Ai Leng Khoo1, Hui Jun Zhou2, Monica Teng2, Liang Lin2, Ying Jiao Zhao2, Lay Beng Soh3, Yee Ming Mok4, Boon Peng Lim2, Kok Peng Gwee4. 1. Pharmacy and Therapeutics Office, Group Corporate Development, National Healthcare Group, 3 Fusionopolis Link, #03-08 Nexus@one-north, Singapore, 138543, Singapore. ai_leng_khoo@nhg.com.sg. 2. Pharmacy and Therapeutics Office, Group Corporate Development, National Healthcare Group, 3 Fusionopolis Link, #03-08 Nexus@one-north, Singapore, 138543, Singapore. 3. Pharmacy Department, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore. 4. Department of General Psychiatry, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) impacts health, quality of life and workplace productivity. Antidepressant treatment is the primary therapeutic intervention. This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of new generation antidepressants and their cost-effectiveness in the Singapore healthcare system. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search for head-to-head randomised controlled trials on ten antidepressants (agomelatine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, mirtazapine, paroxetine, sertraline, trazodone and venlafaxine) employed as monotherapy in acute MDD management. We performed a network meta-analysis to compare their relative efficacy. The outcome measures for efficacy were response and remission rate, and mean change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score; and for tolerability, study withdrawal rates due to adverse events. To evaluate their relative cost effectiveness, a decision tree simulating a cohort of MDD patients using antidepressant as monotherapy was constructed from a societal perspective over 6 months. We used effectiveness data from our network meta-analysis and local data on resource use for depression in Singapore. The incremental cost expected for each additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated and presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: We identified 76 relevant articles for the network meta-analysis. Of the ten agents included in the analysis, mirtazapine and agomelatine were most efficacious in achieving response and remission, respectively. Mirtazapine and duloxetine resulted in the greatest magnitude of change in the HDRS score. Agomelatine, escitalopram and sertraline were the best tolerated of the drugs analysed, while duloxetine was the least well tolerated drug. Using a composite outcome of efficacy (response and remission rates) and tolerability, agomelatine, escitalopram and mirtazapine were the favoured treatments. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, apart from agomelatine, all the treatments were dominated by mirtazapine. Against mirtazapine, agomelatine was not cost effective given that its ICER exceeded the threshold value. CONCLUSION: Agomelatine, escitalopram and mirtazapine had favourable balance between efficacy and tolerability. In addition, mirtazapine was a cost-effective option in the Singapore healthcare system.
BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) impacts health, quality of life and workplace productivity. Antidepressant treatment is the primary therapeutic intervention. This study assessed the efficacy and tolerability of new generation antidepressants and their cost-effectiveness in the Singapore healthcare system. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search for head-to-head randomised controlled trials on ten antidepressants (agomelatine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluvoxamine, fluoxetine, mirtazapine, paroxetine, sertraline, trazodone and venlafaxine) employed as monotherapy in acute MDD management. We performed a network meta-analysis to compare their relative efficacy. The outcome measures for efficacy were response and remission rate, and mean change in Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) score; and for tolerability, study withdrawal rates due to adverse events. To evaluate their relative cost effectiveness, a decision tree simulating a cohort of MDDpatients using antidepressant as monotherapy was constructed from a societal perspective over 6 months. We used effectiveness data from our network meta-analysis and local data on resource use for depression in Singapore. The incremental cost expected for each additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained was calculated and presented as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: We identified 76 relevant articles for the network meta-analysis. Of the ten agents included in the analysis, mirtazapine and agomelatine were most efficacious in achieving response and remission, respectively. Mirtazapine and duloxetine resulted in the greatest magnitude of change in the HDRS score. Agomelatine, escitalopram and sertraline were the best tolerated of the drugs analysed, while duloxetine was the least well tolerated drug. Using a composite outcome of efficacy (response and remission rates) and tolerability, agomelatine, escitalopram and mirtazapine were the favoured treatments. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, apart from agomelatine, all the treatments were dominated by mirtazapine. Against mirtazapine, agomelatine was not cost effective given that its ICER exceeded the threshold value. CONCLUSION:Agomelatine, escitalopram and mirtazapine had favourable balance between efficacy and tolerability. In addition, mirtazapine was a cost-effective option in the Singapore healthcare system.
Authors: C Ballús; G Quiros; T De Flores; J de la Torre; D Palao; L Rojo; M Gutiérrez; L Casais; Y Riesgo Journal: Int Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 1.659
Authors: Michael J Detke; Curtis G Wiltse; Craig H Mallinckrodt; Robert K McNamara; Mark A Demitrack; Istvan Bitter Journal: Eur Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 4.600
Authors: Jay C Fournier; Robert J DeRubeis; Steven D Hollon; Sona Dimidjian; Jay D Amsterdam; Richard C Shelton; Jan Fawcett Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: E Aguglia; M Casacchia; G B Cassano; C Faravelli; G Ferrari; P Giordano; P Pancheri; L Ravizza; M Trabucchi; F Bolino Journal: Int Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 1993 Impact factor: 1.659
Authors: Sheila A M Rauch; H Myra Kim; Corey Powell; Peter W Tuerk; Naomi M Simon; Ron Acierno; Carolyn B Allard; Sonya B Norman; Margaret R Venners; Barbara O Rothbaum; Murray B Stein; Katherine Porter; Brian Martis; Anthony P King; Israel Liberzon; K Luan Phan; Charles W Hoge Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Sidney H Kennedy; Raymond W Lam; Roger S McIntyre; S Valérie Tourjman; Venkat Bhat; Pierre Blier; Mehrul Hasnain; Fabrice Jollant; Anthony J Levitt; Glenda M MacQueen; Shane J McInerney; Diane McIntosh; Roumen V Milev; Daniel J Müller; Sagar V Parikh; Norma L Pearson; Arun V Ravindran; Rudolf Uher Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Cecília R Proença; John C Markowitz; Bruno M Coimbra; Hugo Cogo-Moreira; Mariana R Maciel; Andrea F Mello; Marcelo F Mello Journal: Eur J Psychotraumatol Date: 2022-10-14
Authors: Spyros Kolovos; Judith E Bosmans; Heleen Riper; Karine Chevreul; Veerle M H Coupé; Maurits W van Tulder Journal: Pharmacoecon Open Date: 2017-09