Value-based Pricing for Rifaximin Increases Access of Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Diarrhea to Therapy.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Increasing drug prices lead to payer coverage restrictions, which limit access to therapy. We assessed the cost effectiveness of rifaximin in management of patients with irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) under common payer coverage restrictions and determined the maximum price at which rifaximin would be cost effective using contemporary cost-effectiveness thresholds. METHODS: A decision analytic model was constructed to evaluate quality of life, cost, and cost effectiveness of rifaximin for patients with IBS-D and complete noncoverage (insurer pays none of the drug cost), unrestricted access (insurer pays 100% of the drug cost), and formulary-restricted access (insurer pays 100% of the drug cost after for patients failed by initial therapy). The maximum cost-effective drug price was determined for each level of drug coverage using threshold analysis adjusted for willingness to pay thresholds from $50,000 to $150,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Analysis was performed from a payer perspective with a 1-year time horizon. RESULTS: Unrestricted and formulary-restricted access were more effective than complete non-coverage, resulting in additional 0.03 and 0.05 QALYs gained over noncoverage. However, unrestricted and formulary-restricted coverage were more expensive. At current drug prices, unrestricted or formulary-restricted coverage would cost an additional $1,207,136 or $171,850/QALY gained, compared to complete non-coverage. A 12% to 62% price reduction ($18.46 to $26.34/pill) for formulary-restricted access and 84% to 88% price reduction ($3.53 to $4.71/pill) for unrestricted access would be needed for rifaximin to be a cost-effective treatment strategy. Rifaximin retreatment intervals, response rates, and adverse events were important factors in sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: Using a decision analytic model, we show that payer coverage for rifaximin for patients with IBS-D exceeds generally accepted cost-effectiveness thresholds at current drug prices. Improved payer coverage could be justified using value-based pricing methods.

Cost effectiveness of venlafaxine compared with generic fluoxetine or generic amitriptyline in major depressive disorder in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of venlafaxine compared with generic fluoxetine and generic amitriptyline used in major depressive disorder in primary care in the UK. METHODS: A decision-tree model for the treatment of major depressive disorder was constructed using a Delphi panel. The tree was populated with clinical success rates from a pooled analysis of fluoxetine compared with venlafaxine and a clinical trial of amitriptyline compared with venlafaxine using remission as the key endpoint. Where there was insufficient data from clinical trials, the Delphi panel was used. Costs within the tree were taken from contemporary UK sources. Six-monthly costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were then estimated. RESULTS: Treatment costs for 6 months were pound1530 for venlafaxine, pound1539 for fluoxetine and pound1558 for amitriptyline (year of costing 2006). Cost effectiveness as assessed by incremental cost per QALY ratio at 8 weeks was pound20 600 for venlafaxine compared with fluoxetine, with fluoxetine dominating (being less costly and more effective than) amitriptyline. To test the robustness of the model a Rank Order Stability Assessment was performed that showed that even if fluoxetine and/or amitriptyline were given away free, a scenario starting with venlafaxine would still be the least costly treatment over a 6-month period. CONCLUSION: In this model, venlafaxine was shown to be a cost-effective alternative to generic fluoxetine and amitriptyline when used as a first-line therapy. Thus, cost of therapy should not be a barrier to use of venlafaxine as a first-line option in treating major depressive disorder in primary care in the UK.

Effects of antidepressant treatments on health service utilization and medical costs among patients with depression: a nationwide population-based retrospective cohort study in Taiwan.

This study aimed to assess the associations between the use of different types of antidepressants and health service utilization and costs among depressed patients. Data used in this study were retrieved from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. We identified 447 411 new antidepressant users during the study period (2011-2015) and they were individually followed for a 1-year period. Two-part generalized estimating equation models were conducted. Results demonstrated that there was a substantial decrease in outpatient service utilized by patients undertaking serotonin antagonists and reuptake inhibitors (ß = -0.2074), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (ß = -0.0452), tricyclic antidepressants (ß = -0.1308), or other antidepressants (ß = -0.0637), compared with their counterparts in the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors group (all P < 0.05). Compared with patients who were treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, those who were prescribed serotonin antagonists and reuptake inhibitors (ß = -0.4934, P < 0.05) or tricyclic antidepressants (ß = -0.4194, P < 0.05) had incurred lower costs pertaining to outpatient service, while considerably higher costs were borne by those patients embarked on the treatment of serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (ß = 0.3228, P < 0.05) or other antidepressants (ß = 0.1118, P < 0.05). We concluded that the initiation of various classes of antidepressants led to significant variations in health service utilization and costs among depressed patients.

A cost-utility comparison of four first-line medications in painful diabetic neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: Painful diabetic neuropathy is common and adversely affects patients' quality of life and function. Several treatment options exist, but their relative efficacy and value are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative efficacy, costs and cost effectiveness of the first-line treatment options for painful diabetic neuropathy. METHODS: Published and unpublished clinical trial and cross-sectional data were incorporated into a decision analytic model to estimate the net health and cost consequences of treatment for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy over 3-month (base case), 1-month and 6-month timeframes. Efficacy was measured in QALYs, and costs were measured in $US, year 2006 values, using a US third-party payer perspective. The patients included in the model were outpatients with moderate to severe pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy and no contraindications to treatment with tricyclic antidepressants. Four medications were compared: desipramine 100 mg/day, gabapentin 2400 mg/day, pregabalin 300 mg/day and duloxetine 60 mg/day. RESULTS: Desipramine and duloxetine were both more effective and less expensive than gabapentin and pregabalin in the base-case analysis and through a wide range of sensitivity analyses. Duloxetine offered borderline value compared with desipramine in the base case ($US47,700 per QALY), but not when incorporating baseline-observation-carried-forward analyses of the clinical trial data ($US867,000 per QALY). The results were also sensitive to the probability of obtaining pain relief with duloxetine. CONCLUSIONS: Desipramine (100 mg/day) and duloxetine (60 mg/day) appear to be more cost effective than gabapentin or pregabalin for treating painful diabetic neuropathy. The estimated value of duloxetine relative to desipramine depends on the assumptions made in the statistical analyses of clinical trial data.

A cost-effectiveness comparison of desipramine, gabapentin, and pregabalin for treating postherpetic neuralgia.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the net health effects and costs resulting from treatment with different first-line postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) medications. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis using published literature. PARTICIPANTS: Hypothetical cohort of patients aged 60 to 80 with PHN. INTERVENTIONS: Desipramine 100 mg/d, gabapentin 1,800 mg/d, and pregabalin 450 mg/d. MEASUREMENTS: A decision model was designed to describe possible treatment outcomes, including different combinations of analgesia and side effects, during the first 3 months of therapy for moderate to severe PHN. The main outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Costs were estimated using the perspective of a third-party payer. Multivariate, univariate, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed, and the time frame of the model was varied to 1-month and 6-month horizons. RESULTS: Desipramine was more effective and less expensive than gabapentin or pregabalin (dominant) under all conditions tested. Gabapentin was more effective than pregabalin but at an incremental cost of $216,000/QALY. Below $140/month, gabapentin became more cost-effective than pregabalin at a threshold of $50,000/QALY, and below $115/month gabapentin dominated pregabalin. CONCLUSION: Desipramine appears to be more effective and less expensive than gabapentin or pregabalin for the treatment of older patients with PHN in whom it is not contraindicated. After its price falls, generic gabapentin will likely be more cost-effective than pregabalin.

Analysis of antidepressant prescribing tendencies in Lithuania in 2003-2004.

Depression is one of the leading causes of disability worldwide, affecting 121 million people in whole world. In many developed countries, the number of prescriptions for antidepressants increased steeply during the 1990s. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the antidepressant prescribing patterns in all regions of Lithuania during 2003-2004, to analyze the use within different antidepressant groups, and to examine trends in age- and gender-specific antidepressant use. Antidepressants were classified into three groups according to Anatomic Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) Classification specifying the defined daily doses. The results of our study show an increase in the use of reimbursed antidepressants except tricyclic in 2004 when compared to 2003. Increase in the use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and other nontricyclic antidepressants is probably related to their better tolerability, improved risk-benefit ratio, and less toxicity in overdose. There was no increase in the percentage of consumed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in elderly patients when compared with younger ones, despite elderly patients are most likely to benefit from reduced sedation, less antimuscarinic and less cardiac toxicity of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. The prevalence of the antidepressant use is the highest among middle-aged people (40-59 years), while the young (under 20) and elderly (older than 70) patients receive mostly selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Additional studies should be carried out in order to assess drug-prescribing patterns in accordance with the guidelines of depression treatment in Lithuania considering diagnosis, dosage, and duration of treatment.

Treatment patterns of postherpetic neuralgia patients before and after the launch of pregabalin and its effect on medical costs: Analysis of Japanese claims data provided by Japan Medical Data Center.

Except for neurotrophin, no drug had an indication for postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) in Japan prior to pregabalin approval. This approval might have changed PHN treatment patterns. This study aimed to compare PHN treatment patterns and medical costs between patients who started treatment before and after pregabalin approval. Japanese claims data were used to identify patients aged 18 years or more with PHN, postherpetic trigeminal neuralgia or postherpetic polyneuropathy who were initiated on their first PHN-associated prescription through May 2010 (before approval) or from June 2010 (after approval). From these claims, 6-month treatment patterns from first prescription were compared for the periods before and after approval. These patterns included pain-related medications and the frequency of pain-relief procedures. All-cause and pain-related medical costs were also compared for these periods. The number of PHN patients who were initiated on treatment before and after approval were 107 (mean age, 47.4 ± 13.0 years) and 505 (45.9 ± 13.0), respectively. Post-approval, significant reductions were observed for prescription of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, tricyclic antidepressants and neurotrophin relative to before approval. Excluding pregabalin acquisition costs, mean costs per patient for medications associated with PHN for 6 months from the first prescription were significantly lower after approval, ¥2882 vs ¥4185. Total medical costs were similar in both periods. Approval of pregabalin appeared to result in a treatment paradigm toward use of an approved therapy with demonstrated efficacy.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antidepressant treatment in primary health care: a six-month randomised study comparing fluoxetine to imipramine.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, studies of the effectiveness of pharmacological treatment for depression have often been based on research designs intended to measure efficacy, and for this reason the results are of limited generalizability. Research is needed comparing the clinical and economic outcomes of antidepressants in day-to-day clinical practice. METHODS: A six-month randomised prospective naturalistic study comparing fluoxetine to imipramine carried out in three primary care health centres. Outcome measures were the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), direct costs, indirect costs and total costs. Subjects were evaluated at the beginning of treatment and at one, three and six months thereafter. RESULTS: Of the 103 patients, 38.8% (n = 40) were diagnosed with major depressive disorder, 14.6% (n = 15) with dysthymic disorder, and 46.6% (n = 48) with depressive disorder not otherwise specified. Patients with major depressive disorder or dysthymic disorder achieved similar clinical improvement in both treatment groups (mean MADRS ratings decrease in major depressive disorder from baseline to 6 months of 18.3 for imipramine and 18.8 for fluoxetine). For patients with major depressive disorder and dysthymic disorder, the imipramine group had fewer treatment-associated costs (imipramine 469.66 Euro versus fluoxetine 1,585.93 Euro in major depressive disorder, p < 0.05; imipramine 175.39 Euro versus fluoxetine 2,929.36 Euro in dysthymic disorder, p < 0.05). The group with depressive disorder not otherwise specified did not experience statistically significant differences in clinical and costs outcomes between treatment groups. LIMITATIONS: Exclusion criteria, participating physicians may not represent GPs. CONCLUSIONS: In a primary care context, imipramine may represent a more cost-effective treatment option than fluoxetine for treating major depressive disorder or dysthymic disorder. There were no differences in cost-effectiveness in the treatment of depressive disorder not otherwise specified.

Trends in the consumption of antidepressant drugs in Lithuania in 2002-2004.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate trends in the use of antidepressant drugs in Lithuania between 2002 and 2004 and to perform cost-minimization and reference price analysis enabling more rational use of financial resources of national health system. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The data on sales of antidepressant drugs in Lithuanian over a 3-year period (2002-2004) were obtained from IMS Health Inc. database. Data were calculated by defined daily dose (DDD) methodology and expressed in DDDs per 1000 inhabitants per day. DU90% was used as the quality indicator of the drug prescribing. The pharmacoeconomic analysis of antidepressant drugs was performed by cost-minimization and reference price methodology. RESULTS: The consumption of antidepressants in Lithuanian increased by 30.55% over a 3-year period (2002-2004) reaching the value of 10.00 DDDs/1000 inhabitants/day. Since 2002, the proportion of use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors has increased by 27.82%, and the use of tricyclic antidepressants has declined by 10.78%, while the use of other (newer) antidepressant drugs expanded almost three times. The expenditures of antidepressant drugs have reached 26 million Lt in 2004, of which 68.15% were costs for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. Choosing the second lowest price in different antidepressant drug class, it is estimated the possible savings of 4.34 million Lt lowering the total expenses by 16.5% (1 euro=3.4528 Lt). CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that the use of total antidepressant drugs continues to increase because of the increased use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and other (newer) antidepressant drugs. In comparison with the data in other countries, the consumption of antidepressant drugs in Lithuania is low.

A randomised controlled trial to compare the cost-effectiveness of tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and lofepramine.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative cost-effectiveness of three classes of antidepressants: tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), and the modified TCA lofepramine, as first choice treatments for depression in primary care. DESIGN: Open, pragmatic, controlled trial with three randomised arms and one preference arm. Patients were followed up for 12 months. SETTING: UK primary care: 73 practices in urban and rural areas in England. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a new episode of depressive illness according to GP diagnosis. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to receive a TCA (amitriptyline, dothiepin or imipramine), an SSRI (fluoxetine, sertraline or paroxetine) or lofepramine. Patients or GPs were able to choose an alternative treatment if preferred. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: At baseline the Clinical Interview Schedule, Revised (CIS-R PROQSY computerised version) was administered to establish symptom profiles. Outcome measures over the 12-month follow-up included the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale self-rating of depression (HAD-D), CIS-R, EuroQol (EQ-5D) for quality of life, Short Form (SF-36) for generic health status, and patient and practice records of use of health and social services. The primary effectiveness outcome was the number of depression-free weeks (HAD-D less than 8, with interpolation of intervening values) and the primary cost outcome total direct NHS costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were used as the outcome measure in a secondary analysis. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were computed. Estimates were bootstrapped with 5000 replications. RESULTS: In total, 327 patients were randomised. Follow-up rates were 68% at 3 months and 52% at 1 year. Linear regression analysis revealed no significant differences between groups in number of depression-free weeks when adjusted for baseline HAD-D. A higher proportion of patients randomised to TCAs entered the preference arm than those allocated to the other choices. Switching to another class of antidepressant in the first few weeks of treatment occurred significantly more often in the lofepramine arm and less in the preference arm. There were no significant differences between arms in mean cost per depression-free week. For values placed on an additional QALY of over 5000 pounds, treatment with SSRIs was likely to be the most cost-effective strategy. TCAs were the least likely to be cost-effective as first choice of antidepressant for most values of a depression-free week or QALY respectively, but these differences were relatively modest. CONCLUSIONS: When comparing the different treatment options, no significant differences were found in outcomes or costs within the sample, but when outcomes and costs were analysed together, the resulting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves suggested that SSRIs were likely to be the most cost-effective option, although the probability of this did not rise above 0.6. Choosing lofepramine is likely to lead to a greater proportion of patients switching treatment in the first few weeks. Further research is still needed on the management of depressive illness in primary care. This should address areas such as the optimum severity threshold at which medication should be used; the feasibility and effectiveness of adopting structured depression management programmes in the UK context; the importance of factors such as physical co-morbidity and recent life events in GPs' prescribing decisions; alternative ways of collecting data; and the factors that give rise to many patients being reluctant to accept medication and discontinue treatment early.

Does the use of SSRIs reduce medical care utilization and expenditures?

BACKGROUND: Although selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are more expensive than tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), SSRIs may reduce overall health costs compared with TCAs through improved compliance and reduced need for other medical care services. Economic evaluation studies using clinical trial or claims data have not accurately estimated the actual costs associated with antidepressants because they did not appropriately address two issues: the heterogeneity of SSRI and TCA users and the use of antidepressants for non-indicated symptoms. AIMS OF THE STUDY: This study estimates the relative substitution effect of SSRIs on the overall utilization of outpatient and inpatient care and other prescription drugs compared to TCAs. This study identifies and controls for heterogeneities in diagnosis among SSRI and TCA users and looks for variations in substitution effects across utilization. METHODS: To estimate the direct effect of SSRIs compared with TCAs on the utilization of other medical care resources in a naturalistic setting, this study uses the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, national panel survey data, from 1996 to 1998. The main model of analysis is a two-part regression: the first part is a probit model of any use and the second part is a log linear model of expenditures among users. Baseline physical health status, depression severity, and socioeconomic factors that could affect antidepressant choice and medical care utilization are controlled for. RESULTS: A considerable fraction of antidepressant use, especially among TCA users, is for reasons other than depression. After controlling for the heterogeneity in SSRI and TCA users, this study does not find consistent evidence of the substitution of SSRIs for other medical care. Although SSRIs, compared with TCAs, reduce overall outpatient visits and other prescription drugs, they increase the utilization of these services for depression. Antidepressant choice does not influence the utilization or expenditure level for inpatient services which composed the largest part of medical expenditure in this study sample. Results are robust when the analysis is restricted to the SSRI or TCA users with a depression diagnosis. DISCUSSION: The potential cost-incremental effect of SSRIs over TCAs for the treatment of depression can be compromised by the reduced utilization for symptoms other than depression among SSRI users. This study uses national survey data and takes into account the heterogeneity of SSRI and TCA users so the results can be generalized to real clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION: The costs associated with antidepressants are not only for the treatment of depression symptoms. Antidepressants are commonly prescribed for conditions for which the clinical and economic benefits are not established. This practice may lead to significant unnecessary healthcare expenses. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Antidepressant prescriptions for non-indicated conditions should be considered in setting policies designed to control costs associated with antidepressants and in developing clinical guidelines for antidepressant prescription. IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH: Future research on the economic evaluation of antidepressants should consider the use of antidepressants for health conditions other than depression. The economic incentives for and clinical benefits of the prescription of antidepressants for non-indicated conditions could be explored in future research.

Pharmacological treatment of depression with and without headache disorders: an appraisal of cost effectiveness and cost utility of antidepressants.

BACKGROUND: Depression and headache are highly prevalent in clinical settings. The co-occurrence of headache may impact choice of antidepressants, healthcare utilisation, and outcomes in patients with depression. The current study aims to examine the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of different antidepressants for treating patients with depression and comorbid headache disorders. METHODS: Adult patients prescribed with antidepressants for depression (n=96,501) were identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database in Taiwan. A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis was conducted comparing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), and by the presence of comorbid headache disorders and other pain conditions. RESULTS: In this study, SSRIs dominated SNRIs in both cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. As revealed in the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, TCAs were likely to have a cost-utility advantage compared to SSRIs and SNRIs in improving quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for patients with comorbid headache; SSRIs remained as the most cost-effective option for patients with other pain conditions. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the use of proxy definition of remission as effectiveness measure and the adoption of utility values from previous studies. CONCLUSIONS: Given a pre-determined willingness-to-pay level, TCAs can be considered as a cost-effective option to improve QALYs for depressed patients with headache disorders. Future research is needed to further clarify factors influencing the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of pharmacological treatments in depressed patients with specific pain conditions.

Use of antidepressants among elderly subjects: trends and contributing factors.

OBJECTIVE: The authors assessed changes over time in antidepressant utilization among elderly subjects regarding the prevalence of antidepressant users, shifts in prescription patterns, and related financial implications. METHOD: The authors conducted a population-based study of more than 1.4 million Ontario residents aged 65 years or older. Cross-sectional data regarding annual antidepressant utilization were obtained from administrative databases for 1993 to 1997. Time series analysis was used to assess trends over time and to make future projections. RESULTS: The proportion of antidepressant users increased from 9.3% of the elderly population in 1993 to 11.5% in 1997. Prescriptions for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) accounted for 9.6% of antidepressant prescriptions dispensed in the first 30 days of 1993 and 45.1% of those dispensed by the last 30 days of 1997 and were projected to increase to approximately 56% by the end of 2000. Prescriptions for tricyclic antidepressants fell from 79.0% in the first 30 days of 1993 to 43.1% by the last 30 days of 1997 and were projected to decline to approximately 28% by the end of 2000. Annual antidepressant costs (in Canadian dollars) increased by 150%, from $10.8 million in 1993 to $27.0 million in 1997. Population shifts and an increase in the prevalence of antidepressant users accounted for at least 20% of this increase, whereas the prescribing transition from tricyclic antidepressants to SSRIs accounted for at least 61% of the increase. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of SSRIs has had a substantial financial impact at the drug utilization level. Future research should address the appropriate balancing of the cost of newer agents versus their ostensible advantages.

Cost-effectiveness of newer antidepressants compared with tricyclic antidepressants in managed care settings.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to determine the cost-effectiveness of newer antidepressants compared with tricyclic antidepressants in managed care organization settings. METHOD: We employed cost-utility analysis based on a clinical decision analysis model derived from published medical literature and physician judgment. The model, which represents ideal primary care practice, compares treatment with nefazodone to treatment with either imipramine or fluoxetine or to a step approach involving initial treatment with imipramine followed by nefazodone for treatment failures. The outcome measures were lifetime medical costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs per QALY gained. RESULTS: The base case analysis found that nefazodone treatment had $16,669 in medical costs, compared with $15,348 for imipramine, $16,061 for the imipramine step approach, and $16,998 for fluoxetine. QALYs were greatest for nefazodone (14.64), compared with 14.32 for imipramine, 14.40 for the step approach, and 14.58 for fluoxetine. The cost-effectiveness ratio comparing nefazodone with imipramine was $4065 per QALY gained. The cost-effectiveness ratio comparing nefazodone with the step approach was $2555 per QALY gained. There were only minor differences in costs and outcomes between nefazodone and fluoxetine, with nefazodone resulting in $329 fewer costs and 0.06 more QALYs. The cost-effectiveness ratios comparing fluoxetine with imipramine and with the step approach were $6346 per QALY gained and $5206 per QALY gained, respectively. In the sensitivity analyses, the cost-effectiveness ratios comparing nefazodone and imipramine ranged from $2572 to $5841 per QALY gained. The model was most sensitive to assumptions about treatment compliance rates. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that nefazodone is a cost- effective treatment compared with imipramine or fluoxetine treatment for major depression. Fluoxetine is cost-effective compared with imipramine treatment, but is estimated to have slightly more medical costs and less effectiveness compared with nefazodone. The basic findings and conclusions do not change even after modifying key model parameters.

Economic outcomes with antidepressant pharmacotherapy: a retrospective intent-to-treat analysis.

Herein we describe a retrospective intent-to-treat evaluation designed to compare the natural course of antidepressant utilization and direct health service expenditures for the treatment of a single episode of major depression among patients enrolled in a multistate network-model health maintenance organization and initially prescribed either a tricyclic antidepressant (amitriptyline or nortriptyline) or the serotonin selective reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) fluoxetine. Patient-level paid-claims data for the period July 1, 1988, through December 31, 1991, were abstracted. During the above time frame, fluoxetine was the only SSRI available in the United States. Patients prescribed amitriptyline were more than three times as likely to require a change in antidepressant pharmacotherapy (OR = 3.27, 95% CI = 2.31 to 5.49), while patients prescribed nortriptyline were nearly four times more likely to change medication (OR = 3.82, 95% CI = 2.74 to 6.83) relative to patients initially prescribed fluoxetine. Consistent with our intent-to-treat design, all accrued health service expenditures were assigned to the pharmacotherapeutic option initially prescribed. Multivariate analyses revealed that initiation of antidepressant pharmacotherapy with amitriptyline resulted in a 25.7% increase in per capita depression-related health service expenditures per year, while initiation of antidepressant pharmacotherapy with nortriptyline resulted in a 28.1% increase in per capita depression-related health service expenditures per year relative to patients initially prescribed fluoxetine. A financial break-even point was achieved at the conclusion of Month 5, at which time all three intent-to-treat cohorts had comparable health service expenditures in total. From a financial perspective, results stemming from this inquiry suggest that the initiation of antidepressant pharmacotherapy with an SSRI is warranted.

A record-based analysis of 803 patients treated for depression in psychiatric care.

BACKGROUND: New antidepressants emerged and became widely used during the 1990s. The present study investigated quality-of-care problems in the treatment of depression in a current psychiatric setting. METHOD: We investigated the treatment received for depression by all 803 inpatients or outpatients with a clinical diagnosis of ICD-10 depressive episode or recurrent depressive disorder in 1996 in the Peijas Medical Care District, which provides psychiatric services for citizens of Vantaa, a city in southern Finland. RESULTS: Most patients (84%) in the sample were found to have received antidepressants, generally in adequate, albeit low, doses. Inadequate antidepressant treatment was common only with tricyclic antidepressants. Most patients received a single antidepressant for extended periods; only 22% had 2 or more antidepressant trials. During the treatment period, disability pension was granted to 19% of those not already pensioned, two thirds (67%) of whom had received only 1 antidepressant trial prior to being granted a pension. CONCLUSION: The present study supports the emerging perception of improved quality of pharmacotherapy in psychiatric settings, with the exception of treatment with tricyclic antidepressants. Problems of quality of care now appear to be related to the suboptimal intensity and monitoring of the treatment provided. which may eventually result in considerable costs to society due to permanent disability.

One-year costs of second-line therapies for depression.

BACKGROUND: We compared patterns of medical resource utilization and costs among patients receiving a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (venlafaxine), one of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), one of the tricyclic agents (TCAs), or 1 of 3 other second-line therapies for depression. METHOD: Using claims data from a national managed care organization, we identified patients diagnosed with depression (ICD-9-CM criteria) who received second-line antidepressant therapy between 1993 and 1997. Second-line therapy was defined as a switch from the first class of antidepressant therapy observed in the data set within 1 year of a diagnosis of depression to a different class of antidepressant therapy. Patients with psychiatric comorbidities were excluded. RESULTS: Of 981 patients included in the study, 21% (N = 208) received venlafaxine, 34% (N = 332) received an SSRI, 19% (N = 191) received a TCA, and 25% (N = 250) received other second-line antidepressant therapy. Mean age was 43 years, and 72% of patients were women. Age, prescriber of second-line therapy, and prior 6-month expenditures all differed significantly among the 4 therapy groups. Total, depression-coded, and non-depression-coded 1-year expenditures were, respectively, $6945, $2064, and $4881 for venlafaxine; $7237, $1682, and $5555 for SSRIs; $7925, $1335, and $6590 for TCAs; and $7371, $2222, and $5149 for other antidepressants. In bivariate analyses, compared with TCA-treated patients, venlafaxine- and SSRI-treated patients had significantly higher depression-coded but significantly lower non-depression-coded expenditures. Venlafaxine was associated with significantly higher depression-coded expenditures than SSRIs. However, after adjustment for potential confounding covariables in multivariate analyses, only the difference in depression-coded expenditures between SSRI and TCA therapy remained significant. CONCLUSION: After adjustment for confounding patient characteristics, 1-year medical expenditures were generally similar among patients receiving venlafaxine, SSRIs, TCAs, and other second-line therapies for depression. Observed differences in patient characteristics and unadjusted expenditures raise questions as to how different types of patients are selected to receive alternative second-line therapies for depression.

Choosing an antidepressant: effectiveness based pharmacoeconomics.

BACKGROUND: SSRIs have been one of the major innovations in psychopharmacology in recent years. The debate over the competing claims of SSRIs and the older, cheaper TCAs has implications for clinical practice and prescribing expenditure. Several reviewers have focused on acquisition costs and stressed the higher costs associated with using SSRIs. METHODS: Recently there have been several applications of economics to the issue of whether to use SSRIs or TCAs as first-line antidepressants. Most have argued that there is an economic case for using SSRIs. Several previous papers have used modelling techniques and decision analysis to generate economic evaluations from clinical trials. This paper examines some recent studies based on retrospective evaluations of real patients and real practices. Their methods and results are summarised and discussed. RESULTS: They all suggest that in practice, where concerns are with effectiveness rather than efficacy, there are advantages to be gained from using SSRIs. CONCLUSIONS: There are important questions about how to perform such economic evaluations. Clinical practice has long viewed the RCT as a 'gold standard' for evaluation. Some SSRI/TCA comparisons, incorporating economic studies, are under way and will be reported on eventually. When they appear, these studies should be examined carefully for their implications for antidepressant prescribing.

Deliberate self poisoning with antidepressant drugs: a comparison of the relative hospital costs of cases of overdose of tricyclics with those of selective-serotonin re-uptake inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Debate continues over the relative merits of tricyclics and selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as first line antidepressant treatment for depression. SSRIs are safer in overdose but more expensive than tricyclics. This report compared the hospital costs of cases of overdose with both groups of drug. METHODS: Records of all persons aged over thirteen years presenting to a general hospital in one year were analysed for demographic information and details of their attendance. RESULTS: There were 1165 episodes of self-poisoning, 151 involving tricyclics as the sole antidepressant and 69 SSRIs as the sole antidepressant. Those taking SSRIs had a shorter (1.96 vs. 2.59 days) and less expensive ( pound330 vs. pound567) stay. A large proportion of this difference in cost was due to a small number of admissions to the Intensive Care Unit. LIMITATIONS: This study used only hospital costs, so excluding costs associated with primary care. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: If there were similar cost differences countrywide, the difference in hospital costs of self poisoning with SSRIs and tricyclics would represent an additional pound3.87 million per year due to self poisoning with tricyclics across the whole of England and Wales. This is a small proportion of the estimated pound100 million cost of switching to first-line prescribing of SSRIs for depression.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have broadened the utilisation of antidepressant treatment in accordance with recommendations. Findings from a Swedish prescription database.

BACKGROUND: With the advent of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the use of antidepressants has increased drastically in Sweden. The use of tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) has, however, decreased. METHODS: We surveyed a prescription database in the Swedish county of Jämtland and compared prescription patterns for patients prescribed SSRIs with those prescribed TCAs. RESULTS: The incidence of treatments of antidepressants increased from 0.76% to 1.33% during the period 1991-1996. There were no significant differences between SSRIs and TCAs with regard to patients having only one prescription dispensed within three months from the index prescription, or patients who switched class of antidepressant. Only a minority of the treatments were continued for at least six months, but significantly more SSRI than TCA treatments (42% and 27%). A second treatment period suggesting recurrence was three-times more common in the TCA group than in the SSRI group. CONCLUSION: Provided that the increased use of SSRIs is mainly for depression, these drugs appear, despite a lower efficacy in severe depression, to have enabled a broader utilisation of antidepressants with regard to incidence, dosage and duration, in accordance with recommendations. Further analyses of this phenomenon relative to diagnostic criteria and outcome measures are required.