Tricyclic antidepressant and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors antidepressant selection and health care costs in the naturalistic setting: a multivariate analysis.

BACKGROUND: Providers and payers have an interest in the total health care costs following the initiation of antidepressant treatment in the real world of clinical practice. Analyses of these costs can help evaluate the economic consequences of patient management decisions associated with initial antidepressant selection. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the 1-year total direct health care costs for patients initiating therapy with one of the available tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) or one of the three most often prescribed selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) - paroxetine, sertraline, or fluoxetine. METHOD: A two-stage multivariate econometric model and data from fee-for-service private insurance claims between 1990 and 1994 were used to estimate the total direct health care costs following initial antidepressant drug selection for 2693 patients with a 'new' episode of antidepressant treatment. After controlling for both observed and unobserved characteristics, the 1-year total direct health care costs were found to be (1) statistically significantly lower for patients initiating therapy on fluoxetine than for patients initiating therapy on a TCA; (2) statistically significantly lower for patients who initiated therapy on fluoxetine than for patients initiating therapy on sertraline. CONCLUSIONS: Broadly considered, the findings in this study suggest that total direct health care costs differ across initial antidepressant selection after controlling for both observed and unobserved characteristics.

Clinical and economic comparison of sertraline and fluoxetine in the treatment of depression. A 6-month double-blind study in a primary-care setting in France.

In a double-blind study in a primary-care setting in France, outpatients fulfilling DSM IV criteria for a major depressive episode were randomised to receive sertraline (50 to 150 mg/day; n = 122) or fluoxetine (20 to 60 mg/day; n = 120). Assessments, including clinical evaluation [Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions (CGI)] and quality of life [Functional Status Questionnaire (FSQ)], were made at study entry and after 4 and 6 months of treatment. Use of medical services, absences from work and productivity losses were recorded for calculation of direct and indirect costs from both the overall societal perspective and in terms of sickness insurance. In total, 231 patients (116 receiving sertraline, 115 receiving fluoxetine) were included in an intention-to-treat analysis assessed up to the last visit. Statistically significant clinical and quality-of-life improvements from baseline were observed in both treatment groups, with no between-group differences. Utilisation of medical resources was higher in fluoxetine-treated patients, with significantly more consultations with specialists. The 2 treatment groups were similar in terms of number of hospitalisations and duration of stay, whether related to depression or not. There were no significant differences between groups for work or productivity losses. Cost comparisons favoured sertraline treatment from both the societal (FF7780 vs FF8706) and sickness insurance (FF2936 vs FF3224) viewpoints, with cost differentials of FF926 and FF288, respectively. From the societal perspective, the total cost per patient over the 6-month course of the trial, irrespective of the study treatment given, was FF8241, and the corresponding sickness insurance cost was FF3079. At the time of the study, FF1 = $US0.1993.

Sertraline. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in depression.

Depression is a common condition that is often unrecognised, misdiagnosed and/or undertreated. It is associated with substantial direct, indirect and intangible costs. The indirect costs of lost earnings/productivity and premature death account for the majority of these costs; drug costs account for only about 1 to 2% of total costs and about 10 to 12% of direct costs. Thus, better recognition and appropriate treatment of depression would increase the direct costs associated with this illness, but would also have the potential to greatly reduce indirect costs and consequently the overall cost of depression. Because of their higher acquisition costs relative to tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), there has been much debate about whether the use of sertraline or other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for first-line treatment of depression can be justified. While these agents have similar efficacy to TCAs, they are better tolerated and have a lower risk of death on overdosage. Despite the large economic burden of depression on society, pharmacoeconomic data on sertraline and antidepressant drugs in general are scarce. Most of the available studies on sertraline are limited to considerations of direct costs and do not assess costs from a societal perspective. In addition, a number of studies have significant methodological problems which limit determination of meaningful conclusions. Nonetheless, data from 2 more recent studies with fewer methodological problems than earlier studies indicated that sertraline was more cost-effective than TCAs because of fewer psychiatrist consultations, and less costly than fluoxetine because of fewer absences from work and fewer medical consultations. The cost-utility ratio of maintenance therapy of depression with sertraline appears to fall within the range of accepted cost-utility ratios of common healthcare interventions. Thus, studies to date have generally shown that overall treatment costs with sertraline and other SSRIs are no greater than those for TCAs; this is despite the lower acquisition costs of the latter agents. Therefore, it is clear from these data that it is misleading to classify antidepressant agents as expensive or inexpensive based solely on their acquisition costs. Sertraline, therefore, can be considered as a first-line alternative to TCAs and other SSRIs for the treatment of depression on both clinical and pharmacoeconomic grounds.

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.

Quality of life: experience with sertraline.

The socioeconomic impact of major depression is considerable, due to poor patient functioning and increased social impairment, bed disability days, and use of health care resources. Major depression and the side effects of antidepressants medication also adversely affect patients' quality of life (QOL). However, few clinical trials of major depression examine QOL as a measure of treatment outcome. A comprehensive, quantitative QOL instrument for depression was recently tested and validated as conforming to accepted psychometric standards. The sertraline quality of life battery (SQOLB) consists of nine domains measuring health perceptions: energy/vitality, cognitive function, social interaction, alertness behavior, work behavior, home management, life satisfaction, and bed disability days. The SQOLB has been used in two open-label trials of sertraline. In the first study, the SQOLB was administered to 400 patients with major depression at baseline and final visit in a 6 week, open-label, general practice study. At endpoint, mean Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scores were significantly improved. The QOL battery also showed significant (p < 0.001) positive changes from baseline to final visit in all nine domains measured. In the second study, the SQOLB was used as part of an 8 week, open-label trial of sertraline in 308 UK hospital outpatients being treated for depression by psychiatrists. Sertraline was effective in managing the depression and caused statistically significant improvements (p < 0.001) in all QOL domains measured. The QOL scales give a better indication of the effect of pervasive depressive symptoms on a patient's life than rating scales of depressive symptomatology.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)