The added costs of depression to medical care

Diagnosis of depression and use of antidepressant pharmacotherapy among adults in the United States: does a disparity persist by ethnicity/race?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Both the rate of diagnosis of depression in the US and the rate of prescribing an antidepressant for its treatment have increased substantially over the past two decades. Previous research has also indicated that the rates of diagnosis and treatment of depression with an antidepressant vary widely by ethnicity/race. The objective of this study was to discern ethnic/race-specific (non-Hispanic Black; Hispanic; non-Hispanic White) population-adjusted rates of US office-based physician-patient encounters (office-based visits) documenting a diagnosis of depression, and the extent of the use of antidepressant pharmacotherapy for its treatment.

METHODS

Data from the US National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) for the years 1992-1997 and 2003-2008 were utilized for this analysis. The years 1998-2002 were excluded due to the magnitude of missing data for the variable ethnicity. The US NAMCS is a national probability sample designed and conducted by the US National Center for Health Statistics of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Depression was defined via International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes 296.2-296.36; 300.4; 311. Antidepressants were defined as US National Drug Code category 0630 prior to 2005, and category 249 in Lexicon Plus® thereafter. Data were partitioned into six 2-year time intervals for trend analysis of population-adjusted rates (per 100) among patients aged 20-79 years. Rates per 2-year time interval are based on US Census Bureau national resident population estimates for the ethnicity/race categories examined. Comparisons within and across time-frames were assessed by chi-squared (χ2) analysis. The a priori level of significance for all statistical tests was set at p < 0.05. Analyses were performed using SAS Release 9.1.3.

RESULTS

Over the 12-year time-frame examined, the rate of office-based visits documenting a diagnosis of depression increased 28.4% for non-Hispanic Whites (from 10.9 to 14.0 per 100; p < 0.001), 54.8% for non-Hispanic Blacks (from 4.2 to 6.5 per 100; p < 0.001), and 37.5% for Hispanics (from 4.8 to 6.6 per 100; p < 0.001). The rate of office-based visits with a recorded diagnosis of depression in concert with the prescribing of an antidepressant increased 66.2% for non-Hispanic Whites (from 6.5 to 10.8 per 100; p < 0.001), 69.2% for non-Hispanic Blacks (from 2.6 to 4.4 per 100; p < 0.001), and 36.7% for Hispanics (from 3.0 to 4.1 per 100; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

By 2003-2004, the population-adjusted rates for non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics were similar, and remained so through 2007-2008. However, over the 12-year time-frame examined, the rates for both minority groups were, in each 2-year interval, far less than that observed in non-Hispanic Whites. Disparities remain by ethnicity/race in the diagnosis and treatment of depression in the US.

Economic considerations in the prescribing of third-generation antidepressants

A comprehensive, multinational literature search was conducted of all articles published from 1993 to 2003 regarding the cost effectiveness of antidepressant drugs, with special emphasis on comparing third-generation antidepressants (TGAs) with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Information from the collected articles was entered into a database and then analysed to assess the different approaches to cost effectiveness comparisons for the various classes of antidepressants. Factors examined included direct and indirect costs, treatment endpoints, healthcare cost burden and productivity gains for patients successfully treated for depression. Most model-based studies published between 1993 and 2003 supported the cost effectiveness of TGAs compared with TCAs or SSRIs. While the purchase price of TGAs may be greater, cost savings in terms of direct and indirect costs were realised because of the reduced adverse effects of TGAs and subsequent improved patient compliance. Studies based on patient level cost data, however, were less conclusive about the economic benefits of TGAs compared with SSRIs or TCAs. While it may be premature to conclude that TGAs have a significant net economic benefit compared with other antidepressant classes, prescribers and payers may find it helpful when choosing antidepressants for depressed patients to consider that the higher drug prices for TGAs may be offset by savings, in terms of their greater compliance and resultant therapeutic success rates compared with TCAs or SSRIs. Additional research is needed to clarify how cost effectiveness is assessed in different patient populations, such as geriatric patients--who commonly have more co-morbidities and higher total healthcare costs than other patient populations.

A claims analysis comparing citalopram with sertraline as initial pharmacotherapy for a new episode of depression: Impact on depression-related treatment charges

BACKGROUND

Citalopram, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) recently approved in the United States for treatment of depression, has similar efficacy to and a lower acquisition cost than other SSRIs. The impact of using citalopram (instead of other SSRIs) on total treatment costs has not been studied extensively.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare depression-related treatment charges for the first 6 months of treatment among patients with newly diagnosed depression who received sertraline or citalopram.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of medical and pharmaceutical claims from 20 managed care organizations across the United States. This study population can be considered representative of a commercially insured US population. Patients aged >or= 18 years with newly diagnosed depression (ie, major depressive disorder, dysthymia, or depressive disorder not otherwise specified) who had a prescription claim for sertraline or citalopram (within 30 days of initial diagnosis) from July 1, 1998, through June 30, 1999, were included in the study. Patients with previous mental disorders and/or treatment with an SSRI (including patients diagnosed with an anxiety disorder before the first SSRI prescription) were excluded from the analysis. Log-transformed depression-related treatment charges for the first 6 months of therapy were compared across the 2 treatment cohorts with use of multivariate regression. Other outcomes measures included medication compliance and use of other antidepressant medications during the 6-month study period. Costs were measured in year-1999 US dollars.

RESULTS

A total of 15222 sertraline and 3175 citalopram patients met the inclusion criteria. Mean disease-related medical charges were US dollars 931 per patient in the setraline group and US dollars 1035 in the citalopram group ( [P<0.001). The difference between groups may have been due to higher mean outpatient charges in the citalopram group (US dollars 414 vs US dollars 360; P<0.001). Citalopram patients had lower mean pharmacy charges than did sertraline patients (US dollars 255 vs Us dollars 267; 0.036). After the data were controlled for differences in age, sex, managed care plan, pretreatment history of resource use, physician specialty type, index prescription year, and switching/augmentation of the treatment drug, depression-related charges for the citalopram patients were 22% higher than those for the sertraline cohort (beta coefficient, -0.21925; P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Despite potential cost savings due to a lower acquisition cost, initial treatment of depression with citalopram was associated with higher depression-related charges than was sertraline in the population studied.

A randomised, double-blind comparison of milnacipran and imipramine in the treatment of depression

This multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial in 109 patients compared the efficacy and tolerance of the novel selective serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) antidepressant milnacipran (50 mg twice daily, n=53) with the established tricyclic agent imipramine (75 mg twice daily, n=56) over a period of 6 weeks, in patients with major depression (Montgomery-Asberg depression rating score (MADRS) > or =25). Initiation of antidepressant medication was conducted during a 2-week period of hospitalisation, after a 3- to 7-day washout period. Concomitant psychiatric medication was limited to lorazepam, cyamemazine, chloral hydrate and long-term uncomplicated lithium therapy. Assessment for efficacy using the MADRS and Hamilton rating scales of depression, a visual analogue scale and global evaluation revealed both agents to be highly effective (P=0.0001) in this group of patients. Milnacipran was found to be of similar efficacy to imipramine. Tolerance, assessed by physiological and biochemical examinations with routine inventory and spontaneous report of adverse events, revealed a clear advantage for milnacipran. The incidence of anticholinergic events with milnacipran was about half that with imipramine and the overall incidence of adverse events by either reporting method was markedly lower with milnacipran than with imipramine. Furthermore, the patient drop-out rate with imipramine was double that experienced with milnacipran. Milnacipran appears to possess equal antidepressant efficacy to imipramine but with markedly superior tolerance. Therefore, milnacipran constitutes an important new treatment option in major depression.

The need for an iterative process for assessing economic outcomes associated with SSRIs

Pharmacotherapeutic advances in the treatment of depression have included the development of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), thereby providing alternatives to tricyclic antidepressants. Concurrent with these events have been significant structural (e.g. pharmaceutical formularies) and regulatory (e.g. required pharmacoeconomic evaluations) changes in the delivery, financing, and oversight of healthcare programmes throughout the world. International cost-containment initiatives are increasingly mandating a demonstration of value for money, defined in terms of a measurable health and/or financial outcome, and, in the case of medicines, attributable to a given expenditure, for a given pharmacotherapeutic option. We examine the inherent strengths and weaknesses of 5 study designs used to discern and contrast financial outcomes stemming from the use of antidepressant pharmacotherapy for the treatment of depressive illness [randomised controlled trials (RCTs); meta-analyses; decision-analytical models (DAMs); retrospective database investigations; randomised naturalistic inquiry]. We argue that the economic appraisal of pharmacotherapy requires an iterative process extending from the developmental (RCTs; meta-analyses; DAMs) through to the postmarketing phase (database reviews; naturalistic inquiry), thereby resulting in a portfolio of evidence as to the safety, efficacy and effectiveness of a given pharmacotherapeutic category (e.g. SSRIs) and/or a specific medication. Database reviews, while nonrandomised, and prospective naturalistic inquiry afford greater insight into the patterns of use and financial merits of prescribing specific pharmacotherapeutic options for the treatment of depression within the context of clinical practice as compared with RCTs, meta-analyses and DAMs. The portfolio of evidence to date indicates that the first-line use of SSRIs in the treatment of depression is clinically warranted, and represents value for money.

The treatment of anxiety disorders in a primary care HMO setting

Anxiety disorders are common, yet under diagnosed, in primary care settings. Many patients with anxiety and other psychiatric disorders do not seek care in mental health care settings. An integrated primary care/mental health model offers one approach to improving outcomes for patients with anxiety disorders. This model has been researched for the treatment of depression with positive results but has not been well studied for the treatment of anxiety disorders. We describe the results of care for a cohort of adult patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and clinically significant anxiety secondary to Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) treated in an integrated model. Compared to a matched cohort of adults treated in a primary care setting with usual care, the intervention cohort experienced significantly improved reduction in symptoms of anxiety at 6 months. The intervention cohort also was significantly more satisfied with care.

Current issues in the economics of depression management

In this paper, we present a systematic review of the literature on current issues in the economics of depression management, focusing on studies within three distinct areas of interest: 1) the clinical and economic outcomes of alternative patterns of antidepressant use; 2) the impact of depression and antidepressant therapy on the costs of general medical-care services; and 3) the effects of depression and associated benefits of antidepressant therapy on worker productivity. Our review suggests that 1) patterns of antidepressant use are important predictors of symptom improvement, relapse/recurrence, and costs of care, and that use patterns vary according to the antidepressant received as initial therapy; 2) patients with depression have higher costs of general medical-care services compared with their nondepressed peers, and that treatment of depression may reduce these costs; and 3) depression can result in productivity losses via increased rates of absenteeism and short-term disability as well as via impaired on-the-job performance.

Economic appraisal of citalopram in the management of single-episode depression

A retrospective intent-to-treat analysis (N = 1,339) was conducted to discern the natural course of antidepressant use and direct health service expenditures for the treatment of single-episode depression (DSM-IV code 296.20) among patients initiating antidepressant pharmacotherapy with either a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) (amitriptyline, N = 237) or a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) (citalopram, N = 71; fluoxetine, N = 411; paroxetine, N = 334; or sertraline, N = 286). Data were derived from the computer archive of a network-model health maintenance organization for the period of January 1, 1996, through April 30, 1999. Comparisons at the end of the 6-month post-period (180 days) were undertaken between cohorts initiating antidepressant pharmacotherapy with citalopram and each SSRI or TCA. Consistent with the intent-to-treat design, all accrued health service expenditures were assigned to the pharmacotherapeutic option initially prescribed. Multivariate models were adjusted for patient's age, gender, number of concomitant disease state processes, use of health services in the 6-month time frame (180 days) before initiating antidepressant pharmacotherapy, specialty of physician recording a diagnosis of single-episode depression, and the presence or absence of a previous diagnosis of single-episode depression and receipt of antidepressant pharmacotherapy. Patients initiating antidepressant pharmacotherapy with citalopram were far more likely to (1) have been diagnosed by a psychiatrist (37%; p < or = 0.05); (2) continue with the original pharmacotherapeutic option (79%) compared with patients originally prescribed amitriptyline (51%; chi2 = 17.29, df = 1, p < or = 0.05) or sertraline (65%; chi2 = 36.91, df = 1, p < or = 0.05); no significant difference was found compared with patients initiating antidepressant pharmacotherapy with paroxetine (72%; p = not significant [NS]) or fluoxetine (83%; p = NS); (3) obtain 90 days or more of antidepressant pharmacotherapy (86%) compared with those prescribed amitriptyline (69%; chi2 = 8.09, df = 1, p < or = 0.05); no significant difference was found compared with sertraline (77%), paroxetine (81%), or fluoxetine (84%); and (4) obtain 6 months (180 days) of antidepressant pharmacotherapy (68%) compared with those prescribed amitriptyline (39%; chi2 = 18.26, df = 1, p < or = 0.05) or sertraline (51%; chi2 = 6.02, df = 1, p < or = 0.05); no significant difference was found compared with paroxetine (56%) or fluoxetine (59%). Receipt of amitriptyline or sertraline as initial medication was associated with a per capita increase (p < or = 0.05) in health service utilization (17% and 9%, respectively) relative to citalopram. No significant difference (p > 0.05) in health service utilization was discerned between citalopram and either fluoxetine or paroxetine. Multivariate models adjusted for nonrandom assignment to the initial pharmacotherapeutic option confirmed these findings. Further research over a longer time course is warranted.

Trends in the prescribing of antidepressant pharmacotherapy: office-based visits, 1990-1995

Data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey for the period 1990 through 1995 were used to discern the population-adjusted rate of office-based physician-patient encounters at which the prescribing or continuation of antidepressant pharmacotherapy (tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs], selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], or others), a diagnosis of depression (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes 296.2 through 296.36, 300.4, or 311), or both were documented. National estimates of the number of office-based visits resulting in a prescription for or continuation of antidepressant pharmacotherapy for any purpose escalated from 16,534,268 in 1990 to 28,664,796 in 1995, a 73.4% increase. Although the number of office-based visits at which a diagnosis of depression was documented increased 23.2% during this period, the proportion of patients with a diagnosis of depression who were prescribed or continued antidepressant pharmacotherapy increased only 14.9%, from 52.1% in 1990 to 67.0% in 1995. Among patients with a diagnosis of depression, use of a TCA declined from 42.1% in 1990 to 24.9% in 1995. In contrast, use of an SSRI for the treatment of depression increased from 37.1% in 1990 to 64.6% in 1995. The rate of office-based visits at which the use of antidepressant pharmacotherapy for any purpose was documented increased from 6.7 per 100 US population in 1990 to 10.9 in 1995, a 62.7% increase; documentation of a diagnosis of depression increased from 6.1 per 100 US population in 1990 to 7.1 in 1995, a 16.4% increase; and the recording of a diagnosis of depression in concert with the prescribing or continuation of antidepressant pharmacotherapy increased from 3.2 per 100 US population in 1990 to 4.8 in 1995, a 50.0% increase. Further research is required to elucidate the effect of observed trends on clinical and financial outcomes.

Fluoxetine tenth anniversary update: the progress continues

This tenth anniversary review/update of fluoxetine concentrates on the past 5 years of its clinical application. The mechanism of action of fluoxetine; its metabolism; its efficacy in patients with various diagnostic subgroups of depression, patients with coincident medical disease, children and adolescents with depression, patients with eating disorders, and patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD); its long-term (maintenance) efficacy; its side effects and toxicity; and pharmacoeconomic considerations are reviewed. Pharmacotherapy is currently the only proven method for treating major depressive disorder that is applicable to all levels of severity of major depressive illness. Since its introduction 10 years ago, fluoxetine has been available to psychiatrists, primary care physicians, and other nonpsychiatric physicians as full-dose effective pharmacotherapy for patients with depression. Fluoxetine has been widely prescribed by physicians knowledgeable in pharmacology and in the treatment of depression because of its proven efficacy (ie, equal to that of tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]), its ease of administration (with full therapeutic dosing usually starting from day 1), its generally benign side-effect profile, its remarkable safety in over-dose, and its proven effectiveness in the most common depressed patient population--anxious, agitated, depressed patients--as well as in patients with various subtypes and severities of depression. In more recent years it has also proved effective in the treatment of bulimia, an entity for which only limited or inadequate treatment options had been previously available. In OCD, fluoxetine, with its more acceptable side-effect profile and greater ease of dosing, presents a favorable alternative to previous drug therapy and is useful in treating both obsessions and compulsions. Fluoxetine is currently recognized among clinicians as efficacious in treating anxiety disorders and is being used successfully in special depressed populations such as patients with medical comorbidity, elderly patients, adolescents, and children. Rapid discontinuation or missed doses of short-half-life selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, TCAs, and heterocyclic antidepressants are associated with withdrawal symptoms of a somatic and psychological nature, which cannot only be disruptive, but can also be suggestive of relapse or recurrence of depression. In striking contrast to these short-half-life antidepressants, fluoxetine is rarely associated with such sequelae on sudden discontinuation or missed doses. This preventive effect against withdrawal symptoms on discontinuation of fluoxetine is attributed to the unique extended half-life of this antidepressant. Current studies show that the overall increased effectiveness of fluoxetine in treating depression compensates for its higher cost, compared with older drugs, by reducing the need for physician contact because of increased compliance and less need of titration, and by reducing premature patient discontinuation, thereby yielding fewer relapses, less recurrence, and less reutilization of mental health services.