Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 249–264 | Cite as

Cost Utility of Maintenance Treatment of Recurrent Depression with Sertraline Versus Episodic Treatment with Dothiepin

  • Evridiki J. Hatziandreu
  • Ruth E. Brown
  • Dennis A. Revicki
  • Ralph Turner
  • Jacqueline Martindale
  • Sydney Levine
  • Joanna E. Siegel
Article

Summary

The objective of this study was to model, for patients at risk of recurrent depression, the cost-utility of maintenance therapy with sertraline compared with treatment of acute episodes with dothiepin (‘episodic treatment’). Using clinical decision analysis techniques, a Markov state-transition model was constructed to estimate the lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of the 2 therapeutic strategies. The model follows 2 cohorts of 35-year-old women at high risk for recurrent depression over their lifetimes. Model construction and relevant data (probabilities) for performing the analysis were based on existing clinical knowledge. Two physician panels were used to obtain estimates of recurrence probabilities not available in the literature, health utilities, and resource consumption. Costs were obtained from published sources. The baseline analysis showed that it costs £2172 ($US3692, 1991 currency) to save an additional QALY with sertraline maintenance treatment. Sensitivity analysis showed that the incremental cost-utility ratio ranged from £557 to £5260 per QALY. Overall, the resulting ratios are considered to be well within the range of cost-utility ratios that support the adoption and appropriate utilisation of a technology. Based on the study assumptions, long term maintenance treatment with sertraline appears to be clinically and economically justified choice for patients at high risk of recurrent depression.

Keywords

Major Depression Discount Rate Maintenance Therapy Sertraline Depressive Episode 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Angst J. The epidemiology of depression. Psychopharmacology 106(Suppl.): 71–74, 1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basco MR. Treatment adherence in mood disorders. Department of Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas. July 1993Google Scholar
  3. Broadhead EW, Blazer DG, George LK, et al. Depression, disability days and days lost from work in a prospective epidemiologic survey. Journal of the American Medical Association 264: 2524–2528, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chartered Institute of Public Finance Accountants (CIPFA). Health services trends, the CIPFA database. Healthcare Financial Management Association. London, 1989Google Scholar
  5. Coppen A, Mendlewicz J, Kielwolz P. Pharmacotherapy of depressive disorders: consensus statement, World Health Organization, Geneva, 1986Google Scholar
  6. Department of Health and Welsh Office, Drug Tariff, HMSO, London, 1992Google Scholar
  7. Depression Guideline Panel. Depression in primary care: Treatment of major depression. Vol 2, Clinical Practice Guideline No, 5, US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Rockville MD, 1993Google Scholar
  8. Doogan DP, Caillard V. Sertraline in the prevention of depression. British Journal of Psychiatry 160: 217–222, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eaton WW, Kramer M, Anthony JC, et al. The incidence of specific DIS/DSM-III mental disorders: data from the National Institutes of Mental Health epidemiologic catchment area program. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 79: 163–176, 1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards JG. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. British Medical Journal 304: 1644–1646, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, Brook R. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. American Journal of Public Health 74(9): 979–983, 1984PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frank E, Kupfer DJ, Perel JM, et al. Three-year outcomes for maintenance therapies in recurrent depression. Archives of General Psychiatry 47: 1093–1099, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Froberg D, Kane R. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences - III: population and context effects. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 42: 585–592, 1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Government Actuary’s Department (UK). Interim Life Tables for Great Britain, 1987–1989, 1991Google Scholar
  15. Greenberg PE, Stiglin LE, Findelstein SN, Berndt ER. The economic burden of depression in 1990. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 54: 405–418, 1993PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Johnson J, Weissman MN, Klerman GL. Service utilization and social morbidity associated with depressive symptoms in the community. Journal of the American Medical Association 267: 1478–1483, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary, British Medical Association and Royal Pharmaceutical Society, London. 1992Google Scholar
  18. Jönsson B, Bebbington P. The cost of depression and the cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic treatment. The cost of disease and the cost-effectiveness of treatment. The Health Economics of Depression. Satellite Symposium, 18th CINP Congress, Nice, France, 1992Google Scholar
  19. Kamlet MS, Wade M. Kuerer D, et al. Cost-utility analysis of maintenance treatment for recurrent depression. Abstract, Fifth Biennial Conference on the Economics of Mental Health, Annapolis, Maryland, June 25-26, 1990Google Scholar
  20. Kapur S, Mieczkwoski T, Mann JJ. Antidepressant medications and the relative risk of suicide attempt and suicide. Journal of the American Medical Association 268: 3441–3445, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Katon W, Vonkorff MM, Lin E, Bush T, Orwel J. Adequacy and duration of antidepressant treatment in primary care. Medical Care 30: 67–76, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keller MB, Shapiro RW, Lavor PW, et al. Relapse in major depressive disorder: analysis with life tables. Archives of General Psychiatry 39: 911–915, 1982PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klerman G. Treatment of recurrent unipolar major depressive disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry 47: 1158–1162, 1990PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klerman GL, Weissman MM. The course, morbidity, and costs of depression. Archives of General Psychiatry 49: 831–834, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klerman GL. Overview of affective disorders. In Kaplan et al. (Eds) Comprehensive textbook of psychiatry III, Vol. 2, Chapter 18, Affective Disorders, pp. 1305–1319, Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, 1980Google Scholar
  26. Koening HB, Blazer DG. Depression and other affective disorders. In Cassell et al. (Eds) Geriatric medicine, 2nd ed.. Chapter 36, Neurologic and Psychiatric Disorders, pp. 473–490, Springer, New York, 1990Google Scholar
  27. Kupfer DF, Frank E, Perel JM, et al. Five-year outcome for maintenance therapies in recurrent depression. Archives of General Psychiatry 49: 769–773, 1992PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lader M. The problem of safety and compliance with conventional antidepressant drug. Acta Psychiatrics Scandinavica 68(Suppl. 308): 91–95, 1983Google Scholar
  29. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky S, Tugwell PX. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Canadian Medical Association Journal 146: 473–481, 1991Google Scholar
  30. Minn J, Mintz LI, Arrud MJ, et al. Treatment of depression and the functional capacity to work. Archives of General Psychiatry 49: 761–768, 1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Montgomery S. Prophylaxis in recurrent unipolar depression: new indication for treatment studies. Journal of Pharmacology 3(2): 47–53, 1989Google Scholar
  32. Montgomery S, Baldwin D, Green M. Why do amitriptyline and dothiepin appear to be so dangerous in overdose? Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 80(Suppl. 354): 47–53, 1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. National Institutes of Mental Health/National Institutes of Health (NIMH/NIH) Consensus Development Conference Statement. Mood disorders: pharmacologic prevention of recurrence. American Journal of Psychiatry 142:4, 1985Google Scholar
  34. Potter WZ, Rudorfer MV, Manji H. The pharmacologic treatment of depression. New England Journal of Medicine 325: 633–642, 1991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Prien RF. Long term treatment of affective disorder in Psychopharmacology: the third generation of progress. Meltzer HY(Ed.), Raven Press, New York, 1987Google Scholar
  36. Revicki D, Turner R, Brown R, Martindale JJ. Reliability and validity of a health-related quality of life battery for evaluating outpatient antidepressant treatment. Quality of Life Research 1: 257–266, 1992aPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Revicki D, Weinstein MC, Alderman M, Allen H, Bungy K, et al. Health utility and health status outcomes of Antihypertensive treatment, Battelle Medical Technology Assessment and Policy Research Center, Washington, 1992bGoogle Scholar
  38. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. Journal of Chronic Disease 1: 697–704, 1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Song P, Freemantle N, Sheldon TA, House A, Watson P, et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors; meta-analysis of efficacy and acceptability. British Medical Journal 306: 683–687, 1993PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stoudemire A, Frank R, Hedemark N, et al. The economic burden of depression. General Hospital Psychiatry 8: 387–394, 1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thase ME. Relapse and recurrence in unipolar major depression: short-term and long-term approaches. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 51(Suppl. 6): 51–57, 1990PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Thompson C, Thompson CM. The prescription of antidepressants in general practice I: critical review. Human Pharmacology 4: 91–102, 1989aGoogle Scholar
  43. Thompson C, Thompson CM. The prescription of antidepressants in general practice II: placebo-controlled trial of low-dose dothiepin. Human Pharmacology 4: 191–204, 1989bGoogle Scholar
  44. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. Journal of Health Economics 5: 1–30, 1986PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 5: 559–578, 1989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI detailed report, Washington DC, January 1992Google Scholar
  47. Weinstein MC, Stason WB. Cost-effectiveness of intervention to prevent or treat coronary heart disease. American Review Public Health 6: 41–63, 1985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weinstein MC, Fineberg. Clinical decision analysis. W.B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, 1980Google Scholar
  49. Weissman MM, Livingston BM, Leaf PJ, et al. Affective disorders. In Robins et al. (Eds) Psychiatric disorders in America: the epidemiologic catchment area study, pp. 53–88, Free Press, New York, 1991Google Scholar
  50. Wells KB. Depression as a tracer condition for the national study of medical care outcomes, Rand, Santa Monica, 1985Google Scholar
  51. Wells KB, Stewart A, Hays RD, et al. The functioning and well-being of depressed patients. Journal of the American Medical Association 262: 916–919, 1989Google Scholar
  52. West R. Depression. Office of Health Economics, London, 1992Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evridiki J. Hatziandreu
    • 1
    • 6
  • Ruth E. Brown
    • 1
    • 6
  • Dennis A. Revicki
    • 1
    • 6
  • Ralph Turner
    • 2
  • Jacqueline Martindale
    • 3
  • Sydney Levine
    • 4
  • Joanna E. Siegel
    • 5
  1. 1.Battelle Medical Technology Assessment and Policy (MEDTAP) Research CentersWashington, DCUSA
  2. 2.Pfizer Central ResearchGrotonUSA
  3. 3.Pfizer International, Pharmaceuticals GroupNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Royal Oldham HospitalManchesterEngland
  5. 5.Harvard School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  6. 6.Battelle Medical Technology Assessment and Policy (MEDTAP) Research CentersLondonEngland

Personalised recommendations