Fernandez José-Luis, Montgomery Stuart, Francois Clément
London School of Economics, London, United Kingdom.
Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(2):155-67. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200523020-00007.
To assess the relative cost effectiveness of escitalopram compared with venlafaxine XR in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).
An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a double-blind, multinational, randomised clinical trial and examined the costs and quality of life of 251 patients taking escitalopram versus venlafaxine. Outpatients fulfilling criteria for MDD were randomised to receive oral escitalopram 10-20 mg/day or venlafaxine 75-150 mg/day for 8 weeks. Patient-reported outcomes (EuroQOL questionnaire, Quality of Life Depression Scale), use of medical services and absence from work (relating to the previous 3 months) were recorded at baseline, with repeated measurements at week 8. Unit costs in year values were applied to the resource utilisation data. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the EuroQOL score as the effectiveness measure. The perspective was that of the healthcare payer, with a societal perspective considered in a sensitivity analysis.
Statistically significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes (vs baseline) were observed in both groups after 8 weeks' treatment. Patients treated with escitalopram tended to report fewer problems on the EuroQOL dimensions than venlafaxine recipients. Mean per-patient costs in euros (euro, year 2003 values) for the escitalopram group, compared with the venlafaxine group, were 32% lower (110 euros vs 161euros) from a healthcare perspective, although this was not a statistically significant difference. Differences were related to lower drug acquisition costs and fewer hospitalisations for escitalopram than venlafaxine recipients. A multivariate model adjusting for baseline characteristics showed that escitalopram reduced direct costs compared with venlafaxine (p = 0.007). Bootstrapped distributions of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios also showed similar effectiveness but lower costs for escitalopram compared with venlafaxine. Inclusion of indirect costs led to similar results.
This prospective economic analysis suggests that escitalopram has similar effectiveness to venlafaxine in the treatment of MDD, but may be associated with lower healthcare costs. These findings are consistent with previously published economic evaluations.
评估艾司西酞普兰与文拉法辛缓释剂相比治疗重度抑郁症(MDD)患者的相对成本效益。
在一项双盲、多国随机临床试验的同时进行经济评估,研究251例服用艾司西酞普兰与文拉法辛患者的成本和生活质量。符合MDD标准的门诊患者被随机分配接受口服艾司西酞普兰10 - 20mg/天或文拉法辛75 - 150mg/天,为期8周。在基线时记录患者报告的结局(欧洲五维度健康量表问卷、抑郁生活质量量表)、医疗服务使用情况及缺勤情况(与前3个月相关),并在第8周重复测量。将年度价值的单位成本应用于资源利用数据。以欧洲五维度健康量表评分作为有效性指标进行成本效益分析。分析角度为医疗保健支付方,在敏感性分析中考虑社会角度。
治疗8周后两组患者报告的结局(与基线相比)均有统计学显著改善。与接受文拉法辛治疗的患者相比,接受艾司西酞普兰治疗的患者在欧洲五维度健康量表各维度上报告的问题往往更少。从医疗保健角度看,艾司西酞普兰组患者的人均成本(欧元,2003年价值)与文拉法辛组相比低32%(110欧元对161欧元),尽管这一差异无统计学意义。差异与艾司西酞普兰较低的药品采购成本以及比接受文拉法辛治疗的患者更少的住院次数有关。一个针对基线特征进行调整的多变量模型显示,与文拉法辛相比,艾司西酞普兰降低了直接成本(p = 0.007)。增量成本效益比的自抽样分布也显示,与文拉法辛相比,艾司西酞普兰疗效相似但成本更低。纳入间接成本后结果相似。
这项前瞻性经济分析表明,艾司西酞普兰在治疗MDD方面与文拉法辛疗效相似,但可能与更低的医疗保健成本相关。这些发现与先前发表的经济评估结果一致。