Generic escitalopram initiation and substitution among Medicare beneficiaries: A new user cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To examine patterns of generic escitalopram initiation and substitution among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: This retrospective new user cohort used a 5% random sample of 2013-2015 Medicare administrative claims data. Fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries continuously enrolled in Parts A, B, and D during a 6-month washout period prior to their initial generic or brand oral escitalopram prescriptions were included (n = 12,351). The primary outcomes were generic escitalopram treatment initiation, and among brand escitalopram initiators, generic substitution within 12 months. Patient demographics, health service utilization, and prescription level factors were measured and assessed. RESULTS: Among all escitalopram initiators, about 88.2% Medicare beneficiaries initiated generic escitalopram. Beneficiaries who were younger age, male, residing in non-Northeast regions or urban area, in the Part D plan deductible benefit phase, and filling prescriptions at community/retail pharmacies were more likely to initiate generic treatment. Among brand escitalopram initiators (n = 1,464), about 20.7% switched to generic escitalopram, 31.2% switched to another alternative antidepressant, 25.1% discontinued treatment, and 8.7% were lost to follow up or passed away within 12 months after brand initiation. Factors associated with generic escitalopram substitution included region (Midwest vs. Northeast, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.04-2.05), pre-index hospitalization (HR = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.16-1.48) and lower escitalopram average daily dosage (HR = 0.97; 95% CI = 0.95-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: In 2013-2015, almost 90% Medicare beneficiaries initiated generic escitalopram treatment. Among brand escitalopram initiators, about 1 in 5 patients switched to generic escitalopram within 1 year, as compared to 1 in 4 or 1 in 3 who discontinued current or switched to alternative treatment, respectively. Medicare beneficiary's geographic region was independently associated with generic escitalopram initiation and substitution. Findings from this study not only provide up-to-date evidence in generic escitalopram use patterns among Medicare population, but also can guide educational and practice interventions to further increase generic escitalopram use.

Ongoing initiatives within the Scottish National Health Service to affect the prescribing of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and their influence.

Aim: Increasing use of selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in Scotland, coupled with safety concerns with some SSRIs, and the increasing availability of generic SSRIs, have resulted in multiple initiatives to improve the quality and efficiency of their prescribing in Scotland. Our aim is to assess their influence to provide future direction. Materials & methods: The prescription costs analysis database was used to document utilization and expenditure on SSRIs between 2001 and 2017 alongside documenting the initiatives. Results: Multiple interventions over the years increased international nonproprietary name prescribing up to 99.9% lowering overall costs. This, coupled with initiatives to limit escitalopram prescribing due to concerns with its value, resulted in a 73.7% reduction in SSRI expenditure between 2001 and 2017 despite a 2.34-fold increase in utilization. Safety warnings resulted in a significant reduction in the prescribing of paroxetine, citalopram and escitalopram alongside a significant increase in sertraline Conclusion: Multiple initiatives have increased the quality and efficiency of SSRI prescribing in Scotland providing direction to others.

Improvements in Quality-Adjusted Life Years and Cost-Utility After Pharmacotherapy for Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder: A Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), a relatively new classification of depressive disorder that is characterized by recurrent depression during the premenstrual phase of the menstrual cycle. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data from 49 previously untreated PMDD patients who visited our psychiatric department between October 2013 and February 2016 and received pharmacotherapy for 3 or 6 subsequent menstrual cycles. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were estimated across individual menstrual cycles using mean EuroQoL-5D values. Direct costs per patient were estimated in order to conduct a preliminary cost-effectiveness analysis. RESULTS: Pharmacotherapy produced a 0.190-point increase in mean EuroQoL-5D score per menstrual cycle after 6 menstrual cycles and an improvement of approximately 0.2 QALYs. Based on direct costs of 156,000 yen per patient, the cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapy was calculated to be 823,000 yen per QALY. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve analysis indicated that escitalopram tended to be superior to sertraline when willingness to pay per QALY was over 4,000,000 yen, whereas sertraline was superior when willingness to pay was below 2,000,000 yen. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacotherapy is cost effective for the treatment of PMDD. Moreover, escitalopram is a more cost-effective option than sertraline when willingness to pay is sufficiently high.

Utility of eosin Y as a complexing reagent for the determination of citalopram hydrobromide in commercial dosage forms by fluorescence spectrophotometry.

An accurate, selective and sensitive spectrofluorimetric method was developed for the determination of citalopram hydrobromide in commercial dosage forms. The method was based on the formation of a fluorescent ion-pair complex between citalopram hydrobromide and eosin Y in the presence of a disodium hydrogen phosphate/citric acid buffer solution of pH 3.4 that was extractable in dichloromethane. The extracted complex showed fluorescence intensity at λem = 554 nm after excitation at 259 nm. The calibration curve was linear over at concentrations of 2.0-26.0 µg/mL. Under optimized experimental conditions, the proposed method was validated as per ICH guidelines. The effect of common excipients used as additives was tested and the tolerance limit calculated. The limit of detection for the proposed method was 0.121 µg/mL. The proposed method was successfully applied to the determination of citalopram hydrobromide in commercial dosage forms. The results were compared with the reference RP-HPLC method.

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.

Potential cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring for depressed patients treated with citalopram.

BACKGROUND: For patients treated with citalopram, it was recently shown that serum concentrations above 50 ng/mL on day 7 of treatment are associated with an improved therapeutic outcome. The aim of this post hoc analysis was to calculate a potential cost-effectiveness of therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) considering costs for hospitalization, medication, and drug analysis. METHODS: The study included patients with major depression. Weekly measurements of serum concentrations and assessments of psychopathology were conducted. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were included in this analysis. For patients with high citalopram serum concentrations (>50 ng/mL), the mean duration of hospitalization was 49 ± 20 days, and it was 72 ± 37 days (P = 0.03) in the group with low drug concentrations (<50 ng/mL). Considering daily costs for hospitalization of 250€,;, the potential savings amounted to 5750€,; per patient for the 23 days. Assuming that 11% of the variation of duration of hospitalization per patient were attributed to the serum concentration of the drug, the resulting savings were 633€,; per patient. Considering the officially listed price of 21€,; per TDM assay, total costs for weekly measurements over a period of 10 weeks of hospitalization were 210€,;. In the groups with high and low serum concentrations, daily costs for citalopram medication were 3.00 ± 0.80€,; and 2.42 ± 0.70€,;, respectively (P = 0.002), and the mean number of comedications was nearly identical, that is, 1.87 ± 1.74 and 1.81 ± 1.86 drugs, respectively (P = 0.919). CONCLUSIONS: The data taken together indicate that TDM-guided dosing of citalopram has the potential to be cost effective by reducing the length of hospitalization.

Switching to sertraline or venlafaxine after failure of SSRIs treatment in major depressive disorder: an economic evaluation of the STAR*D trial.

BACKGROUND: Switching to another antidepressant is one of the alternative treatment strategies employed in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients who have no remission despite an adequate trial of an antidepressant. The aim of the present study was to present an economic evaluation of sertraline compared with venlafaxine after unsuccessful treatment for depression with citalopram. MATERIAL AND METHOD: An economic model was constructed in line with the design of the sequenced treatment alternatives to relieve depression (STAR*D) study. MDD patients who did not have a remission with or who had an intolerance to citalopram were randomly assigned to be switched to either sertraline or venlafaxine. Patients who had no remission at the end of the switching treatment phase still continued the antidepressants and received an adjunctive treatment with aripiprazole. The event probabilities were used to derive the transitional probabilities use in the model. The primary model outcome was remission of symptoms and the secondary outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICEs) were estimated for the costs per unit of effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were done to assess the effects of model assumptions. RESULTS: The total direct costs per remission were 27,830 Baht for sertraline and 30,147 Baht for venlafaxine. Sertraline had lower total costs per QALY than venlafaxine (34,788 Baht vs. 37,683 Baht). The more cost-effectiveness of sertraline resulted in 7.68% of cost saving. The incremental cost of venlafaxine compared with sertraline was 2,316 Baht per remission gained and 2895 Baht per QALY gained. By varying the remission rate of venlafaxine from 20% to 40%, the sensitivity analysis results in a decrease in total costs of venlafaxine from 31,926 Baht to 24,808 Baht. In addition, incremental cost per remission gained changed from 4096 Baht in favour of sertraline to 3023 Baht in favour of venlafaxine. Similarly, incremental cost per QALY gained changedfrom in favour of sertraline to in favour of venlafaxine. CONCLUSION: Based on the STAR*D trial, the results of the economic study indicate that a switch to sertraline is a cost-effectiveness treatment option compared with a switch to venlafaxine in MDD patients who have no remission or cannot tolerate citalopram.

Cost-effectiveness evaluation in Sweden of escitalopram compared with venlafaxine extended-release as first-line treatment in major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVES: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a major public health concern associated with a high burden to society, the health-care system, and patients and an estimated cost of €3.5 billion in Sweden. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram versus generic venlafaxine extended-release (XR) in MDD, accounting for the full clinical profile of each, adopting the Swedish societal perspective, and identifying major cost drivers. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness of escitalopram versus venlafaxine XR was analyzed over a 6-month time frame, on the basis of a decision tree, for patients with MDD seeking primary care treatment in Sweden. Effectiveness outcomes for the model were quality-adjusted life-years and probability of sustained remission after acute treatment (first 8 weeks) and sustained for 6 months. Cost outcomes included direct treatment costs and indirect costs associated with sick leave. RESULTS: Compared with generic venlafaxine XR, escitalopram was less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (expected gain 0.00865) and expected 6-month sustained remission probability (incremental gain 0.0374). The better tolerability profile of escitalopram contributed to higher expected quality-adjusted life-years and lower health-care resource utilization in terms of pharmacological treatment of adverse events (though only a minor component of treatment costs). Expected per-patient saving was €169.15 for escitalopram versus venlafaxine. Cost from sick leave constituted about 85% of total costs. CONCLUSIONS: Escitalopram was estimated as more effective and cost saving than generic venlafaxine XR in first-line MDD treatment in Sweden, driven by the effectiveness and tolerability advantages of escitalopram. The study findings are robust and in line with similar pharmacoeconomic analyses.

Treatment persistence & health care costs of adult MDD patients treated with escitalopram vs. citalopram in a medicaid population.

OBJECTIVE: Compare treatment persistence and health care costs of major depressive disorder (MDD) Medicaid patients treated with escitalopram versus citalopram. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Medicaid administrative claims data. METHODOLOGY: Analyzed administrative claims data from the Florida Medicaid program (07/2002-06/2006) for patients ages 18-64 years with 21 inpatient claim or 2 independent medical claims for MDD. Outcomes included discontinuation and switching rates and prescription drug, medical, and total health care costs, all-cause and related to mental disorder. Contingency table analysis and survival analysis were used to compare outcomes between treatment groups, using both unadjusted analysis and multivariate analysis adjusting for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: The study included 2,650 patients initiated on escitalopram and 630 patients initiated on citalopram. Patients treated with escitalopram were less likely to discontinue the index drug (63.7% vs. 68.9%, P=0.015) or to switch to another second-generation antidepressant (14.9% vs. 18.4%, P=0.029) over the six months post-index date. Patients treated with escitalopram had $1,014 lower total health care costs (P=0.032) and $519 lower health care costs related to mental disorder (P=0.023). More than half of the total cost difference was attributable to savings in inpatient hospitalizations related to mental disorder ($571, P=0.003) and to outpatient costs ($53, P<0.001). Escitalopram therapy was also associated with $736 lower medical costs related to mental disorder (P=0.009). CONCLUSION: In the Florida Medicaid program, compared to adult MDD patients initiated on citalopram, escitalopram patients have better treatment persistence and lower total health care costs due to any cause and due to mental disorder, mostly driven by lower hospitalization costs related to mental disorder.

Assessing the comparative-effectiveness of antidepressants commonly prescribed for depression in the US Medicare population.

BACKGROUND: Depression is among the most common chronic illnesses in the US elderly Medicare population, affecting approximately 11.5% of beneficiaries with estimated costs of about USD 65 billion annually. Patients with depression are typically treated with antidepressants - most commonly the Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs). SSRIs vary substantially in their costs, side effect profiles and convenience of use. All these factors might affect medication adherence and subsequently down-stream medical costs. AIMS OF STUDY: To assess the comparative-effectiveness of three antidepressants (escitalopram, citalopram, sertraline) commonly-prescribed for depression in Medicare. METHODS: We used pharmacy and medical claims data for a 5 percent national random sample of Medicare beneficiaries who were diagnosed with depression in 2008 and followed until 12/31/2009. Key measures included drug spending, medication adherence to antidepressants, down-stream non-drug medical costs at three levels: all, psychiatric and depression related costs. Three methods were conducted to test robustness: generalized linear regression (GLM), propensity score matching, and an instrumental variables (IV) approach. For the instrumental variables approach, we used a two-stage residual inclusion model, using geographic variation in the use of the various drugs as instruments. Specifically, we calculated the ratio of the number of individuals who used each drug to the total number of individuals using any antidepressants at the 306 Dartmouth hospital-referral regions. RESULTS: The regression and the propensity score matching method each showed that patients using escitalopram had significantly worse adherence, higher drug costs, and higher medical costs than patients using either citalopram or sertraline. However, our IV analysis yielded different results. While drug costs remained significantly higher for escitalopram patients, we found that escitalopram users had lower non-drug medical spending than patients who used citalopram, which was enough to offset the higher drug costs. The instrumental variables results also suggested that sertraline users had lower non-drug medical costs than citalopram users. The differences between sertraline and escitalopram were not statistically significant for medical spending, but sertraline users had lower drug costs and better adherence than escitalopram users. DISCUSSION: The IV method yielded somewhat different results than the GLM regressions and the propensity score matching methods. Once we controlled for selection bias using the instrumental variables, we found that escitalopram is actually associated with lower medical spending. One interpretation is that the IV approach mitigates selection biases due to unobserved factors that are not controlled in regular regressions. However, one conclusion remains the same: in every model, we found that sertraline was at least as cost-effective as or more cost-effective than the other drugs. LIMITATIONS: Potential unobserved factors affecting the choice of three antidepressants are possible. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: All methods indicated that sertraline is the most cost-effective drug to treat depression. Substantial savings to Medicare could be realized by using more cost-effective antidepressants such as sertraline. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Geographic variation in the use of prescription drugs has been underutilized as an instrumental variable in comparative-effectiveness research. Our study demonstrates that it can help to control for selection biases in observational data.

Increasing escitalopram dose is associated with fewer discontinuations than switch or combination approaches in patients initially on escitalopram 10 mg.

PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between different intervention approaches and subsequent real-life outcomes in patients changing treatment from escitalopram 10 mg. METHOD: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients starting antidepressant treatment between 2002 and 2004. Data were extracted from a US health-insurance reimbursement claims database. Eligible patients started escitalopram 10 mg and changed within 3 months to: escitalopram ≥20 g; another antidepressant; or a combination of escitalopram with another antidepressant. Medication persistence and healthcare costs over 3 months were compared between the treatment groups. RESULTS: Overall, 37,791 patients started escitalopram 10 mg. Of the 12,830 patients (34%) who changed treatment, 56% increased escitalopram dose, 26% switched antidepressant and 18% combined escitalopram with another antidepressant. Patients in the switch and combination groups had significantly higher rates of non-persistence (56% and 91%, respectively) vs the dose-increase group (39%; both P<0.001). Combination-group patients incurred significantly greater costs vs the dose-increase group ($2805 vs $1767, respectively; P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that increasing escitalopram dose in patients responding inadequately to 10 mg is associated with higher persistence rates vs the other treatment approaches. Receiving an increased dose of escitalopram was associated with significantly lower costs than combining escitalopram 10 mg with another antidepressant.

A model to incorporate genetic testing (5-HTTLPR) in pharmacological treatment of major depressive disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the benefit of pharmacogenetics in antidepressant treatment. METHODS: In a simulated trial 100,000 subjects in a current episode of major depressive disorder (MDD) received citalopram or bupropion based on the clinician's decision (algorithm A) or following indications from 5-HTTLPR genetic testing (algorithm B), which effect size of was estimated from a meta-analysis of pharmacogenetic trials. A and B were compared in a cost-utility analysis (12 weeks). Costs (international $, 2010) were drawn from official sources. Treatment effects were expressed as quality-adjusted life weeks (QALWs). Outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Under base-case conditions, genetic test use was associated with increases in antidepressant response (0.062 QALWs) and tolerability (0.016 QALWs) but cost benefit was not acceptable (ICER = $2,890; $1,800-$4,091). However, when the joint effect on antidepressant response and tolerability was analyzed in two recurrent episodes, ICER dropped to $1,392 ($837-$1,982). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) showed a >80% probability that ICER value fell below the commonly accepted 3 times Gross Domestic Product (GDP) threshold (World Health Organization) and therefore suggesting cost-effectiveness. CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding some caveats (exclusion of gene-gene and gene-environment interactions; simple 5-HTTLPR architecture), this simulation is favourable to incorporate pharmacogenetic test in antidepressant treatment.

Economic impact of therapeutic substitution of a brand selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor with an alternative generic selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor in patients with major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: To reduce pharmacy costs, managed care organizations encourage therapeutic substitution from brand to a generic product. However, little is known about whether these cost-containment strategies can also potentially lower total expenditures for payers in treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). OBJECTIVE: To compare economic outcomes of patients with MDD who were switched from a brand selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) to an alternative generic SSRI for nonmedical reasons versus patients who continued on the brand SSRI. METHODS: Adult MDD patients in the Ingenix Impact Database (2003-2007) were considered "switchers" if they received treatment with a brand SSRI and were later switched to an alternative generic SSRI for nonmedical reasons. Patients who remained on the brand SSRI (nonswitchers) were matched 1:1 with switchers. All-cause, mental health-related, and MDD-related rates of hospitalizations/emergency department (ED) visits and costs over 6 months were compared both descriptively and by using adjusted regression models. A subgroup analysis on patients who were switched from escitalopram (Lexapro) to an alternative generic SSRI was also performed. RESULTS: The study included 4449 matched pairs. Compared with nonswitchers, switchers had higher risk of all-cause, mental health-related, and MDD-related use of hospitalizations/ED visits (OR 1.15, 1.34, and 1.54, respectively; all p < 0.01) and higher risk-adjusted mental health-related and MDD-related medical costs ($219 and $222, respectively; both p < 0.05). Subgroup analysis on escitalopram showed similar results; switchers experienced higher risk of any-cause, mental health-related, and MDD-related use of hospitalizations/ED visits (OR 1.21, 1.41, and 1.53, respectively; all p < 0.01) and higher risk-adjusted MDD-related medical costs ($151; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with patients who continued on their patented SSRIs, patients who switched to a generic SSRI incurred more resource use of hospitalizations/ED visits and higher MDD-related health-care costs. The effects of therapeutic substitution should be carefully examined, because use of generic alternatives may not be a cost-saving strategy when total health-care costs are considered.

Comparison of escitalopram vs. citalopram and venlafaxine in the treatment of major depression in Spain: clinical and economic consequences.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Population based study to determine the clinical consequences and economic impact of using escitalopram (ESC) vs. citalopram (CIT) and venlafaxine (VEN) in patients who initiate treatment for a new episode of major depression (MD) in real life conditions of outpatient practice. METHODS: Observational, multicenter, retrospective study conducted using computerized medical records (administrative databases) of patients treated in six primary care centers and two hospitals between January 2003 and March 2007. STUDY POPULATION: patients >20 years of age diagnosed with a new episode of MD who initiate treatment with ESC, CIT or VEN who had not received any antidepressant treatment within the previous 6 months, and were followed for 18 months or more. MAIN VARIABLES: socio-demographic variables, remission (defined as a patient completing 6 months of therapy), comorbidity, annual health care costs (medical visits, diagnostic and therapeutic tests, hospitalizations, emergency room and psychoactive drugs prescribed) and non-health care costs (productivity losses at work, mainly sick leave and disability). STATISTICAL ANALYSES: logistic regression and ANCOVA models. RESULTS: A total of 965 patients (ESC = 131; CIT = 491; VEN = 343) were identified and met study criteria. ESC-treated patients were younger, with a higher proportion of males, and had a lower specific comorbidity (p < 0.01). ESC-treated patients achieved higher remission rates compared to CIT (58.0% vs. 38.3%) or VEN patients (32.4%), p < 0.001, and had lower productivity work losses compared to VEN patients (32.7 vs. 43.8 days), p = 0.042. No differences in productivity work losses were observed between ESC and CIT patients. Compared to the ESC group, higher costs in average/unit of psychoactive drugs were found in the VEN group (€643.00), p = 0.003, whereas no differences were observed between the ESC and CIT groups (€294.70 vs. €265.20). In the corrected model, total costs (health care and non-health care cost) were lower with ESC (€2276.20) compared to CIT (€3093.80), p = 0.047 and VEN (€3801.20), p = 0.045. CONCLUSIONS: ESC appears to be dominant in the treatment of new MD episodes when compared to CIT and VEN, resulting in higher remission rates and lower total costs.

Economic consequence of switching to citalopram after its generic entry for adult patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) treated with escitalopram: a 6-month retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate, from a third-party payer's perspective, the effects of switching from escitalopram to citalopram, after the generic entry of citalopram, on hospitalization and healthcare costs among adult MDD patients who were on escitalopram therapy. METHODS: Adult MDD patients treated with escitalopram were identified from Ingenix Impact claims database. MDD- and mental health (MH)-related hospitalization rates and healthcare costs were compared between 'switchers' (patients who switched to citalopram after its generic entry) and 'non-switchers'. MDD- and MH-related outcomes were defined as having a primary or a secondary diagnosis of ICD-9-CM = 296.2x, 296.3x and ICD-9-CM = 290-319, respectively. A propensity score matching method that estimated the likelihood of switching using baseline characteristics was used. Outcomes were examined for both 3-month and 6-month post-index periods. RESULTS: The sample included 3,427 matched pairs with balanced baseline characteristics. Switchers were more likely to incur an MDD-related (odds ratio [OR] = 1.52) and MH-related hospitalization (OR = 1.34) during the 6-month post-index period (both p < 0.05). Compared to switchers, non-switchers had significantly lower MDD- and MH-related hospitalization costs ($248.3 and $219.8 lower, respectively) and medical costs ($277.4 and $246.4 lower, respectively) (all p < 0.05). Although non-switchers had significantly higher MDD- and MH-related prescription drug costs, overall they had significantly lower total MDD- and MH-related healthcare costs ($109.9 and $93.6 lower, respectively; both p < 0.001). The 3-month results were consistent with these 6-month findings. LIMITATIONS: The study limitations included limited generalizability of study findings, inability to differentiate switching from escitalopram to citalopram due to medical reasons versus non-medical reasons, and exclusion of indirect costs from cost calculations. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to patients maintaining on escitalopram, switchers from escitalopram to citalopram experienced higher risk of MDD- and MH-related hospitalization and incurred higher total MDD- and MH-related healthcare costs. The economic consequences of therapeutic substitution should take into account total healthcare costs, not just drug acquisition costs.

Cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus SNRIs in second-step treatment of major depressive disorder in Sweden.

OBJECTIVES: Escitalopram is the S-enantiomer of citalopram and is the most discriminating of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). The aim of the current analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) duloxetine and generic venlafaxine as second-step treatment of major depressive disorder. METHODS: The analysis was based on a decision analytic model. Effectiveness outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and remission rates; cost outcomes were direct medical costs, including impact of treating adverse events, and indirect costs associated with lost productivity. The analysis was performed from the societal perspective in Sweden over a 6-month timeframe. RESULTS: Estimated remission rates showed an incremental effectiveness in favour of escitalopram of 16.4 percentage points compared with both SNRI comparators. The escitalopram strategy was associated with a 0.025 increase in QALYs. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model is robust and that escitalopram remains a cost-effective option when considering future predicted price reductions of generic venlafaxine. LIMITATIONS: The main limitation in this study was the lack of data available for second-step treatment. The remission rates, which are a key input to the model, were obtained from a relatively small sample of patients on second-step treatment and there are no published relapse rates for second-step treatment. The model also assumed that there was no difference in the adverse event (AE) rates between treatments after the first 8 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: This cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000, escitalopram is the most cost-effective second-step treatment option for MDD in Sweden in over 85% cases compared with both venlafaxine and with duloxetine. Benefits for escitalopram included both increased effectiveness and reduced overall costs. The major contributing costs were those associated with productivity loss. The model was shown to have internal validity and robustness through the use of stochastic simulations and sensitivity analyses, which were conducted around the key efficacy parameters.

Healthcare expenditure in severely depressed patients treated with escitalopram, generic SSRIs or venlafaxine in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To retrospectively compare the 12-month healthcare utilisation and direct medical costs associated with the use of escitalopram, generic SSRIs, and venlafaxine in patients with severe depression in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: Data for this retrospective cohort study were extracted from the GPRD, a large primary care database in the UK. Data from adults with an incident prescription of escitalopram, venlafaxine, or generic SSRI were extracted. The initial prescription had to fall within 3 months of a physician visit when severe depression according to the GPRD definition was mentioned. Frequency of antidepressant treatment, GP consultations, referrals, hospitalisations, and concomitant psychiatric medication was assessed on the 12-months after initial prescription and 2006 unit costs for healthcare services obtained from published literature were applied, and then compared between treatment cohorts using a propensity score-adjusted generalised linear model. RESULTS: The total annual healthcare expenditure per patient was similar with escitalopram and generic SSRIs (916 pounds vs. 974 pounds, adjusted p = 0.48) and significantly lower than venlafaxine (916 pounds vs. 1367 pounds, adjusted p < 0.0001), a pattern repeated when antidepressant costs were excluded from the analysis (escitalopram vs. SSRIs, 831 pounds vs. 957 pounds, adjusted p = 0.10; escitalopram vs. venlafaxine, 831 pounds vs. 1156 pounds, adjusted p = 0.006). Over the 12-month analysis period, there were significantly fewer hospitalisations per patient in the escitalopram vs. venlafaxine (0.12 vs. 0.27; adjusted p = 0.01) or generic SSRI (0.12 vs. 0.19; adjusted p = 0.046) groups. CONCLUSION: Despite some limitations associated with the system of data collection in the GPRD (need to apply proxies for severity assessment and external unit costs to resource consumption), the results of this real-life study brings additional evidence of escitalopram appearing to be a cost-effective treatment for patients suffering from severe depression as diagnosed in routine practice and could be considered for first-line treatment in these patients.

Developing thai economic model to study cost-effectiveness of switching to bupropion compared to combination with bupropion after the failure of an SSRI for major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To present an economic model and cost-effectiveness estimates of switching to bupropion compared to combination with bupropion after failure of an SSRI for major depressive disorder (MDD). MATERIAL AND METHOD: An economic model was developed to simulate the transitions of Thai outpatients with nonpsychotic MDD who had no remission or could not tolerate the SSRI citalopram and received either sustained-release bupropion monotherapy as switching strategy or sustained-release bupropion plus citalopram as combination strategy. Clinical data were obtained form 2 trials of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study. The four event probabilities: remission rates, rates of non-remission, discontinuation rates due to intolerance, and incidence of serious adverse events were estimated. Direct costs included drug cost, hospitalizations, and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The primary outcome considered in the model was a remission of symptoms. Outputs were measured in terms of costs per remission and costs per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the total direct costs with a bupropion switch were 22,937 THB per remission and 29,346 THB per remission with a bupropion combination. Compared with combination option, switching to bupropion also had lower total cost per QALY (28,672 THB vs. 36,682 THB) and had cost saving of 21.8%. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the combination regimen compared with the switching regimen was 6,409 THB per remission gained and 8,011 THB per QALY gained. In a sensitivity analysis, combination strategy dominated switching strategy if the value of the transitional probability of remission changed to a value of greater than 0.547. CONCLUSION: The economic model indicated that treatment of MDD patients who fail to achieve remission from an SSRI with a switch to bupropion is a cost-effectiveness treatment option compared with a combination of SSRI with bupropion.