Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T13:29:33.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of major depressive disorder (Italy)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2011

Julian Casciano ,
Steven Arikian ,
Jean-Eric Tarride ,
John J. Doyle  and
Roman Casciano
Julian Casciano
Affiliation:
1The Analytica Group, New York (USA)
Steven Arikian
Affiliation:
1The Analytica Group, New York (USA) 2Columbia University, School of Public Health
Jean-Eric Tarride
Affiliation:
1The Analytica Group, New York (USA) 3Concordia University, Department of Economics
John J. Doyle
Affiliation:
1The Analytica Group, New York (USA) 2Columbia University, School of Public Health
Roman Casciano*
Affiliation:
1The Analytica Group, New York (USA)
*
Indirizzo per la corrispondenza: Dr. R. Casciano, The Analytica Group, 475 Park Avenue South, New York, NY 10016 (USA). Fax: +1-212-686.8601 E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Objective – To determine the most cost-effective oral therapy for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) in Italy. Method – We conducted a pharmacoeconomic evaluation based on a decision analytic model that examined the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in Italy. The analysis compared the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), venlafaxine extended-release (venlafaxine XR), to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs). A meta-analysis was performed to determine the clinical rates of success. The meta-analytic rates were applied to the decision analytic model to calculate the expected cost and expected outcomes for each anti-depressant comparator. Cost-effectiveness was determined using the expected values for both a successful outcome, and a composite measure of outcome termed ‘symptom-free days’. A policy analysis was conducted to estimate the financial impact to the Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN). Results – Treatment of MDD with venlafaxine XR yielded the highest overall efficacy rates for outpatients (73.7%) versus SSRIs (61.4%) and TCAs (59.3%), and inpatients (62.3%) versus SSRIs (58.6%) and TCAs (58.2%). Venlafaxine XR had the lowest dropout rates due to lack of efficacy (4.8%) versus SSRIs (8.4%) and TCAs (6.8%), and adverse drug reactions (10.9%) versus SSRIs (17.4%) and TCAs (23.1%). Initiating treatment of MDD with venlafaxine XR yielded the lowest expected cost for outpatients and for inpatients. The total resulting savings for the SSN at a 5% venlafaxine XR utilization was estimated between L 963 million and L 3,210 million. Conclusion – This study confirms that venlafaxine XR is generally a cost-effective treatment of MDD. Additionally, the results of this investigation suggest that increased utilization of venlafaxine XR will favorably impact the SSN.

Riassunto

Scopo – Determinare la terapia orale più efficace in termini di costi per il trattamento della depressione maggiore in Italia. Metodo – Abbiamo condotto una valutazione farmacoeconomica basata su un modello analitico di decisione che esaminava il trattamento della depressione maggiore in Italia. L'analisi confrontava l'inibitore della ricaptazione della serotonina e della norepinefrina (SNRI), venlafaxina extended-release (venlafaxina XR), con gli inibitori selettivi della ricaptazione della serotonina (SSRI) e gli antidepressivi triciclici (TCA). È stata condotta una meta-analisi per determinare gli indici clinici di successo. Gli indici meta-analitici sono stati applicati al modello analitico decisionale per calcolare i costi ed i risultati previsti per ogni antidepressivo messo a confronto. L'efficacia dei costi à stata determinata usando i valori previsti sia per un risultato positivo che per una scala di misurazione di risultati composta defmita «giorni privi di sintomi». È stata condotta un'analisi della politica per valutare l'impatto economico sul Sistema Sanitario Nazionale (SSN). Risultati – Il trattamento della depressione maggiore con venlafaxina XR ha ottenuto il più alto l'indice di efficacia generale per i pazienti ambulatoriali (73.7%) contro SSRIs (61.4%) e TCAs (59.3%) e, per i pazienti ricoverati (62.3 %) contro SSRIs (58.6%) e TCAs (58.2%). Venlafaxina XR ha registrato il più basso indice di interruzione terapeutica dovuta ad inefficacia (4.8%) contro SSRIs (8.4%) e TCAs (6.8%), e di reazioni avverse al farmaco (10.9%) contro SSRIs (17.4%) e TCAs (23.1%). L'inizio del trattamento della depressione maggiore con venlafaxina XR ha fatto ottenere i costi previsti più bassi per i pazienti ambulatoriali è per quelli ricoverati. Il risparmio totale risultante per il SSN con un utilizzo di venlafaxina XR pari al 5% è stato stimato tra i 963 e i 3,210 milioni di lire. Conclusioni – Questo studio conferma che venlafaxina XR è generalmente un trattamento efficace in termini di costi della depressione in Italia. Inoltre, i risultati di questa ricerca suggeriscono che un maggiore impiego di venlafaxina XR avrà un impatto favorevole sul SSN.

Keywords

depressionvenlafaxinetryciclicsSSRISNRIefficacymeta-analysiscost-effectivenessdecision treedepressionevenlafaxinatricicliciSSRISNRIefficaciameta-analysiscosto-efficaciaalbero decisionale.
Type
Articles
Information
Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 220 - 231
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Blumenschein, K. & Johanneson, M. (1996). Economic evaluation in healthcare. Pharmacoeconomics 10, 114–122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carta, M.G., Carpiniello, B., Morosini, P.L. & Rudas, N. (1991). Prevalence of mental disorders in Sardinia: a community study in an inland mining district. Psychological Medicine 21, 1061–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carta, M.G., Carpiniello, B., Kovess, V., Porcedda, R., Zedda, A. & Rudas, N. (1995). Lifetime prevalence of major depression and dysthymia: results of a community survey in Sardinia. European Neuropsychopharmacology, Suppl. 5, 103–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crott, R. & Gilis, P. (1998). Economic comparisons of the pharmacotherapy of depression: an overview. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 97, 241–252.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Einarson, T.R., Arikian, S.R. & Doyle, J.J. (1995). Rank Order Stability Analysis (ROSA): testing pharmacoeconomic data. Medical Decision Making 15(4), 367–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Einarson, T.R., Addis, A. & Iskedjian, M. (1997). Pharmacoeconomic analysis of venlafaxine in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Pharmacoeconomics 12 (2pt2), 286–296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Einarson, T.R., Arikian, S.R., Casciano, J. & Doyle, J.J. (1999). Comparison of extended-release venlafaxine, selective serotononin reuptake inhibitors, and tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of depression: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clinical Therapeutics 21, 296–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Faravelli, C., Guerrini Degl'Innocenti, B., Aiazzi, L., Incerpi, G. & Pallanti, S. (1990). Epidemiology of mood disorders: a community survey in Florence. Journal of Affective Disorders 20, 135–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenberg, P.E.Stiglin, L.E., Finkelstein, S.N. & Berndt, E.R. (1993). The economic burden of depression in 1990. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 54, 405–418.Google ScholarPubMed
Henry, J.A. & Rivas, C.A. (1997). Constraints on antidepressant prescribing and principles of cost-effective antidepressant use. Part 1: depression and its treatment. Pharmacoeconomics 11(5), 419–443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kind, P. & Sorensen, J. (1993). The costs of depression. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 7, 191–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lepine, J.P., Gastpar, M., Mendlewicz, J. & Tylee, A. (1997). Depression in the community: the first pan-European study DEPRES. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 12(1), 19–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mapelli, V. (1995). Cost-containment measures in the Italian health care system. Pharmacoeconomics 8(2), 85–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, C.J.L. & Lopez, A.D. (1996). The Global Burden of Disease: a Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability from Diseases, Injuries and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
OECD (1998). Health Data.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R. (1984). Meta-Analysis in the Social Sciences. Sage Publications: Beverly Hills, CA.Google Scholar
Weissman, M.M., Bland, R.C., Canino, G.J., Faravelli, C., Greenwald, S., Hwu, H.G., Joyce, P.R., Karam, E.G., Lee, C.K., Lellouch, J., Lepine, J.P., Newman, S.C., Rubio-Stipec, M., Wells, J.E., Wickramaratne, P.J., Wittchen, H. & Yeh, E.K. (1996). Cross-national epidemiology of major depression and bipolar disorder. Journal of the American Medical Association 276(4), 293–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed