Cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine compared with levomilnacipran and vilazodone in patients with major depressive disorder switching from an initial antidepressant.

Introduction: Many patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) do not achieve remission with their first antidepressant (AD), resulting in a high burden due to treatment failure. Vortioxetine is a valid treatment option for patients with MDD only partially responding to their first AD. Characterization of vortioxetine's potential benefits versus other approved treatments is important. Areas covered: The cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine, including cognitive outcomes, was modeled in comparison with levomilnacipran and vilazodone for patients switched to these medications after inadequate responses to a first AD. Expert opinion: Vortioxetine was associated with incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gains versus levomilnacipran (0.008) or vilazodone (0.009). Vortioxetine was dominant versus levomilnacipran and cost-effective versus vilazodone (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER],33,829 USD/QALY). In sensitivity analyses using residual cognitive dysfunction rates (vortioxetine, 49%; levomilnacipran, 58%, and vilazodone, 64%), incremental QALY gains for vortioxetine versus levomilnacipran (0.0085) or vilazodone (0.0109) were found. Vortioxetine remained dominant versus levomilnacipran and cost-effective versus vilazodone (ICER, 27,633 USD/QALY). ICER reduction was found with cognition outcomes inclusion. This model provides additional support for considering vortioxetine for patients requiring a switch of MDD treatments, although its conclusions are limited by the data available for inclusion. Additional research and real-world trials are needed to confirm the findings.

Successfully treated patients with vortioxetine versus venlafaxine: a simplified cost-effectiveness analysis based on a head-to-head study in Asian patients with major depressive disorder.

Objective: To compare the rates of successfully treated patients (STPs) with vortioxetine versus venlafaxine in major depressive disorder (MDD), using dual endpoints that combine improvement of mood symptoms with optimal tolerability or functional remission, and conduct a simplified cost-effectiveness analysis.Methods: The 8-week SOLUTION study (NCT01571453) assessed the efficacy and safety of vortioxetine (10 mg/day) versus venlafaxine XR (150 mg/day) in adult Asian patients with MDD. Rates were calculated post-hoc of STP Mood and Tolerability (≥50% reduction from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score and no treatment-emergent adverse events) and STP Mood and Functioning (≥50% reduction from baseline in MADRS total score and Sheehan Disability Scale total score ≤6). The incremental costs per STP were assessed using the 2018 pharmacy purchase prices for branded vortioxetine/branded venlafaxine in China as the base case.Results: STP Mood and Tolerability rates were 28.9% for vortioxetine and 19.9% for venlafaxine (p = .028); the corresponding STP Mood and Functioning rates were 28.0% and 23.5% (p = .281). Drug costs for the 8-week treatment period were CN¥1954 for vortioxetine and CN¥700 for venlafaxine. The incremental cost per STP for vortioxetine versus venlafaxine was CN¥13,938 for Mood and Tolerability and CN¥27,876 for Mood and Functioning.Conclusions: Higher rates of dual treatment success were seen with vortioxetine versus venlafaxine. Although vortioxetine was not dominant in the base case, the incremental cost per STP for vortioxetine versus venlafaxine were overall within acceptable ranges. These results support the benefits previously reported with vortioxetine versus other antidepressants in broad efficacy, tolerability profile and cost-effectiveness.

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.