Cost-effectiveness analyses for mirtazapine and sertraline in dementia: randomised controlled trial

James Lindesay, DM, Department of Psychiatry, University of Leicester
The British journal of psychiatry: the journal of mental science (Impact Factor: 7.34). 12/2012; 202(2). DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.115212
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Depression is a common and costly comorbidity in dementia. There are very few data on the cost-effectiveness of antidepressants for depression in dementia and their effects on carer outcomes. AIMS: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of sertraline and mirtazapine compared with placebo for depression in dementia. METHOD: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial with a parallel cost-effectiveness analysis (trial registration: ISRCTN88882979 and EudraCT 2006-000105-38). The primary cost-effectiveness analysis compared differences in treatment costs for patients receiving sertraline, mirtazapine or placebo with differences in effectiveness measured by the primary outcome, total Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia (CSDD) score, over two time periods: 0-13 weeks and 0-39 weeks. The secondary evaluation was a cost-utility analysis using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) computed from the Euro-Qual (EQ-5D) and societal weights over those same periods. RESULTS: There were 339 participants randomised and 326 with costs data (111 placebo, 107 sertraline, 108 mirtazapine). For the primary outcome, decrease in depression, mirtazapine and sertraline were not cost-effective compared with placebo. However, examining secondary outcomes, the time spent by unpaid carers caring for participants in the mirtazapine group was almost half that for patients receiving placebo (6.74 v. 12.27 hours per week) or sertraline (6.74 v. 12.32 hours per week). Informal care costs over 39 weeks were £1510 and £1522 less for the mirtazapine group compared with placebo and sertraline respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of reducing depression, mirtazapine and sertraline were not cost-effective for treating depression in dementia. However, mirtazapine does appear likely to have been cost-effective if costing includes the impact on unpaid carers and with quality of life included in the outcome. Unpaid (family) carer costs were lower with mirtazapine than sertraline or placebo. This may have been mediated via the putative ability of mirtazapine to ameliorate sleep disturbances and anxiety. Given the priority and the potential value of supporting family carers of people with dementia, further research is warranted to investigate the potential of mirtazapine to help with behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia and in supporting carers.


Available from: Renee Romeo, Jun 10, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite considerable progress in measuring family spillover effects for economic evaluations, much work remains. This editorial describes recent advances in the field and identifies areas for future research. In particular, we point out the need to clarify the potential for double-counting from including spillover effects related to caregiver time and spillover effects related to family quality of life outcomes in Reference Case analyses. We believe that research on family spillover effects has the potential to increase interest in the field of economic evaluation and its use as a tool for decision making.
    Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research 12/2014; 15(2):1-4. DOI:10.1586/14737167.2015.997216 · 1.87 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper updates our previous review of the evidence base for managing depression in old age while focusing more specifically on the use of antidepressants. Overall, recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses indicate that antidepressants are effective in the acute treatment of depression in old age but that the superiority of active drug over placebo is quite modest. The depression of Alzheimer's disease is probably not treated effectively with antidepressants. The most consistent evidence is for the effectiveness of continued antidepressant treatment in those depressed patients who respond well to acute treatment. There remains a clear need for more research to identify effective treatments for resistant depression though therapeutic nihilism should be avoided if first-line treatment fails.
    Maturitas 10/2014; 79(2). DOI:10.1016/j.maturitas.2014.05.016 · 2.86 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Collaborative care is an effective treatment for the management of depression but evidence on its cost-effectiveness in the UK is lacking. Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting. Methods: An economic evaluation alongside a multi-centre cluster randomised controlled trial comparing collaborative care with usual primary care for adults with depression (n = 581). Costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated over a 12-month follow-up, from the perspective of the UK National Health Service and Personal Social Services (i.e. Third Party Payer). Sensitivity analyses are reported, and uncertainty is presented using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and the cost-effectiveness plane. Results: The collaborative care intervention had a mean cost of 272.50 pound per participant. Health and social care service use, excluding collaborative care, indicated a similar profile of resource use between collaborative care and usual care participants. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI: -0.02, 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years over 12 months, at a mean incremental cost of 270.72 pound (95% CI: -202.98, 886.04), and resulted in an estimated mean cost per QALY of 14,248 pound. Where costs associated with informal care are considered in sensitivity analyses collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective, thereby dominating treatment as usual. Conclusion: Collaborative care offers health gains at a relatively low cost, and is cost-effective compared with usual care against a decision-maker willingness to pay threshold of 20,000 per QALY gained. Results here support the commissioning of collaborative care in a UK primary care setting.
    PLoS ONE 08/2014; 9(8):e104225. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0104225 · 3.53 Impact Factor