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.

Cost benefit of sumatriptan to an employer.

Benefit and occupational health managers need information on whether new treatments, such as sumatriptan, for migraine headache improve organizational or individual performance. A work productivity outcomes assessment was conducted among sumatriptan-using employees of an Independent Practice Association-health maintenance organization population. Of the 164 sumatriptan users, 101 full-time employees were surveyed by telephone once in an open-label, before-after design. The results revealed that lost labor costs, a function of days missed from work and reduced productivity at work as a result of migraine, were decreased after sumatriptan treatment initiation. Incremental benefit of this reduction in lost productivity is valued at $435/month per employee. The sumatriptan cost associated with this benefit is $43.78/month. The benefit-to-cost ratio is 10:1. Other costs and benefits were excluded. In conclusion, the availability of sumatriptan for migraine headache treatments in this IPA-HMO resulted in improved work productivity and had a net benefit for the employer.

Cost-effectiveness of sumatriptan in a managed care population.

We conducted an open-labeled study to determine whether sumatriptan is more cost-effective than other therapies used to treat migraine headache. We contacted by phone 220 sumatriptan users enrolled in QualMed, a health maintenance organization (HMO) in Spokane, Washington. Of these, 203 met the inclusion criteria and 164 (81%) completed our telephone survey. The main outcome measures were healthcare costs to the HMO and number of days free of migraine-related disability before and after sumatriptan treatment. Before sumatriptan treatment, 89% of patients reported severe migraine, compared with 63% after sumatriptan treatment. The number of monthly migraine disability days decreased from 6.5 days per month before sumatriptan to 3.9 days per month after sumatriptan. Healthcare utilization rates (ie, number of hospitalizations, emergency department visits) and costs were lower after the patients began taking sumatriptan. The number of different over-the-counter medicines and prescription medications (other than sumatriptan) taken for migraine disabilities decreased. Although total drug expenditures per month increased, the total migraine healthcare expenditure was 41% lower after sumatriptan was initiated. The cost-effectiveness ratio was 47% more favorable after patients started taking sumatriptan. Overall, patients reported fewer migraine-related disabilities, had lower migraine severity scores, and used fewer healthcare resources when taking sumatriptan. These changes resulted in a better cost-effectiveness ratio for migraine treatment.

Antidepressant pharmacotherapy: economic evaluation of fluoxetine, paroxetine and sertraline in a health maintenance organization.

The present study was designed to compare direct health service expenditures, for the treatment of depression, among patients enrolled in a health maintenance organization, and prescribed one of three selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, fluoxetine, paroxetine or sertraline. Information regarding depression-related health service use was derived from the computer archive of a network-model health maintenance organization system serving 700,000 beneficiaries. A total of 744 health maintenance organization beneficiaries were found to satisfy the study selection criteria. Multivariate regression analysis was used to determine the incremental influence of selected demographic, clinical, financial and provider characteristics on health service expenditures related to the treatment of depression (ICD-9-CM, or DSM-IV code 296.2) 1 year after the start of antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Multivariate findings indicate that treatment with paroxetine increases average expenditures for physician visits ($31.93; P < or = 0.05), psychiatric visits ($19.33; NS), laboratory tests ($2.35; P < or = 0.05), hospitalizations ($85.33; P < or = 0.05), psychiatric hospitalizations ($82.01; P < or = 0.05), and antidepressant pharmacotherapy ($63.72; P < or = 0.05), for a total per capita increase in health service use of $284.68 (P < or = 0.05), compared with treatment with fluoxetine. Sertraline treatment increases average expenditures for physician visits ($21.74; P < or = 0.05), psychiatric visits ($56.79; P < or = 0.05), laboratory tests ($1.21; P < or = 0.05), hospitalizations ($70.59; P < or = 0.05), psychiatric hospitalizations ($95.75; P < or = 0.05), and antidepressant pharmacotherapy ($69.85; P < or = 0.05), for a total per capita increase in health service use of $315.96 (P < or = 0.05), compared with treatment with fluoxetine. Economic comparisons between paroxetine and sertraline did not demonstrate any significant differences in expenditures for the health services examined.

Antidepressant pharmacotherapy: economic outcomes in a health maintenance organization.

Recent pharmacotherapeutic advances in the treatment of depression have included the development of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs). The present study was designed to contrast direct health service expenditures for the treatment of depression among patients enrolled in a health maintenance organization (HMO) and prescribed either the SSRI fluoxetine or one of three tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) (amitriptyline, nortriptyline, or desipramine). Information regarding health service utilization was derived from the computer archive of a network-model HMO system serving 400,000 beneficiaries. A total of 701 HMO beneficiaries were found to satisfy the study selection criteria. Multivariate regression analysis was used to discern the incremental influence of selected demographic, clinical, financial, and provider characteristics on 1 year post-period expenditures (PPE) for health care. Analysis-of-variance procedures with Duncan's multiple-range test, or chi-square analyses, revealed no significant difference across antidepressant pharmacotherapy for age, sex, 6-month prior-period expenditures for physician visits, psychiatric visits, laboratory tests, hospitalizations, or psychiatric hospital services related to the treatment of depression, or number of prescribed therapeutic agents for disease state processes other than depression. Receipt of fluoxetine was associated with a significantly (P < or = 0.05) higher rate of initial prescribing by psychiatrists, an increase in the number of prescriptions for antidepressant pharmacotherapy obtained (30-day supplies), and a reduction in the number of monthly intervals during which time antidepressant pharmacotherapy was not procured. Receipt of fluoxetine as antidepressant pharmacotherapy was associated with a significantly (P < or = 0.05) higher mean medication possession ratio (MPR) relative to amitriptyline, nortriptyline, or desipramine. Multivariate findings for patient-level data reflecting a definitive diagnosis of depression (n = 555) indicate that receipt of a TCA resulted in a significant (P < or = 0.05) increase in the use of physician visits ($36.07), psychiatric visits ($41.38), laboratory tests ($1.71), hospitalizations ($208.77), and psychiatric hospital services ($187.27), and a significant (P < or = 0.05) reduction in expenditures for antidepressant pharmacotherapy (-$162.21), for a total increase in health service utilization of $312.99 (P < or = 0.05) 1 year post-initiation of antidepressant pharmacotherapy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)