Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Antidepressant Treatment in Primary Care

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of nefazodone compared with imipramine or fluoxetine in treating women with major depressive disorder.

Clinical decision analysis and a Markov state-transition model were used to estimate the lifetime health outcomes and medical costs of 3 antidepressant treatments. The model, which represents ideal primary care practice, compares treatment with nefazodone to treatment with either imipramine or fluoxetine. The economic analysis was based on the healthcare system of the Canadian province of Ontario, and considered only direct medical costs. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were in 1993 Canadian dollars ($Can; $Can I = $USO.75, September 1995). Incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated comparing the relative lifetime discounted medical costs and QALYs associated with nefazodone with those of imipramine or fluoxetine.

Data for constructing the model and estimating necessary parameters were derived from the medical literature, clinical trial data, and physician judgement. Data included information on: Ontario primary care physicians' clinical management of major depression; medical resource use and costs; probabilities of recurrence of depression; suicide rates; compliance rates; and health utilities. Estimates of utilities for depression-related hypothetical health states were obtained from patients with major depression (n = 70). Medical costs and QALY s were discounted to present value using a 5% rate. Sensitivity analyses tested the assumptions of the model by varying the discount rate, depression recurrence rates, compliance rates, and the duration of the model.

The base case analysis found that nefazodone treatment costs $Can 144 7 less per patient than imipramine treatment (discounted lifetime medical costs were $Can50 664 vs $Can52 III) and increases the number of QALYs by 0.72 (13.90 vs 13. 18). Nefazodone treatment costs $Can 14 less than fluoxetine treatment (estimated discounted lifetime medical costs were $Can50 664 vs $Can50 678) and produces slightly more QALYs (13.90 vs 13.79).

In the sensitivity analyses, the cost-effectiveness ratios comparing nefazodone with imipramine ranged from cost saving to $Can 17 326 per QALY gained. The cost-effectiveness ratios comparing nefazodone with fluoxetine ranged from cost saving to $Can7327 per QALY gained. The model was most sensitive to assumptions about treatment compliance rates and recurrence rates.

The findings suggest that nefazodone may be a cost-effective treatment for major depression compared with imipramine or fluoxetine. The basic findings and conclusions do not change even after modifying model parameters within reasonable ranges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kessler RC, McGonagle KA, Zhao S, et al. Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric disorders in the United States: results from the national comorbidity survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1994; 51: 8–19

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wells KB, Stewart A, Hays RD, et al. The functioning and well-being of depressed patients: results from the medical outcomes study. JAMA 1989; 262: 916–9

    Google Scholar 

  3. Johnson J, Weissman MN, Klerman GL. Service utilization and social morbidity associated with depressive symptoms in the community. JAMA 1992; 267: 1478–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Broadhead EW, Blazer DG, George LK, et al. Depression, disability days and days lost from work in a prospective epidemiologic survey. JAMA 1990; 264: 2524–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kessler LG, Burns BJ, Shapiro S, et al. Psychiatric diagnoses of medical service users: evidence from the epidemiologic catchment area program. Am J Public Health 1987; 77: 18–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Shapiro S, Skinner EA, Kessler LG, et al. Utilization of health and mental health services: three epidemiologic catchment sites. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1984; 41: 971–82

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Greenberg PE, Stiglin LE, Finkelstein SN, et al. The economic burden of depression in 1990. J Clin Psychiatry 1993; 54: 405–18

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Beardsley RS, Gardocki GJ, Larson DB, et al. Prescribing of psychotropic medication by primary care physicians and psychiatrists. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1988; 45: 1117–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Schurman RA, Kramer PD, Mitchell JB. The hidden mental health network: treatment of mental illness by nonpsychiatrist physicians. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1985; 42: 89–94

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Simon GE, VonKorff M, Wagner EH, et al. Patterns of anti-depressant use in community practice. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 1993; 15: 399–408

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Potter WZ, Rudorfer MV, Manji H. The pharmacologic treatment of depression. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 633–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Baldessarini RJ. Current status of antidepressants: clinical pharmacology and therapy. J Clin Psychiatry 1989; 50: 117–26

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Depression Guideline Panel. Depression in primary care: vol. 2. Treatment of major depression. Clinical practice guideline. No.5. Rockville (MD): Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR Publication No. 93-0551), 1993 Apr

  14. Song F, Freemantle N, Sheldon T, et al. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: meta-analysis of efficacy and acceptability. BMJ 1993; 306: 683–7

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Montgomery SA, Dufour H, Brion S, et al. The prophylactic efficacy of fluoxetine and unipolar depression. Br J Psychiatry 1988; 153 Suppl. 3: 69–76

    Google Scholar 

  16. Stark P, Hardison CD. A review of multicenter controlled studies of fluoxetine vs imipramine and placebo in outpatients with major depressive disorder. J Clin Psychiatry 1985; 46Suppl. 3: 53–8

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Doogan DP, Caillard V. Sertraline: a new antidepressant. J Clin Psychiatry 1988; 49 Suppl. 8: 46–51

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Doogan DP, Caillard V. Sertraline in the prevention of depression. Br J Psychiatry 1992; 160: 217–22

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Eison AS, Eison MS, Torrente JR, et al. Nefazodone: preclinical pharmacology of a new antidepressant. Psychopharm Bull 1990; 26: 311–5

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Feighner JP, Pambakian R, Fowler RC, et al. A comparison of nefazodone, imipramine, and placebo in patients with moderate to severe depression. Psychopharm Bull 1989; 25: 219–21

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rickels S, Schweizer E, Clary C, et al. Nefazodone and imipramine in major depression: a placebo-controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry 1994; 164: 802–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Fawcett J, Marcus R, Anton S, et al. Response of anxiety and agitation symptoms during nefazodone treatment of major depression. J Clin Psychiatry 1994; 55 (Suppl.): 39–44

    Google Scholar 

  23. Fontaine R, Ontiveros A, Elie R, et al. Double-blind comparison of nefazodone, imipramine and placebo in major depression. J Clin Psychiatry 1994; 55: 234–41

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mendels J, Reimherr F, Marcus RN, et al. A double-blind, placebo controlled trial of two dose ranges of nefazodone in the treatment of depressed outpatients. J Clin Psychiatry 1994; 55 (Suppl.): 32–8

    Google Scholar 

  25. Anton SF, Robinson DS, Robens DL, et al. Long-term treatment with nefazodone. Psychopharm Bull 1994; 30: 165–9

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Preskorn SH. Comparison of the tolerability of nefazodone, imipramine, fluoxetine, senraline, paroxetine, and venlafaxine. J Clin Psychiatry 1994; 55 (Suppl.): 17–25

    Google Scholar 

  27. Frewer LJ, Lader M. The effects of nefazodone, imipramine and placebo, alone and combined with alcohol, in normal subjects. Int J Clin Psychopharm 1993; 8: 13–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Drummond MF, Stoddan GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987

    Google Scholar 

  29. Eisenberg J. Clinical economics: a guide to the economic analysis of clinical practices. JAMA 1989; 262: 2879–86

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kamlet MS, Wade M, Kupfer DJ, et al. Cost-utility analysis of maintenance treatment for recurrent depression: a theoretical framework and numerical illustration. In: Frank RG, Manning WG, editors. Economics of mental health. Baltimore (MD): Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hatziandreu EJ, Brown RE, Revicki DA, et al. Cost utility of maintenance treatment of recurrent depression with senraline versus episodic treatment with dothiepin. PharmacoEconomies 1994; 5 (3): 249–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Jönsson B, Bebbington P. What price depression? The cost of depression and the cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic treatment. Br J Psychiatry 1994; 164: 665–73

    Google Scholar 

  33. Torrance GW. Measurement of health utilities for economic appraisal: a review. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989; 5: 559–75

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Weinstein MC, Fineberg HV. Clinical decision analysis. Philadelphia (PA): WB Saunders Company, 1980

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. Medical progress’ decision analysis. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 250–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Fink A, Kosecoff J, Chassin M, et al. Consensus methods: characteristics and guidelines for use. Am J Public Health 1984; 74: 979–83

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Keller MB, Shapiro RW, Lavori PW, et al. Relapse in major depressive disorder: analysis with life tables. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1982; 39: 911–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. National Institute of Mental Health Consensus Development Conference Statement. Mood disorders: pharmacologic prevention of recurrence. Am J Psychiatry 1985; 142: 469–76

    Google Scholar 

  40. Belsher G, Costello CG. Relapse after recovery from unipolar depression: a critical review. Psychol Bull 1988; 104: 84–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Prien RF, Kupfer DJ, Mansky PA, et al. Drug therapy in the prevention of recurrences in unipolar and bipolar affective disorders: report of the NIMH Collaborative Study Group comparing lithium carbonate, imipramine, and a lithium carbonate-imipramine combination. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1984; 41: 1096–104

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Keller MB, Lavori PW, Mueller TI, et al. Time to recovery, chronicity, and levels of psychopathology in major depression: a five-year prospective follow-up of 431 subjects. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1992; 49: 809–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Frank E, Kupfer DJ, Perel JM, et al. Three-year outcomes for maintenance therapies in recurrent depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1990; 47: 1093–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kupfer DJ, Frank E, Perel JM, et al. Five-year outcome for maintenance therapies in recurrent depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1992; 49: 769–73

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Kapur S, Mieczkwoski T, Mann JJ. Antidepressant medications and the relative risk of suicide attempt and suicide. JAMA 1992; 268: 3441–5

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Brent DA, Kupfer DJ, Bromet EJ, et al. The assessment and treatment of patients of risk for suicide. In: Frances AJ, Hales RE, editors. Review of psychiatry VII. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1988

    Google Scholar 

  47. Basco MR. Treatment adherence in mood disorders. Dallas (TX): University of Texas, Southwestern Medical Center, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  48. Anderson IM, Tomenson BM. Treatment discontinuation with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors compared with tricyclic antidepressants: a meta analysis. BMJ 1995; 310: 1433–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Johnson DAW. A study of the use of antidepressant medication in general practice. Br J Psychiatry 1974; 125: 186–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Thompson J, Rankin H, Ashcroft CW, et al. The treatment of depression in general practice. Psychol Med 1982; 12: 741–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Blacker CVR, Clare AW. Depressive disorder in primary care. Br J Psychiatry 1987; 150: 737–51

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Katon W, Von Korff M, Lin E, et al. Adequacy and duration of antidepressant treatment in primary care. Med Care 1992; 30: 67–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Lin EHB, Von Korff M, Katon W, et al. The role of the primary care physician in patients’ adherence to antidepressant therapy. Med Care 1995; 33: 67–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Ontario Ministry of Health. Schedule of benefits: physicians services. Ottawa: Ontario Ministry of Health, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ontario Ministry of Health. Drug index benefit formulary. Ottawa: Ontario Ministry of Health, 1993

    Google Scholar 

  56. Revicki DA, Palmer CS, Phillips SD, et al. Acute medical care costs of antidepressant overdose: tricyclic antidepressants versus fluoxetine. Arlington (VA): Battelle Centers for Public Health Research and Evaluation, 1994

    Google Scholar 

  57. Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance GW, et al. Guide to design and development of health-state utility instrumentation. Hamilton (Ont.): Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, 1990

    Google Scholar 

  58. Laupacis A, Feeny D, Detsky S, et al. How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations. Can Med Assoc J 1991; 146: 769–73

    Google Scholar 

  59. Revicki DA, Luce BR. Methods of pharmacoeconomic evaluation of new medical treatments in psychiatry. Psychopharm Bull 1995; 31: 57–65

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Glick H, Kinosian B, Shulman K. Decision analytic modeling: some uses in the evaluation of new pharmaceuticals. Drug Info J 1994; 28: 691–707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Sturm R, Wells KB. How can care for depression become more cost-effective? JAMA 1995; 273: 51–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Simon G, Ormel J, Von Korff M, et al. Health care costs associated with depressive and anxiety disorders in primary care. Am J Psychiatry 1995; 152: 352–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Froberg D, Kane R. Methodology for measuring health-state preferences: III. Population and context effects. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 585–92

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Sackett DL, Torrance GW. The utility of different health states as perceived by the general public. J Chron Dis 1978; 31: 697–704

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MEDTAP International, 2101 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 802, Arlington, Virginia, 22201, USA

    Dennis A. Revicki & Ruth E. Brown

  2. Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

    Wilfred Palmer & Walter W. Rosser

  3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    David Bakish

  4. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wallingford, Connecticut, USA

    Susan F. Anton

  5. Centre for Economic and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    David Feeny

Authors
  1. Dennis A. Revicki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ruth E. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wilfred Palmer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Bakish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Walter W. Rosser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Susan F. Anton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David Feeny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Revicki, D.A., Brown, R.E., Palmer, W. et al. Modelling the Cost Effectiveness of Antidepressant Treatment in Primary Care. Pharmacoeconomics 8, 524–540 (1995). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199508060-00007

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-199508060-00007

Keywords

Search

Navigation