Treatment of depression in older adults beyond fluoxetine

This review aimed to discuss the importance of the comprehensive treatment of depression among older adults in Brazil. The abuse of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, including fluoxetine hydrochloride, as antidepressants has been considered a serious public health problem, particularly among older adults. Despite the consensus on the need for a comprehensive treatment of depression in this population, Brazil is still unprepared. The interface between pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy is limited due to the lack of healthcare services, specialized professionals, and effective healthcare planning. Fluoxetine has been used among older adults as an all-purpose drug for the treatment of depressive disorders because of psychosocial adversities, lack of social support, and limited access to adequate healthcare services for the treatment of this disorder. Preparing health professionals is a sine qua non for the reversal of the age pyramid, but this is not happening yet.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmacologic treatment of fibromyalgia in Mexico

OBJECTIVE

To identify, from the Mexican Public Health System perspective, which would be the most cost-effective treatment for patients with Fibromyalgia (FM).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A Markov model including three health states, divided by pain intensity (absence or presence of mild, moderate or severe pain) and considering three-month cycles; costs and effectiveness were estimated for amitriptyline (50mg/day), fluoxetine (80 mg/day), duloxetine (120 mg/day), gabapentin (900 mg/day), pregabalin (450 mg/day), tramadol/acetaminophen (150 mg/1300 mg/día) and amitriptyline/fluoxetine (50mg/80 mg/día) for the treatment of FM. The clinical outcome considered was the annual rate of pain control. Probabilities assigned to the model were collected from published literature. Direct medical costs for FM treatment were retrieved from the 2006 data of the Mexican Institute of Social Security (IMSS) databases and were expressed in 2010 Mexican Pesos. Probabilistic Sensitivity Analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

The best pain control rate was obtained with pregabalin (44.8%), followed by gabapentin (38.1%) and duloxetine (34.2%). The lowest treatment costs was for amitriptyline ($ 9047.01), followed by fluoxetine ($ 10,183.89) and amitriptyline/fluoxetine ($ 10,866.01). By comparing pregabalin vs amitriptyline, additional annual cost per patient for pain control would be around $ 50.000 and $ 75.000 and would result cost-effective in 70% and 80% of all cases.

CONCLUSIONS

Among all treatment options for FM, pregabalin achieved the highest pain control and was cost-effective in 80% of patients of the Mexican Public Health System.

Cost-effectiveness analysis for antidepressants and cognitive behavioral therapy for major depression in Thailand

OBJECTIVE

To determine the cost-effectiveness of fluoxetine and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for major depression in Thailand.

METHODS

A microsimulation model was developed to describe the variation in course of disease between individuals. Model inputs included Thai data on disease parameters and costs while impact measures were derived from a systematic review and meta-analysis of the international literature. Fluoxetine as the cheapest antidepressant drug in Thailand was analyzed for treatment of episodes plus a 6-month continuation phase and for maintenance treatment over 5 years of follow-up. CBT was analyzed for episodic treatment and for 5-year maintenance treatment. Results are presented as cost (Thai bahts) per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted, compared with a "do-nothing" scenario.

RESULTS

The cost-effectiveness ratios of all interventions were below 1 time Thailand's gross domestic product of 110,000 bahts per capita. The uncertainty ranges around the cost-effectiveness ratios overlap: maintenance treatment with CBT 11,000 bahts per DALY (8,000-14,000); episodic treatment with CBT 23,000 bahts per DALY (10,000-36,000); episodic plus continuation drug treatment 33,000 bahts per DALY (26,000-44,000); maintenance drug treatment 38,000 bahts per DALY (30,000-48,000); and episodic drug treatment 42,000 bahts per DALY (32,000-57,000).

CONCLUSIONS

CBT and generic fluoxetine are cost-effective treatment options for both episodic and maintenance treatment of major depression in Thailand. Maintenance treatment has the greatest potential of health gain.

Economic outcomes of eszopiclone treatment in insomnia and comorbid major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

Eszopiclone is effective for the treatment of insomnia in patients with insomnia and comorbid major depressive disorder (MDD). Both conditions impose significant economic burden, with the US societal cost of depression estimated at USD 50 billion annually.

AIMS OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this analysis was to examine the costs and benefits of eszopiclone co-administered with fluoxetine (ESZ+FLX) compared to placebo co-administered with fluoxetine (PBO+FLX) in adults meeting the DSM-IV criteria for insomnia and MDD.

METHODS

Data from 434 patients enrolled in an 8-week clinical trial who met the economic-subanalysis criteria were examined. The costs of medical care (in 2007 USUSD ) and lost work time were estimated from the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D17) scores using published algorithms. Cost of lost productivity while at work was based on responses to the Work Limitations Questionnaire. The impact of therapy on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) was estimated by transforming HAM-D17 (base case analysis) or Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) (scenario analyses) responses into health utility scores using published algorithms. Drug costs were estimated based on average wholesale price.

RESULTS

The mean 8-week increases in QALYs from baseline were 0.0392 and 0.0334 for the ESZ+FLX and PBO+FLX groups, respectively. Mean per-patient costs were USD 1,279 and USD 1,198 for the respective groups. Thus, co-treatment resulted in net increases of 0.0058 QALYs and USD 81, leading to an incremental cost per QALY gained of approximately USD 14,000.

DISCUSSION AND LIMITATIONS

Co-administration of eszopiclone and fluoxetine improved patients' insomnia symptoms and appeared to be a cost-effective treatment strategy for patients with insomnia and comorbid MDD. One limitation of this study is that optimal utility estimation techniques were not available. Utilities were instead derived indirectly using the HAM-D17 (disease-specific, not generic) or SF-12 (generic, but potentially insensitive to important changes in some conditions) instruments.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION

Sleep disturbance is predictive of depression relapse, and is the most common residual symptom in patients who have been successfully treated with fluoxetine for depression. Thus, identifying cost-effective strategies for the treatment of insomnia symptoms is important for this patient population.

IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES

Treatment guidelines and drug coverage decisions should be based on clinical evidence, effectiveness, and economic criteria (i.e., whether an effective drug therapy produces sufficient benefits given its costs). This information about the overall value of eszopiclone can be measured as the cost per QALY gained with the use of ESZ+FLX compared with FLX alone. In order to make decisions based on value, payers and policy makers must have access to reliable cost-effectiveness information.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The residual efficacy observed in the clinical trial following the discontinuation of co-therapy should be explored further to determine whether intermittent treatment with ESZ+FLX is a cost-effective strategy.

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 <or=$US3900 per treatment success.

CONCLUSION

These analyses suggest that initiating therapy with DRSP/EE may be a cost-effective option in the treatment of PMDD.

[Consumption of antidepressants in Chile from 1992 to 2004]

BACKGROUND

Data from the Ministry of Health show that in Chile in 2004, 17% of the population had some form of depression, and mood disorders are the tenth cause of disability-adjusted life years (DALY) loss.

AIM

To determine consumption of antidepressants (ADs) in Chile from 1992 to 2004.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

National sales data were obtained from the company IMS Health Chile and converted into defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1,000 inhabitants per day. Available ADs were classified in four pharmacological groups (i.e., serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, SNRLs; selective-serotonin reuptake inhibitors, SSRLs; tricyclic antidepressants, TCAs; and others). Total economic burden of ADs utilization and cost per DDDs were also calculated. Trends over time were analyzed using Pearson-R2.

RESULTS

Total ADs consumption in Chile measured by DDDs per 1,000 inhabitants per day (DHD) increased linearly (y =0.901x + 1.9129; R2 =0.9296; p <0.001) from 2.5 in 1992 to 11.7 in 2004 (total growth of 470.2%). SSRLs were the drug class with higher consumption, and fluoxetine the most commonly consumed antidepressant. SSRLs were the drugs that dominated the market representing 79% of the total drug consumption throughout the years. Total economic burden of ADs in Chile (total cost of DDDs consumed) increased from US$65.4 million in 2001 to US$74.6 million in 2004 (14% increase). Average cost per DDD of all AD increased linearly, however not significantly from US$ 0.94 in 2001 to US$ 1.04 in 2004 (y =0.0362x + 0.8784; R2 =0.7382; p =0,262).

CONCLUSIONS

DDDs per 1,000 inhabitants per day increased linearly over 470% from 1992-2004. SSRLs were the most commonly consumed drugs in Chile. Future research should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antidepressants in Chile, comparing the results with drug utilization, and determining if unnecessary expenditures have been paid out.

Folate augmentation of treatment - evaluation for depression (FolATED): protocol of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Clinical depression is common, debilitating and treatable; one in four people experience it during their lives. The majority of sufferers are treated in primary care and only half respond well to active treatment. Evidence suggests that folate may be a useful adjunct to antidepressant treatment: 1) patients with depression often have a functional folate deficiency; 2) the severity of such deficiency, indicated by elevated homocysteine, correlates with depression severity, 3) low folate is associated with poor antidepressant response, and 4) folate is required for the synthesis of neurotransmitters implicated in the pathogenesis and treatment of depression.

METHODS/DESIGN

The primary objective of this trial is to estimate the effect of folate augmentation in new or continuing treatment of depressive disorder in primary and secondary care. Secondary objectives are to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of folate augmentation of antidepressant treatment, investigate how the response to antidepressant treatment depends on genetic polymorphisms relevant to folate metabolism and antidepressant response, and explore whether baseline folate status can predict response to antidepressant treatment. Seven hundred and thirty patients will be recruited from North East Wales, North West Wales and Swansea. Patients with moderate to severe depression will be referred to the trial by their GP or Psychiatrist. If patients consent they will be assessed for eligibility and baseline measures will be undertaken. Blood samples will be taken to exclude patients with folate and B12 deficiency. Some of the blood taken will be used to measure homocysteine levels and for genetic analysis (with additional consent). Eligible participants will be randomised to receive 5 mg of folic acid or placebo. Patients with B12 deficiency or folate deficiency will be given appropriate treatment and will be monitored in the 'comprehensive cohort study'. Assessments will be at screening, randomisation and 3 subsequent follow-ups.

DISCUSSION

If folic acid is shown to improve the efficacy of antidepressants, then it will provide a safe, simple and cheap way of improving the treatment of depression in primary and secondary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current controlled trials ISRCTN37558856.

Fragwürdigkeit eines Gerichtsurteils zur Antidepressiva-Verordnung bei Jugendlichen

Zusammenfassung: Ein Sozialgericht (SG Dresden, S 16 KR 51/06) hat eine beklagte Krankenkasse dazu verurteilt, einer depressiven Jugendlichen stationär verordnetes Fluoxetin für die Zeit der Ausschleichphase weiter zu erstatten, aber die Klage auf generelle Kostenübernahme bei der Patientin für dieses Medikament ansonsten abgewiesen. Dabei wurden dem Gericht vorliegende Unterlagen, insbesondere die Stellungnahme der DGKJP, fehlerhaft rezipiert und das Gericht hat auf die Schaffung einer eigenen Sachkunde, beispielsweise durch ein Sachverständigengutachten, verzichtet. Eine Bezugnahme auf ein Urteil des Bundessozialgerichts zum off-label-Gebrauch zeigt ebenfalls Recherchemängel des erkennenden Gerichts auf und weist allgemein auf eine unklare Umsetzung dieses Urteils hin. Für den behandelnden Arzt resultiert aus dem SG-Urteil ein therapeutisches, ethisches und haftungsrechtliches Dilemma: ein Absetzen der Substanz gefährdet eventuell die Patientin, ist aber im Urteil so vorgesehen. Durch die mittlerweile erfolgte EMEA-Zulassung der Substanz für Minderjährige über 8 Jahren in Europa ist der Fall vielleicht geklärt - nicht jedoch die Implikationen von juristischen Eingriffen in die ärztliche Therapiefreiheit und wissenschaftlich gut begründbare Therapierationalen.

Reducing drug costs at a Veterans Affairs hospital by increasing market-share of generic fluoxetine

We previously showed that a multifaceted intervention designed to contain costs of prescribing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) at a Veterans Affairs hospital resulted in substantial projected savings. Intervention components included clinician education and pharmacy and computer information process changes. We now report on effects of altering the intervention to promote prescribing of generic fluoxetine. Over 30 months, fluoxetine's market-share increased from 12 to 32% of all SSRIs prescribed. A total of $2,500,000 in cost avoidance resulted from substituting generic for brand fluoxetine, and $600,000 resulted from increases in market-share of fluoxetine. The results highlight the robustness and flexibility of the intervention approach.

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.

Generic fluoxetine and choice of antidepressant medication

OBJECTIVE

In 2002 generic fluoxetine, the first generic product in a relatively expensive medication class, became available at Veterans Affairs medical centers at only 5% of its previous cost. This study examined whether its availability was associated with an increase in use compared with other medications.

METHODS

All new starts of 15 antidepressants during fiscal year (FY) 2001 (before generic fluoxetine became available) and FY2003 were identified from administrative records, and the change in proportions of new starts across years was examined.

RESULTS

Altogether, 55,673 patients had a new start on antidepressants in FY2001 and 48,002 had a new start in FY2003. The percentage of fluoxetine prescriptions (both branded and generic) rose only 1.2%--from 8.3% in FY2001 to 9.5% in FY2003.

CONCLUSIONS

Only a small increase was found in the rate of new starts of fluoxetine in the year after its release as a low-cost generic. There appear to be untapped opportunities to realize savings for antidepressants with appropriate administrative mechanisms and incentives.

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.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antidepressant treatment in primary health care: a six-month randomised study comparing fluoxetine to imipramine

BACKGROUND

Over the past decade, studies of the effectiveness of pharmacological treatment for depression have often been based on research designs intended to measure efficacy, and for this reason the results are of limited generalizability. Research is needed comparing the clinical and economic outcomes of antidepressants in day-to-day clinical practice.

METHODS

A six-month randomised prospective naturalistic study comparing fluoxetine to imipramine carried out in three primary care health centres. Outcome measures were the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), direct costs, indirect costs and total costs. Subjects were evaluated at the beginning of treatment and at one, three and six months thereafter.

RESULTS

Of the 103 patients, 38.8% (n = 40) were diagnosed with major depressive disorder, 14.6% (n = 15) with dysthymic disorder, and 46.6% (n = 48) with depressive disorder not otherwise specified. Patients with major depressive disorder or dysthymic disorder achieved similar clinical improvement in both treatment groups (mean MADRS ratings decrease in major depressive disorder from baseline to 6 months of 18.3 for imipramine and 18.8 for fluoxetine). For patients with major depressive disorder and dysthymic disorder, the imipramine group had fewer treatment-associated costs (imipramine 469.66 Euro versus fluoxetine 1,585.93 Euro in major depressive disorder, p < 0.05; imipramine 175.39 Euro versus fluoxetine 2,929.36 Euro in dysthymic disorder, p < 0.05). The group with depressive disorder not otherwise specified did not experience statistically significant differences in clinical and costs outcomes between treatment groups.

LIMITATIONS

Exclusion criteria, participating physicians may not represent GPs.

CONCLUSIONS

In a primary care context, imipramine may represent a more cost-effective treatment option than fluoxetine for treating major depressive disorder or dysthymic disorder. There were no differences in cost-effectiveness in the treatment of depressive disorder not otherwise specified.

Drug costs developments after patent expiry of enalapril, fluoxetine and ranitidine: a study conducted for the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

In order to increase price competition, government regulations focus on controlling drug costs. Drug costs after patent expiry are an area of particular interest because the substitution of branded medication with generics represents an opportunity for lowering drug costs. However, drug costs may not decrease after patent expiry, because of a lack of price competition and different national pricing systems.

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate the trends in the use of generics after patent expiry for enalapril, fluoxetine and ranitidine and the subsequent changes, if any, in the costs of these medications.

METHODS

A drug-utilisation study was performed using data from a large sample of Dutch pharmacies. Both volumes (measured as defined daily doses [DDD] per 1000 population) as well as drug costs (calculated per DDD) prior to and after patent expiry were calculated. Costs per DDD were compared using trend-line analysis. In addition, the relative market shares of the different trade channels (branded, parallel imported and generic) were compared before and after patent expiry.

RESULTS

The costs per DDD decreased for all three drugs and, as expected, these costs decrease more rapidly after patent expiry. Significant differences in the trend lines were found for enalapril and fluoxetine.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite relatively high reimbursement prices for generics in the Netherlands, this example from the Dutch pharmaceutical market demonstrates the benefit of generic substitution for containing pharmaceutical costs, which contrasts with concerns raised by the Dutch government.

Listening to generic Prozac: winners, losers, and sideliners

This study tracks the diffusion of generic fluoxetine after its release in August 2001 within the largest U.S. pharmacy benefit manager (PBM). Within two weeks of the generic's release, prescriptions exceeded those of brand-name Prozac. The main winners proved to be Barr Laboratories, the first entrant to the generic market; large purchasers, who reaped substantial cost savings after Barr's period of exclusivity expired; and the PBM. The major loser was Eli Lilly, the manufacturer of Prozac. Consumers and makers of other antidepressants largely remained on the sidelines, with surprisingly little short-term impact evident from Prozac's patent expiration.

Cost and effectiveness of venlafaxine extended-release and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the acute phase of outpatient treatment for major depressive disorder

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this retrospective analysis was to estimate the cost and effectiveness of venlafaxine extended-release (VXR) compared with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in the outpatient treatment of major depressive disorder.

METHODS

Pooled data from 8, 8-week, randomized, double-blind studies comparing treatment of major depressive disorder with venlafaxine/venlafaxine XR (n = 851), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (fluoxetine, paroxetine, fluvoxamine; n = 748), or placebo (4 studies; n = 446) were retrospectively analyzed to determine the economic implications of symptom remission from the perspective of a US third party payer and that of an employer. A decision modeling approach was used to determine cost and effectiveness ratios.

RESULTS

Patients on VXR were associated with 22.8 depression-free days versus 18.6 depression-free days with the studied selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, based on the decision model. Productive and quality-adjusted days were also expected to increase for VXR patients (22.06 vs. 19.34 and 4.56 to 9.36 vs. 3.72 to 7.63), as was the percentage of patients achieving full activity (25.9% vs. 19.6%). The expected cost per patient achieving remission of symptoms was US 1303.94 dollars and US 1514.96 dollars, and the cost per depression-free days was US 25.66 dollars and US 28.25 dollars, for the VXR and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors groups, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with VXR is not only expected to increase the rate of remission of symptoms but is also associated with achievement of full activity, higher number of depression-free days, productive days, and quality-adjusted days. VXR is a cost-effective treatment option for major depressive disorder.

Prescribing patterns of tricyclic and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants among a sample of adolescents and young adults

PURPOSE

There are few studies that document antidepressant prescribing in young patients. Although tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) are considered equal in efficacy to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), the latter have an improved side effect profile. The aim of this study was to investigate the prescribing patterns of TCAs and SSRIs among adolescents and young adults, with reference to prescribing frequency, cost and dose.

METHOD

A retrospective drug utilization study was conducted over a 14-month period, from January 2000 to February 2001.

RESULTS

There were 166 antidepressants prescribed to 98 adolescents and young adults. TCAs were prescribed more frequently than SSRIs, with amitryptiline and fluoxetine being the two most frequently prescribed antidepressants. Fluoxetine accounted for a higher ratio of cost to prescribing frequency than amitryptiline. Amitryptiline was issued in small quantities of tablets, resulting in a low average calculated prescribed daily dose (PDD). Duration of treatment was not considered optimal for SSRIs or TCAs.

CONCLUSION

This study elicits prescribing patterns that contribute to the relative scarcity of data on antidepressant drugs for young patients.

Strategies to decrease costs of prescribing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors at a VA Medical Center

OBJECTIVE

The authors examined the efficacy of a multifaceted intervention designed to contain the cost of prescribing selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) to inpatients and outpatients served by a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center.

METHODS

Elements of the intervention included identification of a preferred agent, tablet splitting, education and feedback for prescribers, and an electronic record and ordering system to facilitate changes in prescriber behaviors. VA databases were searched for information on use and costs of antidepressants.

RESULTS

Over 35 months the number of patients treated with SSRIs and the amount spent on SSRIs increased. However, the mean monthly cost per patient decreased from $57.12 to $42.19. The projected cost savings over the 35 months was approximately $700,000; one-fourth of the savings was due to tablet splitting and three-fourths to changes in the proportions of the various SSRIs prescribed. A survey of the top 75 antidepressant prescribers showed that after the educational interventions, 91 percent were aware that citalopram was the medical center's preferred antidepressant, and 59 percent identified it as their own preferred first-line treatment.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that multifaceted interventions can influence antidepressant costs through provider education and changes in pharmacy and computerized information processes, resulting in substantial cost savings for institutions.

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of drug and psychological treatments for common mental disorders in general health care in Goa, India: a randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Common mental disorders are associated with substantial morbidity and disability in developing countries, but there are no data for efficacy of treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of antidepressant and psychological treatment for common mental disorders in general health-care settings.

METHOD

We did a randomised, placebo-controlled trial (double-blind for the antidepressant group) in general outpatient clinics in two district hospitals in Goa, India. Consecutive eligible adults who scored more than 15 on the Revised Clinical Interview Schedule (n=450) were randomly assigned to antidepressant (fluoxetine), placebo, or psychological treatment. Antidepressant or placebo was provided for up to 6 months. Up to six sessions of psychological treatment were provided by trained therapists. The primary outcome was psychiatric morbidity; secondary outcomes were disability and costs. Outcome measurements were done at 2, 6, and 12 months. Intention-to-treat analyses were done with linear regression.

FINDINGS

80% of patients were reviewed; the number of drop-outs was similar in all three groups. Psychiatric outcome was significantly better with antidepressant than with placebo at 2 months (p=0.02; standardised effect size 0.3), but not over the 2-12 month period (p=0.10); antidepressants were significantly more cost effective than placebo in the short term and long term (p<0.05). Psychological treatment was not more effective than placebo for any outcome during either period.

INTERPRETATION

Affordable antidepressants such as fluoxetine should be the treatment of choice for common mental disorders in general health-care settings in India, since they are associated with improved clinical and economic outcomes, especially in the short term.

Economic impact of olanzapine plus fluoxetine combination therapy among patients treated for depression: a pilot study

Individuals with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) utilize more health care services and are significantly more costly. Drug treatments for TRD may include concomitant administration of multiple antidepressants or augmentation with mood stabilizers or antipsychotic agents. An augmentation strategy currently under investigation is the use of an olanzapine plus fluoxetine combination (OFC) therapy. The objectives for this pilot study were to use claims data to: (1) describe the extent of current use of OFC in patients with depressive disorders, and (2) compare health care utilization patterns and medical costs of patients receiving fluoxetine therapy before and after the initiation of olanzapine treatment. Data source consisted of medical, pharmaceutical, and disability claims from a Fortune 100 manufacturer from 1996 to 1998 (N>100,000). The sample included individuals with medical or disability claims for major depressive disorders treated with OFC (nOFC=36). Resource utilization and costs were compared for fluoxetine patients before and after the initiation of olanzapine treatment. Eleven percent of patients on combination therapy received olanzapine and fluoxetine. For patients on fluoxetine, there was a statistically significant reduction in health care utilization, and overall medical costs (20%), following initiation of olanzapine therapy. Overall, it appears the addition of olanzapine to ongoing fluoxetine therapy is effective in reducing outpatient, office, and inpatient utilization, as well as medical costs of patients treated for depression. Further research is needed to investigate combination therapy more fully.

A retrospective analysis of the revocation of prior authorization restrictions and the use of antidepressant medications for treating major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

The California Medicaid (Medi-Cal) program removed prior authorization restrictions for 2 selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), fluoxetine and paroxetine, in May 1996.

OBJECTIVE

This article documents how open access affected patient compliance and the likelihood of switching antidepressant therapies.

METHODS

All Medi-Cal patients with a paid claim who had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) from September 1994 through January 1999 were eligible. The impact of open access on patient compliance and drug switching was investigated using logistic regression models. Completed therapy was defined as 180 days of uninterrupted drug therapy at a minimum therapeutic dose.

RESULTS

A total of 6409 patient treatment episodes were identified, of which 80% involved the use of an antidepressant. The aggregate rate of drug therapy completion dropped from 23.2% before the change in formulary policy to 20.5% in the open-access period. There was no corresponding change in the likelihood of switching therapies. For fluoxetine-treated patients, the odds ratio for completing therapy relative to tricyclic antidepressant-treated patients dropped from 3.916 to 1.706 in the open-access period. Corresponding results for paroxetine-treated patients were 1.591 and 0.726, respectively. The reduction in the likelihood of completed therapy without a corresponding increase in switching is consistent with earlier results. Open access resulted in an influx of patients who were not previously treated with an antidepressant or reported by their physician as having an MDD. Physicians may have expanded the use of the open-access SSRIs to treat less severely ill patients. However, paid claims data do not provide sufficient information to accurately measure severity of illness.

CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether patients benefited clinically from the expansion of the Medi-Cal formulary. The significant changes in the characteristics of the patient population in response to open access (access effect) complicate attempts to measure the impact of open access on treatment patterns. Future analysis of the impact of open access on the cost of treating an episode of depression will also have to address this issue.

Review of fluoxetine and its clinical applications in premenstrual dysphoric disorder

The largest number of antidepressant treatment trials in premenstrual syndrome and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) have been conducted with fluoxetine. Fluoxetine and other selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) clearly reduce premenstrual emotional and physical symptoms and improve premenstrual psychosocial functioning. Fluoxetine was the first SSRI to be approved by the FDA as a treatment for the emotional and physical symptoms of PMDD. Fluoxetine 20 mg has been reported to be effective for emotional and physical premenstrual symptoms with continuous daily dosing (every day of the menstrual cycle) and with luteal phase daily dosing (from ovulation to menses). In addition, premenstrual emotional symptoms have been reported to improve with fluoxetine 10 mg in luteal phase daily dosing and with 90 mg 2 and 1 weeks prior to menses. Fluoxetine is generally a well-tolerated treatment for PMDD and discontinuation effects have not been reported with intermittent dosing regimens.

Duration of therapy and health care costs of fluoxetine, paroxetine, and sertraline in 6 health plans

BACKGROUND

Previous studies comparing fluoxetine, paroxetine, and sertraline, the 3 most common selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), in naturalistic settings have produced conflicting results. With this study, we provide new evidence as to the similarities and differences among these SSRI therapies with respect to the duration of use and health care costs.

METHOD

Data from 6 health maintenance organizations were used to identify patients with new-onset major depression. number of days with filled prescriptions, and total health care and depression-related costs. The sample consisted of 1771 patients given initial prescriptions for sertraline (N = 386), fluoxetine (N = 840), or paroxetine (N = 545) in the period from July 1, 1994, to March 31, 1997. Analyses included Cox proportional hazards models (for duration of initial therapy) and ordinary least squares regression (for cost).

RESULTS

Patients who initiated therapy with fluoxetine were more likely to have a later interruption of therapy than patients who initiated therapy with sertraline (p = .03) and paroxetine (p = .001). Total 1-year costs did not differ statistically between the treatment groups, but 1-year depression-related costs were significantly lower for patients who initiated therapy with sertraline or paroxetine than for those who initiated therapy with fluoxetine ($332 less for sertraline, 95% confidence interval [CI] = $125 to $562; $339 less for paroxetine, 95% CI = $144 to $416).

LIMITATIONS

A limitation of this observational study, as well as of observational studies in general, is that unobserved characteristics of the patients may lead to biased estimates of the impact of treatment on adherence or cost, even with controls for observed characteristics.

CONCLUSION

We found no significant differences in total health care costs among the 3 SSRIs, but noted significant differences in depression-related costs (the costs of fluoxetine are greater than those of sertraline and paroxetine). Importantly, there was no relationship between treatment interruption and increased health care or depression-related costs, in contrast to the findings of some, but not all, prior studies.

The effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment of panic disorder on emergency room and laboratory resource utilization

BACKGROUND

While it has been well documented that patients with untreated panic disorder frequently utilize emergency room (ER) and laboratory services, no published data evaluate whether selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) treatment of patients with panic disorder is associated with decreased use of these services in the managed care organization setting.

METHOD

A medical and pharmacy claims database representing individuals from several managed care organizations was used to analyze ER and laboratory resource utilization and cost for 120 patients with panic disorder (ICD-9-CM criteria) who received SSRI treatment.

RESULTS

SSRI treatment was associated with a reduction in the mean number of ER and laboratory visits and costs in the 6-month period following therapy initiation compared with the 6-month period prior to therapy initiation (sertraline: visits, -79.5%; costs, -85.2%; p < .05; fluoxetine: visits, -25.0%; costs, -69.5%; p = NS; and paroxetine: visits, -8.6%; costs, -30.8%; p = NS).

CONCLUSION

The results of the current study suggest that appropriate treatment of panic disorder may decrease unnecessary resource utilization for the medical symptoms associated with panic disorder.

Pharmacoeconomic studies of antidepressants: focus on venlafaxine

Newer antidepressants are more expensive in terms of acquisition costs than older drugs. However, cost effectiveness simulations and retrospective analyses of administrative databases of newer antidepressants, including venlafaxine, suggest that the higher acquisition costs may be offset or more than offset by savings of other treatment costs. Because simulations and retrospective studies are vulnerable to multiple methodologic uncertainties, large scale randomized "real-world" cost effectiveness experiments are needed. If venlafaxine in actual practice is more effective or has a more rapid onset of action than SSRIs as suggested by efficacy studies and existing meta-analyses, these effects could translate into pharmacoeconomic advantages.

Long-term costs of treatment for depression: impact of drug selection and guideline adherence

OBJECTIVES

This paper examines three processes: SSRI antidepressant choice, adherence to treatment guidelines, and long-term health care expenditures associated with antidepressant treatment for patients with a diagnosis of depression.

METHODS

Patient records were abstracted from a medical claims database covering employer-provided health care plans. Treatment episodes required a 6-month antidepressant-free prior period; initial treatment with sertraline, paroxetine or fluoxetine; and data on direct medical costs over the 24 months following the initial prescription. The multivariate model of drug selection, patient adherence to antidepressant use guidelines, and cost was subjected to specification testing to rule out the possibility that nonrandom initial antidepressant selection might lead to sample selection bias. Further tests indicated that the results were free of bias due to a possible correlation between antidepressant selection and use of the medication, or because of the endogeneity of use patterns in the process driving cost. However, there was evidence of unobserved variables correlated with both achieving guideline adherent use and expenditures, which might have led to sample selection bias.

RESULTS

Subjects who met the study criteria included 796 initiating therapy with sertraline, 352 with paroxetine, and 882 with fluoxetine. Fluoxetine patients were significantly more likely than sertraline or paroxetine patients to achieve a use pattern that was consistent with guidelines for treating depressive disorder (p < .05). There were no statistically significant differences between the three treatment cohorts in total direct health care expenditures over the 2-year period (p < .05), and depression-related expenditures, other mental health expenditures, and non-mental health care expenditures did not show significant differences across the treatments (p < .05). Natural logged values of antidepressant drug expenditures were predicted to be highest for fluoxetine, followed by sertraline, then paroxetine (p < .01). Predicted log values of mental health expenditures were lower for sertraline relative to fluoxetine.

CONCLUSIONS

Fluoxetine patients had the highest likelihood of using antidepressant medication according to treatment guidelines that were developed to assure quality care. This benefit was achieved without incurring greater total health care expenditures.

Impact of the Minimum Pricing Policy and introduction of brand (generic) substitution into the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in Australia

PURPOSE

To describe the effects of introducing the Minimum Pricing Policy (MPP) and generic (brand) substitution in 1990 and 1994 respectively on the dispensing of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) prescriptions both at the aggregate and individual patient level.

METHODS

The relative proportion of prescriptions with a brand premium and those at benchmark was examined 4 years after introduction of the MPP and again 5 years later after generic substitution by pharmacists was permitted. To determine the impact of a price signal at the individual level, case studies involving a patient tracking methodology were conducted on two drugs (fluoxetine and ranitidine) that received a brand premium.

RESULTS

From a zero base when the MPP was introduced in 1990, there were 5.4 million prescriptions (17%) dispensed for benchmark products 4 years later in 1994. At this stage generic (brand) substitution by pharmacists was then permitted and the market share of benchmark brands increased to 45% (25.2 million) by 1999. In the patient tracking studies, a significantly lower proportion of patients was still taking the premium brand of fluoxetine 3 months after the introduction of a price signal compared with patients taking paroxetine which did not have a generic competitor. This was also the case for the premium brand of ranitidine when compared to famotidine. The size of the price signal also had a marked effect on dispensing behaviour with the drug with the larger premium (fluoxetine) showing a significantly greater switch away from the premium brand to the benchmark product.

CONCLUSIONS

The introduction in 1990 of the Minimum Pricing Policy without allowing generic substitution had a relatively small impact on the selection of medicines within the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. However the effect of generic substitution at the pharmacist level, which was introduced in December 1994, resulted in a marked increase in the percentage of eligible PBS items dispensed at benchmark. Case studies showed a larger premium resulted in a greater shift of patients from drugs with a brand premium to the benchmark alternative.

Costs and outcomes of use of amitriptyline, citalopram and fluoxetine in major depression: exploratory study

BACKGROUND

The increasing cost of pharmaceuticals in the Czech Republic has led to the restriction on prescriptions of expensive new antidepressants. The aim of the study was to compare the costs and outcomes of using amitriptyline, citalopram and fluoxetine in the treatment of major depression.

METHODS

Ninety patients (69 women) with a mean age of 44.5 years (S.D. = 14.3) suffering from major depression were treated with amitriptyline (N = 31), citalopram (N = 29) and fluoxetine (N = 30). Direct medical costs and effectiveness (indicated by the number of hospitalization-free days) were assessed in a prospective, open, intent-to-treat study.

RESULTS

Neither cost nor effectiveness were significantly different among the treatment groups.

CONCLUSION

Amitriptyline treatment is not less expensive nor more effective than citalopram or fluoxetine therapies. There is no advantage in restricting patients from treatment with SSRIs, which have fewer adverse effects and a decreased risk of a lethal overdosage in comparison with tricyclic antidepressants.

Economic evaluation of major selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors in a managed care population

This study evaluated pharmaceutical charges and economic outcomes related to therapy with the three leading selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors. Patient treatment episodes of major depression occurring between July 1, 1995 and June 30, 1996 were included for analysis (patient age range, 18-64 yr). Results showed no significant differences among direct and related medical charges for fluoxetine, paroxetine, and sertraline. Direct and related pharmaceutical charges were significantly lower for paroxetine and sertraline compared with fluoxetine. The higher drug charges observed for fluoxetine resulted in higher total treatment charges compared with paroxetine and sertraline.

Using forecasting models to estimate the effects of changes in the composition of claims for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors on expenditures

BACKGROUND

The use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) as antidepressant therapy has increased considerably since the introduction of fluoxetine in 1989. By 1999, 3 of the 4 available SSRIs were among the top 10 most frequently used drugs in the United States. In addition, SSRIs were one of the major contributors to the growth in psychotropic medication expenditures during the past 5 years.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article was to examine the utilization patterns of the 4 most commonly used SSRIs and their contribution to rising antidepressant medication expenditures among claimants in a publicly funded drug program. Using the results of forecasting models, we explored possible ways to control these growing expenditures.

METHODS

Cross-sectional antidepressant claims and expenditure data from the Ontario Drug Benefits program for 1992 to 1998 were examined. Five scenarios were modeled in which future SSRI expenditures and claims were predicted using exponential smoothing models.

RESULTS

If the historical patterns of use continued, a 20% increase in the 1998 level of expenditures was expected to occur by the year 2000. Predicted expenditures are sensitive to the composition of the SSRI claims. Exclusive use of 1 of the 4 major SSRIs (fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, and sertraline) could decrease projected expenditures by 30% or increase them by 11%. An "equal shares" approach, in which each of the 4 SSRIs are used in equal proportions in the population, may reduce expenditures by approximately 8%.

CONCLUSIONS

The current trends in the utilization data suggest that sertraline and paroxetine are being used as first-line treatments. The results of the forecasting models suggest that growing expenditures could be curbed if these 2 antidepressants were not used in that manner. Short of limiting the drugs available on benefit formularies, there may be a way to control costs through the use of a prescribing algorithm. Although our results support the use of fluoxetine for first-line SSRI treatment as a cost-control measure, we do not definitively recommend its adoption. These findings contribute to the discussion about using fixed versus flexible formularies as a potential cost-control mechanism.

Economic impact of using mirtazapine compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine in the treatment of moderate and severe depression in the UK

This study modelled the economic impact of mirtazapine, compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine, in the management of moderate and severe depression in the UK, as well as the costs related to discontinuation of antidepressant treatment. Decision models of the management of moderate and severe depression were developed from clinical trial data, resource use obtained from interviews with general practitioners and psychiatrists, and published literature, and were used to estimate the expected direct National Health Service (NHS) costs of managing a patient with moderate or severe depression. The expected cost of healthcare resource use attributable to managing a patient suffering from moderate or severe depression who discontinues antidepressant treatment, irrespective of the initial treatment, was estimated to be pounds sterling 206 (range pounds sterling 50 to pounds sterling 504) over five months. Using mirtazapine instead of amitriptyline for seven months increases the proportion of successfully treated patients by 21% (from 19.2 to 23.2%) and reduces the expected direct NHS cost by pounds sterling 35 per patient (from pounds sterling 448 to pounds sterling 413). Using mirtazapine instead of fluoxetine for six months increases the proportion of successfully treated patients by 22% (from 15.6 to 19.1%), albeit for an additional cost to the NHS of pounds sterling 27 per patient (from pounds sterling 394 to pounds sterling 420). In conclusion, this study suggests that mirtazapine is a cost-effective antidepressant compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine in the management of moderate and severe depression in the UK.

Comparing SSRI treatment costs for depression using retrospective claims data: the role of nonrandom selection and skewed data

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Since conventional randomized clinical trials often do not reflect the real world circumstances of prescribing behavior and patient outcomes, the use of retrospective administrative claims databases (RACD) has become more common in treatment cost comparisons among alternative pharmaceutical compounds. Several recent RACD studies have compared treatment costs for depressed patients prescribed SSRIs such as fluoxetine, sertraline and paroxetine. These cost comparisons have reached mixed conclusions. To begin to explain and reconcile the mixed SSRI cost comparison evidence, we undertake a variety of alternative multivariate analyses using a publicly available RACD.

METHODS AND DATA

The 1995 to 1996 data encompasses a time period when all three SSRIs had become well-established agents. We report and compare results from multivariate linear regressions, logistic regressions, ordered probits and sample selectivity models, and examine robustness when adjustments are made for outlier observations and skewed distributions.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

While choice of initial SSRI is nonrandom, the effect of sample selectivity on total depression-related and total health care expenditure is neutral across SSRIs. Although most cost measures are numerically greatest for fluoxetine, depression-related outpatient and hospitalization costs do not significantly differ by choice of initial SSRI. These findings are robust to alternative assumptions, specifications, and procedures. Antidepressant medication costs, however, are significantly higher when fluoxetine is the initial SSRI rather than sertraline or paroxetine, reflecting the larger proportion of fluoxetine patients prescribed a daily dosage of two or more capsules. Both total depression-related and total health care log-transformed costs are significantly lower for sertraline than fluoxetine.

[Treatment of depression and cost efficiency. The cost of a tablet is a poor indicator seen from a socioeconomic perspective]

Direct costs for treating depression, i.e. the cost of out-patient and in-patient care together with drug costs, have increased by 55 per cent during the period 1987-1997 in Sweden. Drugs incurred the greatest increase, whereas the cost of in-patient care has decreased. Indirect costs, i.e. sick leave, morbidity and premature mortality due to depression, have also increased during this period. Cost-effectiveness calculations comparing mirtazapine with amitriptyline show that it is less expensive to initiate treatment with mirtazapine, both when direct costs are compared and when indirect costs are included. In a comparison between mirtazapine and fluoxetine, initial treatment with fluoxetine is less expensive with respect to direct cost, but these two alternatives are equivalent when indirect costs are taken into consideration. The price of drug is a poor criterion of resource expenditures and of rational pharmacological therapy in the treatment of depression.

The importance of achieving additional drug benefits at a reasonable cost. A review of the fluoxetine years

Fluoxetine continues to be remarkably successful; greater volumes of this drug are sold than for any other antidepressant in the world. Prozac has also become a household name. In this article we examine the circumstances that surround this success, and the evidence base that supports it. Rather than being a major step forward in the treatment for depression, the evidence for fluoxetine and for the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in general suggest at best a modest improvement in tolerability, with no evidence of improved efficacy. We note that the road to success was not problem free for fluoxetine, and highlight the response of the sponsor in the development of subsequent drugs for CNS disorders.

Cost-effectiveness of fluoxetine plus pindolol in patients with major depressive disorder: results from a randomized, double-blind clinical trial

Some preliminary studies have suggested that the beta-adrenoceptor 5-HT1A antagonist pindolol (PIN) could increase the effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). We prospectively estimated the cost-effectiveness of fluoxetine and pindolol versus fluoxetine plus placebo, using results from the first double-blind randomized clinical trial comparing both treatments. Efficacy and medical care resource utilization were collected prospectively in a parallel, randomized, double-blind clinical trial conducted in a single centre in Spain. Average cost-effectiveness (cost/% response and cost/% remission) as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness were calculated for both treatments. A 'bootstrap' method was used to calculate confidence limits around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. A significantly greater percentage of patients (one-tailed P < 0.05) in the fluoxetine FLX + PIN group than in the FLX + PLA group had experienced a therapeutic response (74.5% versus 58.97%) at 6 weeks. Direct medical costs were lower in the FLX + PIN group (mean 2508 pesetas per patient) than in the FLX + PLA group (mean 31870 pesetas per patient). Hospital admissions due to worsening of depressive symptoms were significantly lower (P < 0.05) in the FLX + PIN group (0/55) than in the FLX + PLA group (4/56). The observed differences in average costs and percentage response in the study were -29362 pesetas (< 0) and 15.6% (> 0), respectively, and the resulting cost-effectiveness ratio was negative. These outcomes indicate that the FLX + PIN option completely dominates FLX + PLA. These results suggest that, over a course of 6 weeks of treatment, the combination of fluoxetine and pindolol incurs lower direct medical costs than treatment with fluoxetine placebo. Despite their limitations, economic assessments in addition to clinical trials allow a 'dynamic assessment' on the potential success of the drug, both from a clinical and an economic point of view, allowing decisions on priorities to be made earlier.

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.

Modeling the pharmacoeconomic cost of three selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors

The authors present a method for modeling cost data on three selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs)-fluoxetine, paroxetine, and sertraline-from a large clinical outcomes study in a university-affiliated mental health center. Using data from 2,779 patients, average drug cost per day was calculated based on the percentage of patients on each daily dose of each medication. Given no overall significant difference between the SSRIs in effectiveness, the actual average cost per day determined by dose distribution was $1.79 for fluoxetine, $1.41 for paroxetine, and $1.21 for sertraline (using halved 100 mg tablets). The results suggest that cost can serve as one measure to help guide choice of medications.

Cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine in the treatment of moderate and severe depression in austria

This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine, compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine, in the management of moderate and severe depression in Austria, as well as the costs related to the discontinuation of antidepressant treatment from the perspective of the Austrian Sick Funds (Gebietskrankenkassen). The economic analyses were based on a meta-analysis of four randomised clinical trials comparing mirtazapine with amitriptyline, and on a six week comparative trial of mirtazapine and fluoxetine which was extrapolated to six months using assumptions derived from the literature. Decision models of the treatment paths and associated resource use attributable to managing moderate and severe depression in Austria were developed from clinical trial data, information on Austrian clinical practice obtained from interviews with an Austrian Delphi panel (comprising psychiatrists and GPs), and from published literature. The models were used to estimate the expected costs to the Gebietskrankenkassen of managing a patient with moderate or severe depression, and the indirect cost per patient to Austrian society due to lost productivity. The expected cost to the Gebietskrankenkassen of healthcare resource use attributable to managing a patient suffering from moderate or severe depression who discontinues antidepressant treatment was estimated to be ATS 4,088 over five months, of which hospitalisations accounted for nearly 69% of the cost. Using mirtazapine instead of amitriptyline for 28 weeks increases the proportion of successfully treated patients by 21% (from 19.2 to 23.2%), and reduces the expected cost to the Gebietskrankenkassen by ATS 1,112 per patient (from ATS 31,411 to ATS 30,299). Patients treated with mirtazapine and amitriptyline for 28 weeks are expected to miss 4.76 and 5.01 weeks of work respectively, due to their depression. Hence, the expected indirect cost to Austrian society over this period was estimated to be ATS 58, 787 and ATS 61,851 per patient respectively. Using mirtazapine instead of fluoxetine for six months increases the proportion of successfully treated patients by 22% (from 15.6 to 19.1%), albeit for a negligible additional cost to the Gebietskrankenkassen of ATS 408 per patient (from ATS 29,205 to ATS 29,613). Patients treated with mirtazapine and fluoxetine for six months are expected to miss 4.53 weeks of work, due to their depression. Hence, the expected indirect cost to Austrian society due to lost productivity was estimated to be ATS 55,900 per patient with either antidepressant. In conclusion, this study suggests that despite the differences in acquisition costs, mirtazapine is a cost-effective antidepressant compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine, supporting the adoption of this treatment in the management of moderate and severe depression in Austria.