Cost-effectiveness of duloxetine for knee OA subjects: the role of pain severity.

OBJECTIVE: Establish the impact of pain severity on the cost-effectiveness of generic duloxetine for knee osteoarthritis (OA) in the United States. DESIGN: We used a validated computer simulation of knee OA to compare usual care (UC) - intra-articular injections, opioids, and total knee replacement (TKR) - to UC preceded by duloxetine in those no longer achieving pain relief from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Outcomes included quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), lifetime medical costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). We considered cohorts with mean ages 57-75 years and Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain 25-55 (0-100, 100-worst). We derived inputs from published data. We discounted costs and benefits 3% annually. We conducted sensitivity analyses of duloxetine efficacy, duration of pain relief, toxicity, and costs. RESULTS: Among younger subjects with severe pain (WOMAC pain = 55), duloxetine led to an additional 9.6 QALYs per 1,000 subjects (ICER = $88,500/QALY). The likelihood of duloxetine being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $50,000/QALY and $100,000/QALY was 40% and 54%. Offering duloxetine to older patients with severe pain led to ICERs >$150,000/QALY. Offering duloxetine to subjects with moderate pain (pain = 25) led to ICERs <$50,000/QALY, regardless of age. Among knee OA subjects with severe pain (pain = 55) who are unwilling or unable to undergo TKR, ICERs were <$50,600/QALY, regardless of age. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine is a cost-effective addition to knee OA UC for subjects with moderate pain or those with severe pain unable or unwilling to undergo TKR. Among younger subjects with severe pain, duloxetine is cost-effective at WTP thresholds >$88,500/QALY.

Healthcare Costs and Medication Adherence Among Patients with Fibromyalgia: Combination Medication vs. Duloxetine, Milnacipran, Venlafaxine, and Pregabalin Initiators.

OBJECTIVE: To examine medication adherence and healthcare costs for combination prescription initiators (duloxetine/milnacipran/venlafaxine with pregabalin) vs. monotherapy initiators (duloxetine, milnacipran, venlafaxine, and pregabalin) among patients with fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). METHODS: Our retrospective cohort study used claims data for the South Carolina Blue Cross Blue Shield State Health Plan (SHP). Patients with FMS ≥ 18 years of age, with prescription initiation from July 1, 2007, through June 30, 2010, and SHP enrollment for 12 months pre- and post-index periods were included (combination: n = 100; pregabalin: n = 665; duloxetine: n = 713; milnacipran: n = 131; venlafaxine: n = 272). Medication adherence measures included high adherence (medication possession ratio ≥ 80%) and total supply days. Healthcare costs comprised direct medical expenditures. Propensity score methods of inverse probability of treatment weights were used to control for selection bias due to differing pre-index characteristics. RESULTS: Odds ratios for high adherence were significantly increased (P < 0.05) among the combination cohort vs. the venlafaxine (2.15), duloxetine (1.39), and pregabalin (2.20) cohorts. Rate ratios for total supply days were significantly higher (P < 0.05) for combination vs. venlafaxine (1.23), duloxetine (1.08), and pregabalin (1.32) cohorts. Expenditures for total health care were significantly higher (P < 0.05) for combination vs. duloxetine ($26,291 vs. $17,190), milnacipran ($33,638 vs. $22,886), and venlafaxine ($26,586 vs. $16,857) cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Medication adherence was considerably better for combination prescription initiators; however, expenditures for total health care were higher. Still, our findings suggest important clinical benefits with the use of combination prescription therapy, and prospective studies of medication adherence are warranted to examine causal relationships with outcomes not captured by healthcare claims databases.

Cost per successfully treated patient for vortioxetine versus duloxetine in adults with major depressive disorder: an analysis of the complete symptoms of depression and functional outcome.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine vs duloxetine in adults with moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder (MDD) in Norway using a definition of a successfully treated patient (STP) that incorporates improvement in both mood symptoms and functional capacity. METHODS: Using the population of patients who completed the 8-week CONNECT study, the cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine (n = 168) (10-20 mg/day) vs duloxetine (n = 176) (60 mg/day) was investigated for the treatment of adults in Norway with moderate-to-severe MDD and self-reported cognitive dysfunction over an 8-week treatment period. Cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of cost per STP, defined as improvement in mood symptoms (≥50% decrease from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score) and change in UCSD [University of California San Diego] performance-based skills assessment [UPSA] score of ≥7. The base case analysis utilized pharmacy retail price (apotek utsalgspris (AUP)) for branded vortioxetine (Brintellix) and branded duloxetine (Cymbalta). RESULTS: After 8 weeks of antidepressant therapy, there were more STPs with vortioxetine than with duloxetine (27.4% vs 22.5%, respectively). The mean number needed to treat for each STP was 3.6 for vortioxetine and 4.4 for duloxetine, resulting in a lower mean cost per STP for vortioxetine (NOK [Norwegian Kroner] 3264) than for duloxetine (NOK 3310) and an incremental cost per STP of NOK 3051. The use of a more challenging change in the UPSA score from baseline (≥9) resulted in a mean cost per STP of NOK 3822 for vortioxetine compared with NOK 3983 for duloxetine and an incremental cost per STP of NOK 3181. CONCLUSIONS: Vortioxetine may be a cost-effective alternative to duloxetine, owing to its superior ability to improve functional capacity. The dual-response STP concept introduced here represents a more comprehensive analysis of the cost-effectiveness of antidepressants.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of duloxetine added to usual care for patients with chronic pain due to hip or knee osteoarthritis: protocol of a pragmatic open-label cluster randomised trial (the DUO trial).

INTRODUCTION: Osteoarthritis (OA) is a highly prevalent painful condition of the musculoskeletal system. The effectiveness of current analgesic options has proven to be limited and improved analgesic treatment is needed. Several randomised placebo-controlled trials have now demonstrated the efficacy of duloxetine, an antidepressant with a centrally acting effect, in the treatment of OA pain. The aim of the current study is to investigate if duloxetine is effective and cost-effective as a third-choice analgesic added to usual care for treating chronic pain compared with usual care alone in general practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic open, cluster randomised trial is conducted. Patients with pain due to hip or knee OA on most days of the past 3 months with insufficient benefit of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or contraindications or intolerable side effects are included. General practices are randomised to either (1) duloxetine and usual care or (2) usual care only. Primary outcome is pain at 3 months measured on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain subscale. Secondary outcomes at 3 months and 1 year are pain (WOMAC, at 1 year), function (WOMAC), adverse reactions, quality of life and modification of the response to treatment by the presence of centrally sensitised pain (modified PainDETECT). At 1 year, medical and productivity costs will be assessed. Analyses will be performed following the intention-to-treat principle taking the cluster design into account. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the local Medical Ethics Committee (2015-293). Results will be published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal and will be communicated at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Dutch Trial Registry(ntr4798); Pre-results.

Cost-Utility of Group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Fibromyalgia Versus Recommended Drugs: An Economic Analysis Alongside a 6-Month Randomized Controlled Trial Conducted in Spain (EFFIGACT Study).

The aim of this study was to analyze the cost utility of a group-based form of acceptance and commitment therapy (GACT) in patients with fibromyalgia (FM) compared with patients receiving recommended pharmacological treatment (RPT) or on a waiting list (WL). The data were derived from a previously published study, a randomized controlled trial that focused on clinical outcomes. Health economic outcomes included health-related quality of life and health care use at baseline and at 6-month follow-up using the EuroQoL and the Client Service Receipt Inventory, respectively. Analyses included quality-adjusted life years, direct and indirect cost differences, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios. A total of 156 FM patients were randomized (51 GACT, 52 RPT, 53 WL). GACT was related to significantly less direct costs over the 6-month study period compared with both control arms (GACT €824.2 ± 1,062.7 vs RPT €1,730.7 ± 1,656.8 vs WL €2,462.7 ± 2,822.0). Lower direct costs for GACT compared with RPT were due to lower costs from primary care visits and FM-related medications. The incremental cost effectiveness ratios were dominant in the completers' analysis and remained robust in the sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, acceptance and commitment therapy appears to be a cost-effective treatment compared with RPT in patients with FM. PERSPECTIVE: Decision-makers have to prioritize their budget on the treatment option that is the most cost effective for the management of a specific patient group. From government as well as health care perspectives, this study shows that a GACT is more cost effective than pharmacological treatment in management of FM.

A study on comparative efficacy and cost effectiveness of Pregabalin and Duloxetine used in diabetic neuropathic pain.

AIM: The study was designed for comparing the efficacy and cost effectiveness of Pregabalin and Duloxetine used in Diabetic Neuropathic Pain. METHODS: The prospective interventional 6 month study was conducted in a diabetic clinic of a 500 bedded tertiary care hospital in South India. The subjects having diagnosed with diabetic neuropathy and not treated with Pregabalin and Duloxetine or any other drugs of its class were selected. The data were collected using NPS and Neuro QoL questionnaires. The cost of both drugs used in the study was calculated as the mean of the price of 3 leading common brands of those drugs. The comparative efficacy was calculated by comparing the mean difference produced by both drugs in NPS and QoL scores. The cost effectiveness were calculated by ICER ratio. RESULTS: The results have shown a significant improvement in the mean difference of NPS and Neuro QoL scores of both Pregabalin (p=<0.001) and Duloxetine (p=<0.001) before and after the therapy, the Duloxetine dominates over Pregabalin in both. The mean cost of Pregabalin for 3 months therapy was found to be INR 668.7 and that for Duloxetine was INR 756. Duloxetine showed a better effect but more expensive. ICER ratio was calculated and found that a cost of INR 61.47 per extra QoL gained by Duloxetine. CONCLUSION: The study have revealed that, both drugs are found to be effective.On conducting cost effective analysis, a significant better improvement in QoL of patients was obtained by Duloxetine with comparatively mild increase in the price.

Long-term cost-effectiveness of initiating treatment for painful diabetic neuropathy with pregabalin, duloxetine, gabapentin, or desipramine.

Painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN) affects nearly half of patients with diabetes. The objective of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of starting patients with PDN on pregabalin (PRE), duloxetine (DUL), gabapentin (GABA), or desipramine (DES) over a 10-year time horizon from the perspective of third-party payers in the United States. A Markov model was used to compare the costs (2013 $US) and effectiveness (quality-adjusted life-years [QALYs]) of first-line PDN treatments in 10,000 patients using microsimulation. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3% annually. Probabilities and utilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were average wholesale price for drugs and national estimates for office visits and hospitalizations. One-way and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were used to examine parameter uncertainty. Starting with PRE was dominated by DUL as DUL cost less and was more effective. Starting with GABA was extendedly dominated by a combination of DES and DUL. DES and DUL cost $23,468 and $25,979, while yielding 3.05 and 3.16 QALYs, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for DUL compared with DES was $22,867/QALY gained. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the model was most sensitive to the adherence threshold and utility for mild pain. PSA showed that, at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of $50,000/QALY, DUL was the most cost-effective option in 56.3% of the simulations, DES in 29.2%, GABA in 14.4%, and PRE in 0.1%. Starting with DUL is the most cost-effective option for PDN when WTP is greater than $22,867/QALY. Decision makers may consider starting with DUL for PDN patients.

[Economic evaluation of desvenlafaxine in the treatment of major depressive disorder in Spain]. / Evaluación económica de la desvenlafaxina en el tratamiento de la depresión mayor en España.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the clinical and economic value of the use of 50mg-desvenlafaxine compared to the usual care (mix of duloxetine and venlafaxine) in the outpatient treatment of major depressive disorder after first line treatment failure (relapse) in Spain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A Markov model was used to follow up a cohort of major depressive disorder patients for one year after failure of first-line treatment with a serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitor and estimate outcome measures (percentage remission and depression-free days) and accrued and direct costs incurred during outpatient treatment of major depressive disorder. In order to obtain the efficacy data related to the treatment alternatives, a literature review of clinical trials was performed. A panel of clinical experts validated the use of clinical resources employed in the estimation of economic outcomes together with model assumptions. The analysis was performed in 2014 from the perspective of the National Health System. RESULTS: Due to fewer discontinuations, initiating second line treatment with desvenlafaxine was associated with more depression-free days and a higher percentage of patients in remission versus usual care: 1.7 days and 0.5%, respectively. This was translated into lower drug and events management costs, and an overall cost reduction of €108 for the National Health System. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who have not responded to a first-line serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitor therapy, desvenlafaxine-50mg was clinically similar in effectiveness, but a less costly option, compared with a weighted average of duloxetine and venlafaxine for the second-line treatment of major depressive disorder patients from a payer (National Health System) perspective in Spain.

Duloxetine for the treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Venezuela: economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: Painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy affects 40-50% of patients with diabetic neuropathy, leading to impaired quality of life and substantial costs. Duloxetine and pregabalin have evidence-based support, and are formally approved for controlling painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy. METHODS: We used a 12-week decision model for examining painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy first-line therapy with daily doses of duloxetine 60mg or pregabalin 300mg, under the perspective of the Instituto Venezolano de los Seguros Sociales. We gathered model parameters from published literature and expert´s opinion, focusing on the magnitude of pain relief, the presence of adverse events, the possibility of withdrawal owing to intolerable adverse events or due to lack of efficacy, and the quality-adjusted life years expected in each strategy. We analyzed direct medical costs (which are expressed in Bolívares Fuertes, BsF) comprising drug acquisition besides additional care devoted to treatment of adverse events and poor pain relief. We conducted both deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Total expected costs per 1000 patients were BsF 1 046 146 (26%) lower with duloxetine than with pregabalin. Most of these savings (91%) corresponds to the difference in the acquisition’s cost of each medication. duloxetine also provided 23 more patients achieving good pain relief and a gain of about two quality-adjusted life years per 1000 treated. Model was robust to plausible changes in main parameters. Duloxetine remained the preferred option in 93.9% of the second-order Monte Carlo simulations. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests duloxetine dominates (i.e., is more effective and lead to gains in quality-adjusted life years), remaining less costly than pregabalin for treatment of painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

INTRODUCCIÓN : La neuropatía diabética periférica dolorosa (NDPD) afecta a 40-50% de los pacientes con neuropatía diabética y se asocia con un deterioro significativo de la calidad de vida y con costos de magnitud considerable. Tanto duloxetina (DUL) como pregabalina (PGB) cuentan con sustento científico basado en evidencias y han sido formalmente aprobados para controlar la NDPD. MÉTODOS: Se utilizó un modelo de decisión a 12 semanas para examinar el tratamiento de primera línea para la neuropatía diabética periférica dolorosa, con dosis diarias de duloxetina 60 mg o con pregabalina 300 mg, bajo la perspectiva del Instituto Venezolano de los Seguros Sociales. Los parámetros del modelo proceden de literatura publicada y opinión de expertos, enfocándose en la magnitud del alivio del dolor, la presencia de eventos adversos, la posibilidad de abandono debido a eventos adversos intolerables o por falta de eficacia y en los años de vida ajustados por calidad esperados con cada estrategia. Se analizaron los costos médicos directos (expresados en bolívares fuertes), integrados por la adquisición de medicamentos, además del cuidado adicional que se origina por el tratamiento de los eventos adversos y como consecuencia de un pobre alivio del dolor. Se llevaron a cabo análisis de sensibilidad de tipo determinístico y probabilístico. RESULTADOS: Los costos totales esperados por cada 1000 pacientes fueron de 1 046 146 bolívares fuertes (26%) más bajos con duloxetina en comparación con la pregabalina. La mayor parte de estos ahorros (91%), corresponde a la diferencia en el costo de adquisición entre ambos medicamentos. La duloxetina también se asoció con ganancias de 23 pacientes que lograron un buen alivio del dolor y de dos años de vida ajustados por calidad por cada 1000 tratados. El modelo se mantuvo robusto ante cambios plausibles en sus parámetros principales. La duloxetina continuó siendo la opción preferida en 93,9% de las simulaciones de Monte Carlo de segundo orden generadas. CONCLUSIONES: El presente estudio sugiere que la duloxetina domina a (es más efectiva, conduce a ganancias en años de vida ajustados por calidad y es menos costosa que) la pregabalina, para el tratamiento de la neuropatía diabética periférica dolorosa.

A retrospective, matched cohort study of potential drug-drug interaction prevalence and opioid utilization in a diabetic peripheral neuropathy population initiated on pregabalin or duloxetine.

BACKGROUND: Anticipating and controlling drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in older patients with painful diabetic peripheral neuropaty (pDPN) presents a significant challenge to providers. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of newly initiated pregabalin or duloxetine treatment on Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plan pDPN patients' encounters with potential drug-drug interactions, the healthcare cost and utilization consequences of those interactions, and opioid utilization. METHODS: Study subjects required a pregabalin or duloxetine pharmacy claim between 07/01/2008-06/30/2012 (index event), ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient medical claims with pDPN diagnosis between 01/01/2008-12/31/2012, and ≥12 months pre- and ≥6 post-index enrollment. Propensity score matching was used to balance the pregabalin and duloxetine cohorts on pre-index demographics and comorbidities. Potential DDIs were defined by Micromedex 2.0 and identified by prescription claims. Six-month post-index healthcare utilization (HCU) and costs were calculated using pharmacy and medical claims. RESULTS: No significant differences in pre-index demographics or comorbidities were found between pregabalin subjects (n = 446) and duloxetine subjects (n = 446). Potential DDI prevalence was significantly greater (p < 0.0001) among duoxetine subjects (56.7%) than among pregabalin subjects (2.9%). There were no significant differences in HCU or costs between pregablin subjects with and without a potential DDI. By contrast, duloxetine subjects with a potential DDI had higher mean all-cause costs ($13,908 vs. $9,830; p = 0.001), more subjects with ≥1 inpatient visits (35.6% vs 25.4%; p = 0.02), and more subjects with ≥1 emergency room visits (32.8% vs. 20.7%; p = 0.005) in comparison to duloxetine subjects without a potential DDI. There was a trend toward a difference between pregabalin and duloxetine subjects in their respective pre-versus-post differences in milligrams (mg) of morphine equivalents/30 days used (60.2 mg and 176.9 mg, respectively; p = 0.058). CONCLUSION: The significantly higher prevalence of potential DDIs and potential cost impact found in pDPN duloxetine users, relative to pregabalin users, underscore the importance of considering DDIs when selecting a treatment.

Prior authorization in the treatment of patients with pDPN and FM.

PURPOSE: To determine prior authorization (PA) impact on healthcare utilization, costs, and pharmacologic treatment patterns for painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy (pDPN) and fibromyalgia (FM). METHODS: This retrospective, observational, longitudinal cohort study used medical and pharmacy claims data. Newly diagnosed patients treated for FM or pDPN between 7/1/2007 and 12/31/2011 were included. PA and no PA groups were matched by propensity score 4:1. Medical resource utilization, direct medical and pharmacy costs, and treatment pattern differences were compared. Pre and postindex differences between PA and no PA cohorts were determined by difference in difference analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of 2,315 FM patients (1,852 PA; 463 no PA) demonstrated greater increases in postindex all-cause costs ($197; P = 0.6673) and disease-related costs ($72; P = 0.4186) in the PA cohort. Analysis of 1,300 pDPN patients (1,040 PA; 260 no PA) demonstrated postindex all-cause cost increases of $1,155 more in the no PA cohort (P = 0.6248); disease-related costs decreased $2,809 more in the no PA cohort (P = 0.4312). Treatment patterns were similar between cohorts; opioid usage was higher in the FM PA cohort (P = 0.0082). CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of statistically significant differences between PA and no PA cohorts in either FM or pDPN populations for total all-cause or disease-related costs.

A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic studies for pregabalin.

BACKGROUND: With anticonvulsant, anxiolytic, and analgesic properties, pregabalin has been evaluated for neuropathic pain and fibromyalgia (FM). These chronic conditions diminish patients' quality of life and increase healthcare utilization and costs. OBJECTIVE: To assess the current understanding of economic outcomes associated with pregabalin in neuropathic pain and FM. METHODS: Using keywords related to economic outcomes and pregabalin, we systematically searched MEDLINE- and EMBASE-indexed literature and nonindexed "grey" literature on neuropathic pain and FM published from March 2001 to October 2012. Included studies reported economic findings associated with pregabalin. RESULTS: In the past 11 years, 55 publications assessed the direct costs, resource use, or cost-effectiveness of pregabalin for neuropathic pain and FM. Studies generally lacked comparability due to heterogeneous patient populations, assumptions, time periods, and geographies. In the US, following treatment initiation, pregabalin resulted in similar or higher levels of healthcare use for FM compared with duloxetine. In contrast, medical costs for neuropathic pain did not significantly differ after initiation of pregabalin vs. duloxetine or other standard therapies in the US, but in Spain and Sweden, retrospective database studies suggested that pregabalin was cost-saving vs. gabapentin. Few economic analyses estimated indirect costs. CONCLUSIONS: Neuropathic pain and FM are associated with high healthcare resource use and costs. Economic studies of pregabalin in neuropathic pain and FM indicate some results favorable to other forms of care, but heterogeneity among study designs and populations hinder comparisons. Future economic analyses should aim to address data gaps regarding effects of pregabalin on productivity and resource use.

Management of Newer Antidepressant Medications in U.S. Commercial Health Plans.

BACKGROUND: Private health insurance plays a large role in the U.S. health system, including for many individuals with depression. Private insurers have been actively trying to influence pharmaceutical utilization and costs, particularly for newer and costlier medications. The approaches that insurers use may have important effects on patients' access to antidepressant medications. AIMS OF THE STUDY: To report which approaches (e.g., tiered copayments, prior authorization, and step therapy) commercial health plans are employing to manage newer antidepressant medications, and how the use of these approaches has changed since 2003. METHODS: Data are from a nationally representative survey of commercial health plans in 60 market areas regarding alcohol, drug abuse and mental health services in 2010. Responses were obtained from 389 plans (89% response rate), reporting on 925 insurance products. For each of six branded antidepressant medications, respondents were asked whether the plan covered the medication and if so, on what copayment tier, and whether it was subject to prior authorization or step therapy. Measures of management approach were constructed for each medication and for the group of medications. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to test for association of the management approach with various health plan characteristics. RESULTS: Less than 1% of health plan products excluded any of the six antidepressants studied. Medications were more likely to be subjected to restrictions if they were newer, more expensive or were reformulations. 55% of products used placement on a high cost-sharing tier (3 or 4) as their only form of restriction for newer branded antidepressants. This proportion was lower than in 2003, when 71% of products took this approach. In addition, only 2% of products left all the newer branded medications unrestricted, down from 25% in 2003. Multivariate analysis indicated that preferred provider organizations were more likely than other product types to use tier 3 or 4 placement. DISCUSSION: We find that U.S. health plans are using a variety of strategies to manage cost and utilization of newer branded antidepressant medications. Plans appear to be finding that approaches other than exclusion are adequate to meet their cost-management goals for newer branded antidepressants, although they have increased their use of administrative restrictions since 2003. Limitations include lack of information about how administrative restrictions were applied in practice, information on only six medications, and some potential for endogeneity bias in the regression analyses. CONCLUSION: This study has documented substantial use of various restrictions on access to newer branded antidepressants in U.S. commercial health plans. Most of these medications had generic equivalents that offered at least some substitutability, reducing access concerns. At the same time, it is worth noting that high copayments and administrative requirements can nonetheless be burdensome for some patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICY: Health plans' pharmacy management approaches may concern policymakers less than in the early 2000s, due to the lesser distinctiveness of today's branded medications. This may change depending on future drug introductions. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Future research should examine the impact of plans' pharmacy management approaches, using patient-level data.