ABSTRACT: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a major public health concern associated with a high burden to society, the health-care system, and patients and an estimated cost of €3.5 billion in Sweden. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram versus generic venlafaxine extended-release (XR) in MDD, accounting for the full clinical profile of each, adopting the Swedish societal perspective, and identifying major cost drivers.
Cost-effectiveness of escitalopram versus venlafaxine XR was analyzed over a 6-month time frame, on the basis of a decision tree, for patients with MDD seeking primary care treatment in Sweden. Effectiveness outcomes for the model were quality-adjusted life-years and probability of sustained remission after acute treatment (first 8 weeks) and sustained for 6 months. Cost outcomes included direct treatment costs and indirect costs associated with sick leave.
Compared with generic venlafaxine XR, escitalopram was less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (expected gain 0.00865) and expected 6-month sustained remission probability (incremental gain 0.0374). The better tolerability profile of escitalopram contributed to higher expected quality-adjusted life-years and lower health-care resource utilization in terms of pharmacological treatment of adverse events (though only a minor component of treatment costs). Expected per-patient saving was €169.15 for escitalopram versus venlafaxine. Cost from sick leave constituted about 85% of total costs.
Escitalopram was estimated as more effective and cost saving than generic venlafaxine XR in first-line MDD treatment in Sweden, driven by the effectiveness and tolerability advantages of escitalopram. The study findings are robust and in line with similar pharmacoeconomic analyses.
Value in Health 03/2012; 15(2):231-9. · 2.19 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: Escitalopram is the S-enantiomer of citalopram and is the most discriminating of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). The aim of the current analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) duloxetine and generic venlafaxine as second-step treatment of major depressive disorder.
The analysis was based on a decision analytic model. Effectiveness outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and remission rates; cost outcomes were direct medical costs, including impact of treating adverse events, and indirect costs associated with lost productivity. The analysis was performed from the societal perspective in Sweden over a 6-month timeframe.
Estimated remission rates showed an incremental effectiveness in favour of escitalopram of 16.4 percentage points compared with both SNRI comparators. The escitalopram strategy was associated with a 0.025 increase in QALYs. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model is robust and that escitalopram remains a cost-effective option when considering future predicted price reductions of generic venlafaxine.
The main limitation in this study was the lack of data available for second-step treatment. The remission rates, which are a key input to the model, were obtained from a relatively small sample of patients on second-step treatment and there are no published relapse rates for second-step treatment. The model also assumed that there was no difference in the adverse event (AE) rates between treatments after the first 8 weeks.
This cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000, escitalopram is the most cost-effective second-step treatment option for MDD in Sweden in over 85% cases compared with both venlafaxine and with duloxetine. Benefits for escitalopram included both increased effectiveness and reduced overall costs. The major contributing costs were those associated with productivity loss. The model was shown to have internal validity and robustness through the use of stochastic simulations and sensitivity analyses, which were conducted around the key efficacy parameters.
Journal of Medical Economics 01/2010; 13(3):516-26.
ABSTRACT: Hazardous alcohol use is associated with an increased risk for development of a substance use disorder, leading to negative outcomes in psychiatric patients.
In order to investigate whether psychiatric outpatients' hazardous alcohol consumption could be reduced by way of a brief intervention by telephone.
Non-psychotic psychiatric outpatients, n = 1,670, completed a self-rating form concerning alcohol habits (AUDIT). Participants with scores indicating risk consumption (n = 344) were randomised to intervention (immediate advice) or control (advice after 6 months).
Hazardous alcohol habits occurred among 19% of the women and 24% of the men. In the intervention group, half of the patients reduced their alcohol consumption to non-hazardous levels at 6-month follow-up (ITT analysis). In women, 41.5% in the intervention group had no hazardous consumption at follow-up compared to 24.7% in the control group (P = 0.003), corresponding figure for men was 49.1 and 34.0%.
Brief intervention seems to be effective to reduce hazardous alcohol consumption in psychiatric outpatients.
Social Psychiatry 04/2009; 44(12):1013-21. · 2.05 Impact Factor
ABSTRACT: From a large consecutive sample (n = 1,312) of hospital-treated alcoholics with multiaxial ratings, 105 were chosen for personal examination two decades after the subjects' first admission (1949-1969) for alcohol problems. To study patterns of successful adjustment, 70 were chosen on the basis of a good social adjustment (health insurance data) at follow-up, whereas the control subjects had been granted a disability pension. The first follow-up was carried through in 1982-1983. In 1998-1999, the same 105 subjects were studied concerning mortality rate and adjustment patterns. In the good social adjustment group, 33% had deceased as compared with 63% in the control group (p < 0.01). Twenty-three out of 44 surviving subjects accepted a personal interview. Favourable adjustment was generally reported as being stable over the follow-up period. Several subjects reported stable non-problem drinking and others a change between abstinent and non-abstinent adjustment patterns.
European Addiction Research 01/2004; 10(3):126-32. · 2.53 Impact Factor