OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram, a new selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), with (generic) citalopram in the first-line treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in Austria. METHODS: A two-path decision analytic model with a 6-month horizon was adapted to the Austrian setting using Austrian clinical guidelines. All patients (aged >or= 18 years) started at the primary successfully treated patient was lower ( currency 115) for care path and were referred to specialist care in the secondary care path in case of insufficient response. Model inputs included drug-specific probabilities from head-to-head trial data, literature and expert opinion. The main outcome measure was success (i.e., remission defined as Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score <or= 12) and costs of treatment (i.e., drug costs and medical care). The analysis was performed from the Austrian societal and Social Healthcare Insurance System (SHIS) perspectives. The Human Capital approach was used to estimate the societal costs of lost productivity. RESULTS: Treatment with escitalopram yielded lower expected cost and greater effectiveness compared with citalopram. The expected success rate was higher for escitalopram (64.5%) compared to citalopram (59.1%). From the SHIS perspective, the total expected cost per escitalopram ( currency 608) compared with citalopram ( currency 723). From the societal perspective, these expected costs were currency 3034 and currency 3269 respectively. Sensitivity analyses on unit costs and probabilities demonstrated the robustness of the results. From the societal perspective, escitalopram remained the dominant treatment option, even at a cost of currency 0 for (generic) citalopram. CONCLUSION: Escitalopram is a cost-effective alternative compared to (generic) citalopram in the first-line treatment of MDD in Austria.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram, a new selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), with (generic) citalopram in the first-line treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in Austria. METHODS: A two-path decision analytic model with a 6-month horizon was adapted to the Austrian setting using Austrian clinical guidelines. All patients (aged >or= 18 years) started at the primary successfully treated patient was lower ( currency 115) for care path and were referred to specialist care in the secondary care path in case of insufficient response. Model inputs included drug-specific probabilities from head-to-head trial data, literature and expert opinion. The main outcome measure was success (i.e., remission defined as Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score <or= 12) and costs of treatment (i.e., drug costs and medical care). The analysis was performed from the Austrian societal and Social Healthcare Insurance System (SHIS) perspectives. The Human Capital approach was used to estimate the societal costs of lost productivity. RESULTS: Treatment with escitalopram yielded lower expected cost and greater effectiveness compared with citalopram. The expected success rate was higher for escitalopram (64.5%) compared to citalopram (59.1%). From the SHIS perspective, the total expected cost per escitalopram ( currency 608) compared with citalopram ( currency 723). From the societal perspective, these expected costs were currency 3034 and currency 3269 respectively. Sensitivity analyses on unit costs and probabilities demonstrated the robustness of the results. From the societal perspective, escitalopram remained the dominant treatment option, even at a cost of currency 0 for (generic) citalopram. CONCLUSION:Escitalopram is a cost-effective alternative compared to (generic) citalopram in the first-line treatment of MDD in Austria.
Authors: Colleen E Carney; Jack D Edinger; Maragatha Kuchibhatla; Angela M Lachowski; Olya Bogouslavsky; Andrew D Krystal; Colin M Shapiro Journal: Sleep Date: 2017-04-01 Impact factor: 5.849