OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine vs duloxetine in adults with moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder (MDD) in Norway using a definition of a successfully treated patient (STP) that incorporates improvement in both mood symptoms and functional capacity. METHODS: Using the population of patients who completed the 8-week CONNECT study, the cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine (n = 168) (10-20 mg/day) vs duloxetine (n = 176) (60 mg/day) was investigated for the treatment of adults in Norway with moderate-to-severe MDD and self-reported cognitive dysfunction over an 8-week treatment period. Cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of cost per STP, defined as improvement in mood symptoms (≥50% decrease from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score) and change in UCSD [University of California San Diego] performance-based skills assessment [UPSA] score of ≥7. The base case analysis utilized pharmacy retail price (apotek utsalgspris (AUP)) for branded vortioxetine (Brintellix) and branded duloxetine (Cymbalta). RESULTS: After 8 weeks of antidepressant therapy, there were more STPs with vortioxetine than with duloxetine (27.4% vs 22.5%, respectively). The mean number needed to treat for each STP was 3.6 for vortioxetine and 4.4 for duloxetine, resulting in a lower mean cost per STP for vortioxetine (NOK [Norwegian Kroner] 3264) than for duloxetine (NOK 3310) and an incremental cost per STP of NOK 3051. The use of a more challenging change in the UPSA score from baseline (≥9) resulted in a mean cost per STP of NOK 3822 for vortioxetine compared with NOK 3983 for duloxetine and an incremental cost per STP of NOK 3181. CONCLUSIONS:Vortioxetine may be a cost-effective alternative to duloxetine, owing to its superior ability to improve functional capacity. The dual-response STP concept introduced here represents a more comprehensive analysis of the cost-effectiveness of antidepressants.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine vs duloxetine in adults with moderate-to-severe major depressive disorder (MDD) in Norway using a definition of a successfully treated patient (STP) that incorporates improvement in both mood symptoms and functional capacity. METHODS: Using the population of patients who completed the 8-week CONNECT study, the cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine (n = 168) (10-20 mg/day) vs duloxetine (n = 176) (60 mg/day) was investigated for the treatment of adults in Norway with moderate-to-severe MDD and self-reported cognitive dysfunction over an 8-week treatment period. Cost-effectiveness was assessed in terms of cost per STP, defined as improvement in mood symptoms (≥50% decrease from baseline in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale total score) and change in UCSD [University of California San Diego] performance-based skills assessment [UPSA] score of ≥7. The base case analysis utilized pharmacy retail price (apotek utsalgspris (AUP)) for branded vortioxetine (Brintellix) and branded duloxetine (Cymbalta). RESULTS: After 8 weeks of antidepressant therapy, there were more STPs with vortioxetine than with duloxetine (27.4% vs 22.5%, respectively). The mean number needed to treat for each STP was 3.6 for vortioxetine and 4.4 for duloxetine, resulting in a lower mean cost per STP for vortioxetine (NOK [Norwegian Kroner] 3264) than for duloxetine (NOK 3310) and an incremental cost per STP of NOK 3051. The use of a more challenging change in the UPSA score from baseline (≥9) resulted in a mean cost per STP of NOK 3822 for vortioxetine compared with NOK 3983 for duloxetine and an incremental cost per STP of NOK 3181. CONCLUSIONS:Vortioxetine may be a cost-effective alternative to duloxetine, owing to its superior ability to improve functional capacity. The dual-response STP concept introduced here represents a more comprehensive analysis of the cost-effectiveness of antidepressants.