Hemels Michiel E H, Kasper Siegfried, Walter Evelyn, Einarson Thomas R
International Department of Health Economics and Epidemiology, H. Lundbeck A/S, Paris, France.
Curr Med Res Opin. 2004 Jun;20(6):869-78. doi: 10.1185/030079904125003737.
To compare the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram, a new selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), with (generic) citalopram in the first-line treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in Austria.
A two-path decision analytic model with a 6-month horizon was adapted to the Austrian setting using Austrian clinical guidelines. All patients (aged >or= 18 years) started at the primary successfully treated patient was lower ( currency 115) for care path and were referred to specialist care in the secondary care path in case of insufficient response. Model inputs included drug-specific probabilities from head-to-head trial data, literature and expert opinion. The main outcome measure was success (i.e., remission defined as Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score <or= 12) and costs of treatment (i.e., drug costs and medical care). The analysis was performed from the Austrian societal and Social Healthcare Insurance System (SHIS) perspectives. The Human Capital approach was used to estimate the societal costs of lost productivity.
Treatment with escitalopram yielded lower expected cost and greater effectiveness compared with citalopram. The expected success rate was higher for escitalopram (64.5%) compared to citalopram (59.1%). From the SHIS perspective, the total expected cost per escitalopram ( currency 608) compared with citalopram ( currency 723). From the societal perspective, these expected costs were currency 3034 and currency 3269 respectively. Sensitivity analyses on unit costs and probabilities demonstrated the robustness of the results. From the societal perspective, escitalopram remained the dominant treatment option, even at a cost of currency 0 for (generic) citalopram.
Escitalopram is a cost-effective alternative compared to (generic) citalopram in the first-line treatment of MDD in Austria.
比较新型选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂(SSRI)艾司西酞普兰与西酞普兰在奥地利一线治疗重度抑郁症(MDD)的成本效益。
采用奥地利临床指南,将一个为期6个月的双路径决策分析模型应用于奥地利的情况。所有患者(年龄≥18岁)从初级护理路径开始,若反应不足则转入二级护理路径的专科护理。模型输入包括来自头对头试验数据、文献和专家意见的特定药物概率。主要结局指标为治疗成功(即缓解,定义为蒙哥马利-阿斯伯格抑郁量表(MADRS)评分≤12)和治疗成本(即药物成本和医疗护理成本)。分析从奥地利社会和社会医疗保险系统(SHIS)的角度进行。采用人力资本法估算生产力损失的社会成本。
与西酞普兰相比,艾司西酞普兰治疗的预期成本更低,疗效更高。艾司西酞普兰的预期成功率(64.5%)高于西酞普兰(59.1%)。从SHIS角度看,艾司西酞普兰的总预期成本为608欧元,而西酞普兰为723欧元。从社会角度看,这些预期成本分别为3034欧元和3269欧元。对单位成本和概率的敏感性分析表明结果具有稳健性。从社会角度看,即使西酞普兰成本为0欧元,艾司西酞普兰仍是主要的治疗选择。
在奥地利一线治疗MDD时,与西酞普兰相比,艾司西酞普兰是一种具有成本效益的替代药物。