Sertraline. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of its use in depression.

Depression is a common condition that is often unrecognised, misdiagnosed and/or undertreated. It is associated with substantial direct, indirect and intangible costs. The indirect costs of lost earnings/productivity and premature death account for the majority of these costs; drug costs account for only about 1 to 2% of total costs and about 10 to 12% of direct costs. Thus, better recognition and appropriate treatment of depression would increase the direct costs associated with this illness, but would also have the potential to greatly reduce indirect costs and consequently the overall cost of depression. Because of their higher acquisition costs relative to tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), there has been much debate about whether the use of sertraline or other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) for first-line treatment of depression can be justified. While these agents have similar efficacy to TCAs, they are better tolerated and have a lower risk of death on overdosage. Despite the large economic burden of depression on society, pharmacoeconomic data on sertraline and antidepressant drugs in general are scarce. Most of the available studies on sertraline are limited to considerations of direct costs and do not assess costs from a societal perspective. In addition, a number of studies have significant methodological problems which limit determination of meaningful conclusions. Nonetheless, data from 2 more recent studies with fewer methodological problems than earlier studies indicated that sertraline was more cost-effective than TCAs because of fewer psychiatrist consultations, and less costly than fluoxetine because of fewer absences from work and fewer medical consultations. The cost-utility ratio of maintenance therapy of depression with sertraline appears to fall within the range of accepted cost-utility ratios of common healthcare interventions. Thus, studies to date have generally shown that overall treatment costs with sertraline and other SSRIs are no greater than those for TCAs; this is despite the lower acquisition costs of the latter agents. Therefore, it is clear from these data that it is misleading to classify antidepressant agents as expensive or inexpensive based solely on their acquisition costs. Sertraline, therefore, can be considered as a first-line alternative to TCAs and other SSRIs for the treatment of depression on both clinical and pharmacoeconomic grounds.