otros medicamentos no han sido concluyentes. En todos los estudios que evaluaron la seguridad se observaron mayores tasas de eventos adversos para el grupo que recibió la duloxetina (60 o 120 mg) en comparación con el placebo, hubo relato de mareo, somnolencia, dolor de cabeza y estreñimiento. La publicación que evaluó la eficacia y seguridad de trazodona mostró resultados en favor de esta tecnología. Sin embargo, no se comparó con cualquier otra intervención, incluso tampoco con el placebo. Además, se trata de una serie de casos, que no presenta un nivel de evidencia tan alto como las revisiones sistemáticas con meta análisis. En los estudios de coste-utilidad de la duloxetina, se incluyeron como medidas de eficacia el número de pacientes que informaron de la buena resolución del dolor utilizando un informe subjetivo o el paciente Escala Global Impresión en relación al cambio / Mejorando el dolor y como medida de utilidad los AVAC (años de vida ajustados por calidad). Un estudio favoreció el uso de desipramina, un antidepresivo tricíclico (ATC), mientras que el otro favorecida gabapentina, un anticonvulsivo. La búsqueda por ETS encontró un estudio de coste-utilidad que indicó superioridad de ATC (amitriptilina, clomipramina, nortriptilina, imipramina y maprotilina) en comparación con los anticonvulsivantes (gabapentina y pregabalina) y IRSN (duloxetina y venlafaxina). Y otro estudio que recomendó el uso de la amitriptilina, duloxetina, pregabalina y la gabapentina para el tratamiento del dolor neuropático, excepto en casos de trigemial neuralgia. RECOMENDACIONES: Se recomienda débilmente el uso de duloxetina en lugar de los antidepresivos tricíclicos (ATC) en los casos en que existe el fracaso del tratamiento en el uso de antidepresivo tricíclico y la gabapentina, las dos alternativas disponibles en el SUS. Se enfatiza que hay pocas comparaciones de duloxetina con otros medicamentos y ningún estudio ha evaluado la duloxetina por un largo período de tiempo, lo que sería relevante debido a la conicidad de la enfermedad. En cuanto a la trazodona, se recomienda fuertemente contra su uso, ja que no hay evidencia robusta de la eficacia y seguridad de esta intervención para el tratamiento del dolor neuropático diabético. Lo único estudio incluido representa un bajo nivel de evidencia.(AU)

Patient and facility characteristics associated with benzodiazepine prescribing for veterans with PTSD.

OBJECTIVE: Practice guidelines used in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) caution against benzodiazepine use by veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) because of inefficacy and safety concerns. Although use has declined, the VHA prescription rate is ≥30% nationally. To inform intervention design, this study examined patient- and facility-level correlates of benzodiazepine prescribing. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used 2009 national administrative VHA data to identify veterans with PTSD, benzodiazepine prescriptions, and various patient and facility characteristics. Correlates of benzodiazepine prescribing were determined with multivariable hierarchical logit models. RESULTS: Among 137 VHA facilities, 495,309 veterans with PTSD were identified, and 150,571 (30.4%) received a benzodiazepine prescription. Patient characteristics independently associated with benzodiazepine use included female gender, age ≥30 years, rural residence, service-connected disability ≥50%, Vietnam-era service, duration of PTSD diagnosis, and a comorbid anxiety disorder. However, case-mix adjustment for these variables accounted for <1% of prescribing variation. Facility characteristics independently associated with higher use included lower PTSD visit volume, higher rates of duplicate prescribing (concurrent use of more than one drug from a class), and lower rates of trazodone prescribing. These findings were corroborated in replication analyses. CONCLUSION: The ultimate goal is to ensure consistent access to guideline-concordant PTSD treatment across the VHA. This study furthered this objective by identifying characteristics associated with benzodiazepine prescribing. Findings suggest that interventions could be designed to target individual high-volume prescribers or influence prescribing culture at the facility level.

Factors associated with antidepressant adherence for Medicaid-enrolled children and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants have been shown to be efficacious for the treatment of pediatric depression. However, many youths do not receive an adequate duration of treatment, and factors associated with nonadherence in this population remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: To examine rates of antidepressant adherence for depressed youth and identify factors associated with adherence during the acute and continuation phases of treatment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using claims data from a state Medicaid-enrolled population of 1650 youths (aged 5-17 years) with new episodes of depression between January 1, 2005, and December 30, 2007. These patients were treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or newer antidepressants and followed for 6 months from the first prescription fill date. Adherence measures were derived from the Health Plan Employer Data and Information Set (HEDIS) quality indicators on antidepressant management (3 months of continuous treatment for the acute phase and 6 months for the continuation phase) and assessed using the medication possession ratio. Multivariate logistic regression analyses evaluated the association between demographic, clinical, medication, and treatment factors, and adherence. RESULTS: About half (49.5%) of the youths were adherent to antidepressant medication during the acute phase, and 42% of these were adherent during the continuation phase; 21% were adherent across both treatment phases. Optimal follow-up visits and adequate antidepressant dosing was associated with better adherence during both treatment phases, as was use of other psychotropic medications. Youths prescribed trazodone for sleep had higher adherence rates during the acute phase. Minority youths and adolescents had lower adherence rates during the acute phase. Youths in foster care had higher adherence rates during both treatment phases. CONCLUSIONS: Nonadherence with antidepressant medications is common among Medicaid-covered children and adolescents. Study findings underscore the need for clinicians to deliver guideline-concordant care, assess adherence, and develop interventions that improve adherence, particularly for vulnerable subgroups.

Prevalence and cost of insomnia in a state Medicaid fee-for-service population based on diagnostic codes and prescription utilization.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this research were to estimate prevalence of insomnia, describe the utilization patterns of physician office services and prescription medications for insomnia, and estimate related costs in a Medicaid population. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive analysis using data from the West Virginia (WV) Medicaid fee-for-service paid claims records for the year 2003 was conducted. Recipients with a diagnosis related to insomnia or a prescription claim for an FDA-approved drug for insomnia or trazodone were selected as the study sample. Costs were from the perspective of WV Medicaid. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of insomnia was 74.3 per 1000 recipients. Adults 45-64years of age, females, and whites had the highest prevalence and office visit rates for insomnia among demographic groups. A majority of dollars spent on insomnia treatment was for prescription drugs. Zolpidem and trazodone accounted for 88% of prescription claims; however, 84% of the total dollars paid for prescriptions was for zolpidem. CONCLUSIONS: Among the WV Medicaid population, rates of insomnia and office visit use for insomnia varied by demographic groups. There was greater use of zolpidem and trazodone than benzodiazepine drugs. This study provides baseline estimates that can be used for ongoing surveillance of insomnia.

Assessment of efficacy and adverse effects of trazodone in the treatment of major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is a serious and disabling illness in the world and is common chronic and recurrent disorder. It is the fourth most important cause of worldwide loss in disability. METHODS: This was prospective and open-label study, study conducted in JPMC. Karachi, to evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects in major depressive disorder individuals. A total of 40 patients irrespective of the gender, aged 18 years up to 65 years were enrolled from OPD of Psychiatry Department. Follow-up visits were carried out fortnightly after making evaluation of symptoms at baseline visit (day 0), follow-up continued till 90 days when the results were compiled. RESULTS: Statistically significant (p < 0.05) results were observed in all the parameters at the end of study, i.e., day 90. CONCLUSION: Among all the symptoms of major depressive disorder, trazodone proved to be more effective in controlling insomnia.

Current patterns and future directions in the treatment of insomnia.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence and the high burden associated with chronic insomnia, it remains largely unrecognized and often inadequately treated by physicians. METHODS: A review was undertaken of the literature on barriers to both acute and chronic treatment of insomnia, as well as recent trials of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic agents for insomnia. RESULTS: Obstacles to appropriate treatment of the condition include outdated insomnia management guidelines, which have contributed to US Food and Drug Administration restrictions on longer-term prescription of hypnotic agents; lack of research demonstrating the benefit of treating insomnia; and fears of tolerance and withdrawal effects of long-term use of hypnotic agents, as well as an absence of longer-term, randomized, controlled, double-blind trials of existing agents used to treat insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that improved sleep may improve outcome in some medical and psychiatric illnesses. Both behavioral and pharmacologic therapies have shown efficacy in chronic insomnia. In addition, a recent 6-month, randomized, controlled study has demonstrated that at least one agent may be safe and effective in longer-term use.

SSRI treatment-associated stroke: causality assessment in two cases.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the probability of cerebrovascular adverse drug reactions (CV-ADRs) due to treatment with selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) using 2 causality methods. case summaries: Two patients with the possibility of SSRI-related stroke were referred for causality assessment. Causality assessment was performed using an adverse drug reaction probability scale, as well as clinical and radiologic parameters. A 31-year-old white man, who had been receiving paroxetine 200 mg/day over a period of 3 years, developed ischemic stroke involving left middle cerebral artery. The second patient was a 46-year-old white woman with a history of recurrent depression who developed delirium and ischemic stroke while she was taking a combination of paroxetine 50 mg/day, trazodone 200 mg/day, and bupropion 150 mg/day. DISCUSSION: Carotid and cardiothromboembolism were found to be the major etiological factors for ischemic stroke. Accounting for the temporal relation, prior reports of SSRI treatment-associated CV-ADRs, and the pharmacologic action of serotonin on coagulation and the vascular system, the possible contribution of SSRIs to stroke in these patients was considered. An objective causality assessment using the Naranjo probability scale revealed that a CV-ADR was possible. However, the nature of the stroke, plus clinical and radiologic findings, were inconsistent with known pathophysiologic mechanisms linking SSRIs and stroke in these patients. CONCLUSIONS: Causality assessment may improve unbiased recognition, management, and voluntary reporting of infrequent adverse effects such as SSRI treatment-related cerebrovascular accident.

Effect of antidepressant therapy on health care utilization and costs in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: Four groups of patients receiving different antidepressant drugs in a primary care setting were compared in terms of duration of antidepressant therapy and health and mental health care utilization and costs. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the medical and pharmacy claims of an employed population and their families was conducted. A total of 1,242 patients with a diagnosis of depression were included in the analyses. The four antidepressant cohorts were fluoxetine (N = 799), trazodone (N = 89), the tricyclics amitriptyline and imipramine (N = 104), and the secondary amine tricyclics desipramine and nortriptyline (N = 250). The primary outcome measures were total health care charges, total charges for mental health services, and the pattern of antidepressant use. Secondary measures included charges for outpatient care and pharmacy and the number of outpatient visits. Data analysis involved use of two-stage multivariate regression modeling known as sample selection models. RESULTS: Patients taking fluoxetine achieved higher rates of continuous use for at least six months compared with those taking the other drugs. After selection bias due to observed and unobserved characteristics and other confounding variables was adjusted for, no significant differences were found between drug cohorts in total medical charges. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in the process of care at no apparent increase in total charges appear possible through appropriate medication therapy.

Clinical assessment and performance tasks in depression: a comparison of amitriptyline and trazodone.

Depression, anxiety and psychomotor performance were assessed in 20 depressed patients during double-blind treatment with amitriptyline or trazodone. There was no difference in onset of antidepressant or anxiolytic action. No decrement or improvement on computerised tasks was found. Dry mouth was significantly more frequent and severe with amitriptyline.

Antidepressant properties of trazodone.

The chemistry, pharmacokinetics, biochemistry and pharmacology, clinical trials, adverse effects, FDA-approved indications, and availability and cost of trazodone hydrochloride, a triazolopyridine antidepressant, are reviewed. Trazodone is nearly completely absorbed after oral administration; although food delays absorption and reduces peak serum concentration, total area under the plasma concentration-time curve is not altered. Trazodone has biphasic elimination, with a redistribution half-life of about one hour and an elimination half-life of 10-12 hours. Trazodone is nearly completely metabolized hepatically by hydroxylation and oxidation to metabolites that are probably inactive. Trazodone is less potent but more selective than conventional tricyclic antidepressants; at low doses, trazodone acts as a serotonin antagonist, while at high doses it acts as a serotonin agonist. Trazodone has been compared with imipramine, amitriptyline, desipramine, and placebo in controlled clinical trials and found to be an effective antidepressant. Trazodone causes significantly fewer anticholinergic side effects than does imipramine. Trazodone has few cardiovascular side effects. In patients ingesting toxic amounts of trazodone, no deaths have been reported unless other drugs were present or ingested concomitantly. The usual adult daily dose of trazodone hydrochloride is 150-400 mg given in two divided doses. Trazodone is an effective antidepressant with a low incidence of serious adverse effects. It may be particularly useful in certain depressed patients who are intolerant of anticholinergic effects of other antidepressants, have cardiac conduction disturbances, or who do not respond to treatment with tricyclic antidepressants and in whom electroshock therapy is contraindicted.