Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T13:18:52.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine in the treatment of moderate and severe depression in Austria

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2020

M.C.J. Brown ,
A.A. Nimmerrichter  and
J.F. Guest
M.C.J. Brown
Affiliation:
CATALYST Health Economics Consultants Ltd, The Folly, Pinner Hill Road, Pinner, MiddlesexHA5 3YQ, United Kingdom
A.A. Nimmerrichter
Affiliation:
Organon GesmbH Vienna, Austria
J.F. Guest
Affiliation:
CATALYST Health Economics Consultants Ltd, The Folly, Pinner Hill Road, Pinner, MiddlesexHA5 3YQ, United Kingdom
Get access

Summary

This study estimated the cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine, compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine, in the management of moderate and severe depression in Austria, as well as the costs related to the discontinuation of antidepressant treatment from the perspective of the Austrian Sick Funds (Gebietskrankenkassen).

The economic analyses were based on a meta-analysis of four randomised clinical trials comparing mirtazapine with amitriptyline, and on a six week comparative trial of mirtazapine and fluoxetine which was extrapolated to six months using assumptions derived from the literature. Decision models of the treatment paths and associated resource use attributable to managing moderate and severe depression in Austria were developed from clinical trial data, information on Austrian clinical practice obtained from interviews with an Austrian Delphi panel (comprising psychiatrists and GPs), and from published literature. The models were used to estimate the expected costs to the Gebietskrankenkassen of managing a patient with moderate or severe depression, and the indirect cost per patient to Austrian society due to lost productivity.

The expected cost to the Gebietskrankenkassen of healthcare resource use attributable to managing a patient suffering from moderate or severe depression who discontinues antidepressant treatment was estimated to be ATS 4,088 over five months, of which hospitalisations accounted for nearly 69% of the cost.

Using mirtazapine instead of amitriptyline for 28 weeks increases the proportion of successfully treated patients by 21% (from 19.2 to 23.2%), and reduces the expected cost to the Gebietskrankenkassen by ATS 1,112 per patient (from ATS 31,411 to ATS 30,299). Patients treated with mirtazapine and amitriptyline for 28 weeks are expected to miss 4.76 and 5.01 weeks of work respectively, due to their depression. Hence, the expected indirect cost to Austrian society over this period was estimated to be ATS 58,787 and ATS 61,851 per patient respectively.

Using mirtazapine instead of fluoxetine for six months increases the proportion of successfully treated patients by 22% (from 15.6 to 19.1%), albeit for a negligible additional cost to the Gebietskrankenkassen of ATS 408 per patient (from ATS 29,205 to ATS 29,613). Patients treated with mirtazapine and fluoxetine for six months are expected to miss 4.53 weeks of work, due to their depression. Hence, the expected indirect cost to Austrian society due to lost productivity was estimated to be ATS 55,900 per patient with either antidepressant.

In conclusion, this study suggests that despite the differences in acquisition costs, mirtazapine is a cost-effective antidepressant compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine, supporting the adoption of this treatment in the management of moderate and severe depression in Austria.

Keywords

amitriptylineAustriacostsdepressioneconomicsfluoxetinemirtazapine
Type
Original article
Information
European Psychiatry , Volume 14 , Issue 4 , July 1999 , pp. 230 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Elsevier, Paris 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

Bennett, CL, Schwarz, B, Marberger, M. Health care in Austria. Universal access, national health insurance, and private health care. JAMA 1993; 269: 2789–2794.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, MCJ, Guest, JF. Cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine relative to amitriptyline in the treatment of moderate and severe depression in France. Eur J Psychol 1999; 13: in press.Google Scholar
Brown, MCJ, Guest, JF. Cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine relative to fluoxetine in the treatment of moderate and severe depression in France. Eur J Psychol 1999, in press.Google Scholar
DeBoer, T. The effects of mirtazapine on central noradrenergic and serotonergic neurotransmission. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1995; 10: 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dungl, F. Handbuch des Österreichischen Arbeitsrechtes (Begründet von Prof. Dr Walter Tutschka). Wien: Signum Verlag; 1997.Google Scholar
Hamilton, M. A rating scale for depression. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1960; 23: 56–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hatziandreu, EJ, Brown, RE, Revicki, DA, Turner, R, Martindale, J, Levine, S. Cost utility of maintenance treatment of recurrent depression with setraline versus episodic treatment with dothiepin. PharmacoEconomics 1994; 5: 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hauptverband der Österreichischen Gebietskrankenkassen. Tarif für allgemeine Vertragsfachärzte der Wiener Gebietskrankenkasse, gültig ab Jänner1997. Wien: Hauptverband der Österreichischen Gebietskrankenkassen; 1997.Google Scholar
Hauptverband der Österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger. Heilmittelverzeichnis IV/1997. Wien: Hauptverband der Österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger; 1997.Google Scholar
Hellerstein, DJ. Long-term treatment of double depression: a preliminary study with serotonergic antidepressants. Prog NeuroPsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatr 1994; 18: 139–147.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Institute for Medical Statistics Austria Medical Data Index. Cham: IMS AG; 1996.Google Scholar
Jonsson, B, Bebbington, PE. What price depression? The cost of depression and the cost of pharmacological treatment. Br J Psych 1994; 164: 665–673.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien. Entgeltfortzahlung für Arbeiter. Wien: AK Wien; 1996.Google Scholar
Kammer für Arbeiter und Angestellte für Wien. Österreich in Zahlen. Wien: AK Wien; 1996.Google Scholar
Kasper, S, Zapotoczky, HG, Stuppäck, C, König, P, Wuschitz, A. Diagnostik und Therapie der Depression. Neuropsychiatr 1997; 11: S59–S67.Google Scholar
Kind, P, Sorenson, J. The costs of depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1993; 7: 191–195.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
LePen, C, Levy, E, Ravily, V, Beuzen, JN, Meurgey, F. The cost of treatment dropout in depression. A cost-benefit analysis of fluoxetine vs. tricyclics. J Affect Disord 1994; 31: 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lépine, JP, Gastpar, M, Mendlewicz, J, Tylee, A. Depression in the community: the first pan-European study DEPRES (depression research in European society). Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1997; 12: 19–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marhold, F, Marhold-Wallner, E. Sozialversicherung.In: Doralt, W ed. Kodex des Österreichischen Rechts. Wien: Doralt W; 1995.Google Scholar
Marttila, M, Jaaskelainen, J, Jarvi, R, Romanov, M, Miettinen, E, Sorri, Pet alA double-blind study comparing the efficacy and tolerability of mirtazapine and doxepin in patients with major depression. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 1995; 5: 441–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayrhofer, K. Arbeitsrecht für die Betriebliche Praxis,1996/97. Wien: Verlag Weiss; 1996.Google Scholar
Montgomery, SA, Reimitz, PE, Zivkov, M. Mirtazapine vs. amitriptyline in the long-term treatment of depression: a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1998; 13: 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OÖ Gebietskrankenkasse, . Auswertungen der maschinellen Heilmittelerfassung. Linz: Oberösterreichische Gebietskrankenkasse; 1997.Google Scholar
Revicki, DA, Brown, RE, Palmer, W, Bakish, D, Rosser, WW, Anton, SF. Modelling the cost effectiveness of antidepressant treatment in primary care. PharmacoEconomics. 1995; 9: 524–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richou, H, Ruimy, P, Charbaut, J, Delisle, JP, Brunner, H, Patris, M. A multicentre, double-blind, clomipramine-controlled efficacy and safety study of Org 3770. Hum Psychopharmacol 1995; 10: 263–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudas, SVersorgung depressiver Patienten. TW Neurol Psychiatr 1994; 8: 368–370.Google Scholar
Sektion Krankenversicherung im Verband der Versicherungsunternehmen Österreichs. Der Privatpatient. Spitalführer1996. Wien: Sektion Krankenversicherung im Verband der Versicherungsunternehmen Wien; 1996.Google Scholar
Stewart, A. Revisiting the relative cost-effectiveness of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors and tricyclic antidepressants: what price inflation and subtherapeutic dosages. Br J Med Econ 1996; 10: 203–216.Google Scholar
Stewart, A. Choosing an antidepressant: effectiveness based pharmacoeconomics. J Affect Disord 1998; 48: 125–133.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Moffaert, M, DeWilde, J, Vereecken, A, Dierick, M, Evrard, JL, Wilmotte, J. Mirtazapine is more effective than trazodone: a double-blind controlled study in hospitalised patients with major depression. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1995; 10: 3–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wernicke, JF, Bremner, JDFluoxetine effective in the long term treatment of depression. Br J Clin Pract 1986; 40: 17–23.Google Scholar
Wheatley, DP, VanMoffert, M, Timmerman, L, Kremer, CME.Mirtazapine: efficacy and tolerability in comparison with fluoxetine in patients with moderate to severe major depressive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 1998; 59: 306–312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wirtschaftsstudio des Österreichischen Gesellschafts- und Wirtschaftsmuseums. Survey of the Austrian economy 97/98, the Austrian economy and its international position in data, diagrams and tables. Wien: Verlag Orac 1998.Google Scholar
Zivkov, M, DeJongh, GD. Org 3770 vs. amitriptyline: a six week randomized double-blind multicentre trial in hospitalised depressed patients. Hum Psychopharmacol 1995; 10: 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.