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.

Benefit of slow titration of paroxetine to treat depression in the elderly.

OBJECTIVE: Paroxetine is commonly used to treat depression in the elderly; however, titration issues have been raised. Rapid titration may lead to increased anxiety and early dropout. The aim of this cost-utility analysis was to compare the potential benefit of standard (10 mg the first day) versus slow titration (2.5 mg gradually increased). METHODS: Clinical analysis was based on a naturalistic trial integrated with a decision-analytic model representing second treatments for those who initially did not respond and for dropout cases. Treatment setting was a public outpatient center for mental disorders in Italy. Service use data were estimated from best practice guidelines, whereas costs (Euros; 2012) were retrieved from Italian official sources. RESULTS: Slow titration approach produced 0.031 more quality-adjusted life years (remission rate: 57% vs 44% in standard titration group) at an incremental cost of €5.53 (generic paroxetine) and €54.54 (brand paroxetine syrup). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values were €159 and €1768, respectively, in favor of slow titration approach. Cost-effectiveness threshold, defined as ICER < 1 GDP per capita according to World Health Organization criteria, is about €25 000 in Italy. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are consistent with a superiority of slow titration of paroxetine in older depressed patients. However, these findings, in part based on simulated data, need to be replicated in clinical trials.

Incremental cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapy and two brief cognitive-behavioral therapies compared with usual care for panic disorder and noncardiac chest pain.

The aim of this study was to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) of two brief cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT)-based interventions and a pharmacological treatment, compared with usual care, initiated in the emergency department (ED) for individuals with panic disorder (PD) with a chief complaint of noncardiac chest pain. A total of 69 patients were followed up to 6 months. The primary outcome variables were direct and indirect costs of treatment and PD severity. Panic management (PM) had an ICER of $124.05, per the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, severity score change (95% confidence interval [CI], $54.63-$314.57), compared with pharmacotherapy (paroxetine), with an ICER of $213.90 (95% CI, $133.51-$394.94), and brief CBT, with an ICER of $309.31 (95% CI, $151.27-$548.28). The pharmacological and CBT interventions were associated with a greater clinical improvement compared with usual care at posttest. PM presented a superior ICER, suggesting that it may be a promising treatment option to implement in EDs.

Comparison of the effectiveness of trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy and paroxetine treatment in PTSD patients: design of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The two most common interventions for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) are pharmacological treatment with SSRIs such as paroxetine and psychological treatment such as Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT). International guidelines recommend trauma-focused psychological interventions for all PTSD patients as first-line treatment (NICE). However, no clear-cut evidence is available to support this recommendation. METHODS/DESIGN: In order to compare pharmacological treatment (paroxetine) and psychological treatment (TF-CBT) in (cost-) effectiveness on the short and the long term, we will randomize 90 patients with chronic PTSD to either paroxetine (24 weeks) or TF-CBT (10-12 weeks). We will assess symptom severity and costs before and after the intervention with the Clinician Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS), the Clinical Global Impression Scale (CGI) and the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for Costs associated with Psychiatric Illness (TiC-P). DISCUSSION: This study is unique for its direct comparison of the most commonly used psychological intervention (TF-CBT) and pharmacological intervention (paroxetine) on (cost-) effectiveness on the short and the long term. The anticipated results will provide relevant evidence concerning long-term effects and relapse rates and will be beneficial in reducing societal costs. It may also provide information on who may benefit most from which type of intervention. Some methodological issues will be discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch Trial registration: NTR2235.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of burning mouth syndrome therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To study the cost-effectiveness of four alternative treatments for burning mouth syndrome (BMS). METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from a healthcare payer perspective of four therapy strategies (amisulpride, paroxetine, sertraline and topical clonazepam), using a decision-tree model that incorporated direct healthcare costs and probabilities associated with the possible events and outcomes. Average cost-effectiveness and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. Sensitivity analyses included the costs of brand name and generic drugs in five European countries (France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain and UK), as well as two scenarios with different treatment length. RESULTS: Of the drugs analysed, topical clonazepam proved to be the most cost-effective therapy. Although generic proved more efficient than brand name drugs, they displayed no advantage over brand name topical clonazepam. The Netherlands was the country with the highest overall drug efficiency. Sensitivity analyses highlighted the robustness of the model, because topical clonazepam proved to be the most efficient therapy under all the different scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: Topical clonazepam, which previous analyses of clinical evidence have shown to be the drug of choice for BMS, also proved to be the most cost-effective of the drugs analysed for this condition.

O patenteamento de polimorfos na indústria farmacêutica e o acesso a medicamentos / The patenting of polymorphs in the pharmaceutical industry and access to medicines

Recentemente, as discussões sobre o patenteamento na área farmacêutica e seu impacto sobre o acesso da população aos medicamentos tem se intensificado, e, em 2008, o GIPI decidiu que patentes incrementais não deveriam ser concedidas no Brasil. Assim, neste trabalho, são discutidos os possíveis impactos dessas patentes para o acesso aos medicamentos, por meio do estudo do caso dos polimorfos. Como contribuição, a importância do patenteamento de polimorfos nas várias áreas tecnológicas foi estimada a partir dos depósitos no Brasil. Foi observado que mais de 70 por cento dos depósitos são da área farmacêutica. Estudos de casos foram feitos com dois fármacos: paroxetina e atorvastatina. A detentora do medicamento referência depositou cerca de metade dos pedidos para polimorfos da paroxetina. No caso da atorvastatina, embora a detentora do registro não seja o maior depositante, é ela quem reivindica o maior percentual de polimorfos. O estudo constatou que a indústria farmacêutica tem usado agressivamente as patentes como estratégia econômica, confirmando a preocupação do setor saúde sobre o acesso aos medicamentos.

Recently, discussions on patenting in the pharmaceutical area and its impact on people's access to drugs have intensified, and in 2008 the GIPI decided that the incremental patents should not be granted in Brazil. So this paper discusses the possible impacts of these patents on access to medicines through the case study of the polymorphs. As a contribution, the importance of patenting of polymorphs in various technology areas was estimated from the deposits in Brazil. It was observed that more than 70 percent of deposits are in the pharmaceutical area. Case studies were made with two drugs: atorvastatin and paroxetine. The holder of the reference drug deposited about half of the requests for polymorphs of paroxetine. In the case of atorvastatin, although the holder of the registration is not the largest depositor, who claims it is the highest percentage of polymorphs. The study found that the pharmaceutical industry has aggressively used patents as economic strategy, confirming the concern of the health sector on access to medicines.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for premenstrual dysphoric disorder.

BACKGROUND: Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is reported to affect between 13% and 31% of women. Between 3% and 8% of women are reported to meet criteria for the more severe form of PMS, premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD). Although PMDD has received increased attention in recent years, the cost effectiveness of treatments for PMDD remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of the four medications with a US FDA-approved indication for PMDD: fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine and drospirenone plus ethinyl estradiol (DRSP/EE). METHODS: A decision-analytic model was used to evaluate both direct costs (medication and physician visits) and clinical outcomes (treatment success, failure and discontinuation). Medication costs were based on average wholesale prices of branded products; physician visit costs were obtained from a claims database study of PMDD patients and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Clinical outcome probabilities were derived from published clinical trials in PMDD. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated using the difference in costs and percentage of successfully treated patients at 6 months. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to assess the impact of uncertainty in parameter estimates. Threshold values where a change in the cost-effective strategy occurred were identified using a net benefit framework. RESULTS: Starting therapy with DRSP/EE dominated both sertraline and paroxetine, but not fluoxetine. The estimated ICER of initiating treatment with fluoxetine relative to DRSP/EE was $US4385 per treatment success (year 2007 values). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves revealed that for ceiling ratios>or=$US3450 per treatment success, fluoxetine had the highest probability (>or=0.37) of being the most cost-effective treatment, relative to the other options. The cost-effectiveness acceptability frontier further indicated that DRSP/EE remained the option with the highest expected net monetary benefit for ceiling values

Paroxetine mesylate: comparable to paroxetine hydrochloride?

IMPORTANCE OF THE FIELD: Currently available small case reports clearly propose that existing regulatory procedures to approve generic versions only require essential bioequivalence, have limitations and fail to meet stricter scientific and clinical demands. AREAS COVERED IN THIS REVIEW: Data indicate that paroxetine mesylate has some potential differences in bio- and clinical equivalence compared with paroxetine hydrochloride, although it has not been fully and sufficiently investigated in well-designed clinical trials. Data available now regarding safety, tolerability, efficacy and practical issues dealing with debates between generic and brand-name products paroxetine mesylate and paroxetine hydrochloride are presented in the review. WHAT THE READER WILL GAIN: Preclinical and clinical data are reviewed, and clinical issues relating to use of generic version versus original product are comprehensively discussed; tips for the clinician in clinical practice are also provided. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: Potential differences in efficacy and safety but also reduction in the use of health care and in pharmacy cost should be considered when choosing the generic version or the original product based on the clear benefit-risk ratio in patients.

The relationship between somatisation and outcome in patients with severe irritable bowel syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the relationship between somatisation and outcome in patients with severe irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). METHOD: Two hundred fifty-seven patients with severe IBS included in a randomised controlled trial were assessed at baseline and divided into four quartiles on the basis of their somatisation score. The patients were randomised to receive the following over 3 months: brief interpersonal psychotherapy, 20 mg daily of the SSRI antidepressant paroxetine, or treatment as usual. Outcome 1 year after treatment was assessed using the Short Form-36 physical component summary (PCS) score and total costs for posttreatment year. RESULTS: The patients in the quartile with the highest baseline somatisation score had the most severe IBS, the most concurrent psychiatric disorders, and the highest total costs for the year prior to baseline. At 1 year after the end of treatment, however, the patients with marked somatisation, who received psychotherapy or antidepressant, had improved health status compared to those who received usual care: mean (S.E.) PCS scores at 15 months were 36.6 (2.2), 35.5 (1.9), and 26.4 (2.7) for psychotherapy, antidepressant, and treatment-as-usual groups, respectively (adjusted P=.014). Corresponding data for total costs over the year following the trial, adjusted for baseline costs, were pound 1092 (487), pound 1394 (443), and pound 2949 (593) (adjusted P=.050). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with severe IBS who have marked somatisation improve with treatment like other IBS patients and show a greater reduction of costs. Antidepressants and psychotherapy are cost-effective treatments in severe IBS accompanied by marked somatisation.

Cost-effectiveness of escitalopram for generalized anxiety disorder in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) is a common chronic disease with a lifetime prevalence estimated to range from 4.2% to 12.7%. GAD places a substantial burden upon patients and healthcare resources. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram for GAD in a Canadian primary care setting from two perspectives [Ministry of Health (MoH) and society (SOC)]. METHODS: A 24-week decision-analytic model was constructed using Data/TreeAge software. Patients were treated with escitalopram or generic paroxetine. Clinical rates were determined from the literature; expert opinion guided model pathway development. Effectiveness was measured as 'symptom-free days' (SFDs). Analyses from MoH perspective focused on direct costs of treatment (drugs, physician visits), while SOC also accounted for indirect costs associated with workdays lost due to GAD. Unit costs of healthcare services and wage rates were obtained from standard Canadian sources (2005 Canadian $ values). Cost-effectiveness was expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Extensive one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Escitalopram was associated with higher expected number of SFDs than paroxetine (86.4 vs. 77.0 SFD, respectively). From the MoH perspective, expected costs were Can$724 and Can$663 for escitalopram and paroxetine arms, respectively, resulting in the ICER for escitalopram vs. paroxetine of Can$6.56/SFD (Can$2362/symptom free year). From the SOC perspective, escitalopram dominated paroxetine as more effective on SFDs and less costly. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness of the model. Limitations include the absence of comorbidities, which are common in practice, lack of long-term data, and assuming that dropouts in trials reflect those in practice. CONCLUSION: Escitalopram was found to be cost-effective compared with paroxetine in treatment of GAD from the Canadian MoH perspective, and dominating paroxetine from the SOC perspective. Therefore, a possible advantage may exist at the population level in the treatment of GAD with escitalopram in Canada.

Use of Bayesian net benefit regression model to examine the impact of generic drug entry on the cost effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in elderly depressed patients.

INTRODUCTION: Since their invention in the late 1980s and early 1990s, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) have become the primary form of pharmaceutical treatment for depression. As the patents of several top-selling SSRIs have expired or are soon to be expired, the SSRI market is expected to witness an increasing share of generic SSRIs. We explored the impact of generic drug entry on the cost effectiveness of SSRIs. METHOD: Using Medicare MarketScan claims data, we compared the cost effectiveness of sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram and fluoxetine with paroxetine in elderly depressed patients, before and after the entry of generic paroxetine. We followed users of SSRIs for 6 months, starting from the date of their first prescription of an SSRI. For each patient, we measured costs (C(i)) as total medical costs and quantified effectiveness (E(i)) as the avoidance of treatment failure, which was defined as having a break exceeding 45 days in the use of antidepressants. We then calculated individual net benefit as lambda x E(i)- C(i) and employed both net benefit and Bayesian net benefit regression models to examine the impact of generic paroxetine on the cost effectiveness of the other four SSRIs compared with paroxetine, while controlling for patients' sociodemographic characteristics, co-morbidities and patterns of medication switch. RESULTS: Deterministic analysis showed that paroxetine was dominated by most SSRIs prior to the availability of generic paroxetine, and that, after the entry of generic paroxetine, citalopram and escitalopram were dominated by paroxetine. Net benefit regression analysis found that, at a number of lambda values ($US1000, $US5000 and $US10,000), sertraline and escitalopram were more cost effective than paroxetine in the pre-generic-entry period but not in the post-entry period, although the difference in net benefit between the two SSRIs and paroxetine was not statistically significant in both periods. The Bayesian net benefit regression analysis reached similar conclusions. At lambda = $US5000, the probability that sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram or fluoxetine was more cost effective than paroxetine was 96.7%, 77.6%, 96.3% and 97.0%, respectively, in the pre-entry period in the pooled analysis. These probabilities reduced to 36.7%, 62.7%, 33.0% and 60.1%, respectively, in the post-entry period. The probabilities became 94.1%, 71.9%, 89.1% and 92.1% in analysis using the pre-entry data as a prior to update the post-entry data rather than using the pooled data. CONCLUSION: Using generic drug entry as an example, our study demonstrated the importance of including the economic life cycle of pharmaceuticals in cost-effectiveness analyses. Additionally, the proposed Bayesian framework not only preserves the advantages of the net benefit regression framework, but more importantly, it introduces the possibility of conducting probabilistic cost-effectiveness analyses with claims data.

Cost-efficacy of individual and combined treatments for panic disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine the relative cost-efficacy of empirically supported treatments for panic disorder. As psychosocial, pharmacologic, and combined treatments have all demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of panic disorder, cost-efficacy analysis provides an additional source of information to guide clinical decision making. METHOD: Cost-efficacy was examined based on results from the Multicenter Comparative Treatment Study of Panic Disorder, a randomized controlled trial of treatment for panic disorder (DSM-III-R). The trial was conducted from May 1991 to April 1998. Cost-efficacy ratios representing the cost per 1-unit improvement in Panic Disorder Severity Scale mean item score were calculated for 3 monotherapies (cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT], imipramine, and paroxetine) and 2 combination treatments (CBT-imipramine and CBT-paroxetine) at the end of acute, maintenance, and follow-up phases. RESULTS: Results demonstrated consistently greater cost-efficacy for individual over combined treatments, with imipramine representing the most cost-efficacious treatment option at the completion of the acute phase (cost-efficacy ratio = $972) and CBT representing the most cost-efficacious option at the end of maintenance treatment (cost efficacy ratio = $1449) and 6 months after treatment termination (cost-efficacy ratio = $1227). CONCLUSION: In the context of similar efficacy for combined treatments, but poorer cost-efficacy, current monotherapies should be considered the first-line treatment of choice for panic disorder. Additionally, CBT emerged as the most durable and cost-effective monotherapy and, hence, should be considered as a particularly valuable treatment from the perspective of cost accountability.

Authorized generic drugs, price competition, and consumers' welfare.

The growing frequency of authorized generics has important implications for the welfare of prescription drug consumers. Authorized generic entry could affect the timing of generic entry, brand-name and generic prices, and generic penetration. We reviewed 1999-2003 data and found that generic entry in the absence of short-run exclusivity restrictions benefits consumers through lower short-run prices. We suggest that these benefits likely also result from authorized generics. We posit that long-run prices and shares are likely essentially unaffected by authorized generics and that potential costs to consumers from any delayed generic entry are likely small.

Cost-utility of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depression in primary care in Catalonia.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-utility of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for treating depressive disorders prescribed in primary care (PC). METHOD: A total of 301 participants beginning antidepressant treatment with an SSRI were enrolled in a prospective 6-month follow-up naturalistic study. Incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) were obtained for several comparisons among different SSRIs. To address uncertainty in the ICUR's sampling distribution, non-parametric bootstrapping was carried out. RESULTS: Taking into account adjusted total costs and incremental quality of life gained, fluoxetine dominated paroxetine and citalopram with 63.4% and 79.3% of the bootstrap replications in the dominance quadrant, respectively. Additionally, fluoxetine was cost-effective over sertraline with 83.4% of the bootstrap replications below the threshold of 33,936 US$/quality-adjusted life year (30,000 euro/QALY). CONCLUSION: Fluoxetine seems to be a better cost-utility SSRI option for treating depressive disorders in PC.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of escitalopram compared with paroxetine in treatment of generalized anxiety disorder in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is associated with substantial economic burden. OBJECTIVE: To assess, from a societal perspective, the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram and paroxetine in the treatment of GAD in the UK. METHOD: A decision analytic model with a 9 month time horizon was adapted to the UK setting. Model inputs included drug- and nondrug-specific probabilities from head-to-head trial data, published literature, and expert opinion. Main outcome measures were success (response after 12 wk of treatment and no relapse during the following 24 wk) and costs. Resource use was based on National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance for GAD patient management, and estimated unit costs came from standard national sources. Human capital approach was used to estimate costs of absence from work. The analysis was performed from the societal perspective. RESULTS: Escitalopram-treated patients were associated with 14.4% higher first-line treatment success and significantly lower discontinuation rates due to adverse events than were those treated with paroxetine. Treatment with escitalopram yielded lower expected costs with greater effectiveness compared with paroxetine. These clinical advantages led to less sick leave and resource use as a result of lower switch rates and use of secondary care. Total expected 9 month costs were 1408 pounds sterling (2560 US dollars) lower for escitalopram-treated patients than for paroxetine-treated patients. Sensitivity analyses on key parameters demonstrated robustness of the model. CONCLUSIONS: Escitalopram appears to be cost-effective compared with paroxetine in the treatment of GAD in the UK.

Initial results of the use of prescription order change forms to achieve dose form optimization (consolidation and tablet splitting) of SSRI antidepressants in a state Medicaid program.

BACKGROUND: One method to reduce drug costs is to promote dose form optimization strategies that take advantage of the flat pricing of some drugs, i.e., the same or nearly the same price for a 100 mg tablet and a 50 mg tablet of the same drug. Dose form optimization includes tablet splitting; taking half of a higher-strength tablet; and dose form consolidation, using 1 higher-strength tablet instead of 2 lower-strength tablets. Dose form optimization can reduce the direct cost of therapy by up to 50% while continuing the same daily dose of the same drug molecule. OBJECTIVE: To determine if voluntary prescription change forms for antidepressant drugs could induce dosing changes and reduce the cost of antidepressant therapy in a Medicaid population. METHODS: Specific regimens of 4 selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)- citalopram, escitalopram, paroxetine, and sertraline- were identified for conversion to half tablets or dose optimization. Change forms, which served as valid prescriptions, were faxed to Oregon prescribers in October 2004. The results from both the returned forms and subsequent drug claims data were evaluated using a segmented linear regression. Citalopram claims were excluded from the cost analysis because the drug became available in generic form in October 2004. RESULTS: A total of 1,582 change forms were sent to 556 unique prescribers; 9.2% of the change forms were for dose consolidation and 90.8% were for tablet splitting. Of the 1,118 change forms (70.7%) that were returned, 956 (60.4% of those sent and 85.5% of those returned) authorized a prescription change to a lower-cost dose regimen. The average drug cost per day declined by 14.2%, from Dollars 2.26 to Dollars 1.94 in the intervention group, versus a 1.6% increase, from Dollars 2.52 to Dollars 2.56, in the group without dose consolidation or tablet splitting of the 3 SSRIs (sertraline, escitalopram, and immediate-release paroxetine). Total drug cost for the 3 SSRIs declined by 35.6%, from Dollars 333,567 to Dollars 214,794, as a result of a 24.8% decline in the total days of SSRI drug therapy and the 14.2% decline in average SSRI drug cost per day. The estimated monthly cost avoidance from this intervention, based on pharmacy claims data, was approximately Dollars 35,285, about 2% of the entire spending on SSRI drugs each month, or about Dollars 0.09 per member per month. Program administration costs, excluding costs incurred by prescribers and pharmacy providers, were about 2% of SSRI drug cost savings. CONCLUSIONS: Voluntary prescription change forms appear to be an effective and well-accepted tool for obtaining dose form optimization through dose form consolidation and tablet splitting, resulting in reduction in the direct costs of SSRI antidepressant drug therapy with minimal additional program administration costs.

Differences in total medical costs across the SSRIs for the treatment of depression and anxiety.

There is growing evidence that adherence to the recommended duration of antidepressant therapy results in reduced medical costs compared with nonadherence, and that the likelihood of adhering to therapy is not equivalent across the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). As such, the purpose of this study was to assess differences in 6-month medical costs between paroxetine controlled-release (CR) and immediate-release (IR) SSRI agents in a retrospective analysis of patients initiating SSRI therapy identified from the Integrated Healthcare Information Services National Managed Care Benchmark Database during a 2.5-year time frame. Inferential analyses were performed to evaluate differences in 6-month medical costs, controlling for differences in age, sex, utilization of psychiatric specialty care services, titration, pre-period costs, and comorbidity measures. Of the 146 075 patients included in this study, approximately 7% received paroxetine CR. Approximately 29.5% of patients had an anxiety disorder diagnosis; 26.0% had a depression-only diagnosis; and 13.2% had comorbid anxiety and depression. The 6-month medical costs were 244 US dollars lower for patients initiating with paroxetine CR compared with the average medical costs for patients receiving IR SSRIs. Paroxetine CR also had the lowest medical costs compared with each individual SSRI evaluated. After log transformation of costs and adjustment for baseline covariates, the aggregated IR SSRIs were associated with 8.7% higher 6-month medical costs than paroxetine CR (P <.001) and even greater costs after stratifying by diagnosis: 12.5% higher costs in patients with anxiety, 14.3% higher costs in patients with depression, and 15.9% higher costs in patients with comorbid anxiety and depression (P <.001 for all). Each individual IR SSRI was also associated with significantly higher medical costs than paroxetine CR, irrespective of diagnosis. As demonstrated, medical costs over a 6-month time frame were significantly greater for IR SSRIs versus paroxetine CR, even after adjusting for background characteristics and stratifying by diagnosis. Future studies should measure rates of adherence in relation to medical outcomes over an expanded time frame.

Cost-effectiveness of evidence-based pharmacotherapy or cognitive behavior therapy compared with community referral for major depression in predominantly low-income minority women.

BACKGROUND: Few clinical trials have evaluated interventions for major depressive disorder in samples of low-income minority women, and little is known about the cost-effectiveness of depression interventions for this population. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of pharmacotherapy or cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) compared with community referral for major depression in low-income minority women. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized clinical trial was conducted in 267 women with current major depression. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to pharmacotherapy (paroxetine hydrochloride or bupropion hydrochloride) (n = 88), CBT (n = 90), or community referral (n = 89). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcomes were intervention and health care costs, depression-free days, and quality-adjusted life years based on Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey summary scores for 12 months. Cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated to compare incremental patient outcomes with incremental costs for pharmacotherapy relative to community referral and for CBT relative to community referral. RESULTS: Compared with the community referral group, the pharmacotherapy group had significantly lower adjusted mean Hamilton Depression Rating Scale scores from the 3rd month through the 10th month (P = .04 to P<.001) of the study, and the CBT group had significantly lower adjusted mean scores from the 5th month through the 10th month (P = .03 to P = .049). There were significantly more depression-free days in the pharmacotherapy group (mean, 39.7; 95% confidence interval, 12.9-66.5) and the CBT group (mean, 25.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-51.50) than in the community referral group. The cost per additional depression-free day was USD 24.65 for pharmacotherapy and USD 27.04 for CBT compared with community referral. CONCLUSIONS: Effective treatment for depression in low-income minority women reduces depressive symptoms but increases costs compared with community referral. The pharmacotherapy and CBT interventions were cost-effective relative to community referral for the health care system.