• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

在初级保健中使用抗抑郁药的效果和成本效益:一项多种治疗比较的荟萃分析和成本效益模型。

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antidepressants in primary care: a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness model.

机构信息

Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Medical Management Center, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42003. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042003. Epub 2012 Aug 2.

DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0042003
PMID:22876296
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3410906/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine effectiveness and cost-effectiveness over a one-year time horizon of pharmacological first line treatment in primary care for patients with moderate to severe depression.

DESIGN

A multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis was employed to determine the relative efficacy in terms of remission of 10 antidepressants (citalopram, duloxetine escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline and venlafaxine). The estimated remission rates were then applied in a decision-analytic model in order to estimate costs and quality of life with different treatments at one year.

DATA SOURCES

Meta-analyses of remission rates from randomised controlled trials, and cost and quality-of-life data from published sources.

RESULTS

The most favourable pharmacological treatment in terms of remission was escitalopram with an 8- to 12-week probability of remission of 0.47. Despite a high acquisition cost, this clinical effectiveness translated into escitalopram being both more effective and having a lower total cost than all other comparators from a societal perspective. From a healthcare perspective, the cost per QALY of escitalopram was €3732 compared with venlafaxine.

CONCLUSION

Of the investigated antidepressants, escitalopram has the highest probability of remission and is the most effective and cost-effective pharmacological treatment in a primary care setting, when evaluated over a one year time-horizon. Small differences in remission rates may be important when assessing costs and cost-effectiveness of antidepressants.

摘要

目的

确定在初级保健中对中重度抑郁症患者进行一线药物治疗的有效性和成本效益,时间范围为一年。

设计

采用多种治疗比较荟萃分析来确定 10 种抗抑郁药(西酞普兰、度洛西汀、依他普仑、氟西汀、氟伏沙明、米氮平、帕罗西汀、瑞波西汀、舍曲林和文拉法辛)在缓解方面的相对疗效。然后,将估计的缓解率应用于决策分析模型中,以估算不同治疗方案在一年内的成本和生活质量。

数据来源

随机对照试验缓解率的荟萃分析,以及来自已发表来源的成本和生活质量数据。

结果

在缓解方面,依他普仑是最有利的药物治疗方法,8-12 周的缓解概率为 0.47。尽管收购成本较高,但这种临床疗效使依他普仑在社会角度来看,不仅更有效,而且总成本低于所有其他对照药物。从医疗保健角度来看,依他普仑的每 QALY 成本为 3732 欧元,而文拉法辛为 3732 欧元。

结论

在所研究的抗抑郁药中,依他普仑具有最高的缓解率,在初级保健环境中,依他普仑是最有效和最具成本效益的药物治疗方法,在一年的时间范围内进行评估。在评估抗抑郁药的成本和成本效益时,缓解率的微小差异可能很重要。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cd66/3410906/8d809e319685/pone.0042003.g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cd66/3410906/ad06fa7615e8/pone.0042003.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cd66/3410906/7d94a05b671e/pone.0042003.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cd66/3410906/dfb797d99e2c/pone.0042003.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cd66/3410906/8d809e319685/pone.0042003.g004.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cd66/3410906/ad06fa7615e8/pone.0042003.g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cd66/3410906/7d94a05b671e/pone.0042003.g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cd66/3410906/dfb797d99e2c/pone.0042003.g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cd66/3410906/8d809e319685/pone.0042003.g004.jpg

相似文献

1
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antidepressants in primary care: a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness model.在初级保健中使用抗抑郁药的效果和成本效益:一项多种治疗比较的荟萃分析和成本效益模型。
PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e42003. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042003. Epub 2012 Aug 2.
2
Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmaceutical treatment options in the first-line management of major depressive disorder in Belgium.比利时重度抑郁症一线治疗中药物治疗方案的成本效益分析。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 May;32(5):479-93. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0138-x.
3
Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of New Generation Antidepressants.新一代抗抑郁药的网状Meta分析与成本效益分析
CNS Drugs. 2015 Aug;29(8):695-712. doi: 10.1007/s40263-015-0267-6.
4
Escitalopram: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in depression.艾司西酞普兰:其在抑郁症治疗中应用的药物经济学综述
Pharmacoeconomics. 2003;21(16):1185-209. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200321160-00004.
5
A Danish cost-effectiveness model of escitalopram in comparison with citalopram and venlafaxine as first-line treatments for major depressive disorder in primary care.一项关于艾司西酞普兰与西酞普兰和文拉法辛相比,作为初级保健中重度抑郁症一线治疗药物的丹麦成本效益模型。
Nord J Psychiatry. 2007;61(2):100-8. doi: 10.1080/08039480701226070.
6
A probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis of escitalopram, generic citalopram and venlafaxine as a first-line treatment of major depressive disorder in the UK.在英国,艾司西酞普兰、通用型西酞普兰和文拉法辛作为重度抑郁症一线治疗药物的概率成本效益分析。
Curr Med Res Opin. 2005 Apr;21(4):631-42. doi: 10.1185/030079905X41462.
7
Escitalopram and duloxetine in major depressive disorder: a pharmacoeconomic comparison using UK cost data.艾司西酞普兰和度洛西汀治疗重度抑郁症:一项使用英国成本数据的药物经济学比较。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(11):969-81. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826110-00008.
8
A cost-effectiveness model of escitalopram, citalopram,and venlafaxine as first-line treatment for major depressive disorder in Belgium.艾司西酞普兰、西酞普兰和文拉法辛作为比利时重度抑郁症一线治疗药物的成本效益模型。
Clin Ther. 2005 Jan;27(1):111-24. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2005.01.001.
9
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.12种新一代抗抑郁药的疗效与可接受性比较:一项多治疗组元分析
Lancet. 2009 Feb 28;373(9665):746-58. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60046-5.
10
Switching to sertraline or venlafaxine after failure of SSRIs treatment in major depressive disorder: an economic evaluation of the STAR*D trial.在重度抑郁症患者中,选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂(SSRI)治疗失败后换用舍曲林或文拉法辛:STAR*D试验的经济学评估
J Med Assoc Thai. 2012 May;95 Suppl 5:S29-37.

引用本文的文献

1
An Overview of the Systematic Reviews About the Efficacy of Fluvoxamine on Depression.氟伏沙明治疗抑郁症疗效的系统评价概述
Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2025 May 12;18(5):711. doi: 10.3390/ph18050711.
2
Estimating the effectiveness of an enhanced 'Improving Access to Psychological Therapies' (IAPT) service addressing the wider determinants of mental health: a real-world evaluation.评估增强型“改善心理治疗服务”(IAPT)服务对心理健康更广泛决定因素的有效性:真实世界评估。
BMJ Open. 2024 Jan 30;14(1):e077220. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-077220.
3
Economic Analyses of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Interventions: A Systematic Review.

本文引用的文献

1
Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis.混合治疗比较荟萃分析中的一致性检验。
Stat Med. 2010 Mar 30;29(7-8):932-44. doi: 10.1002/sim.3767.
2
[Meta-analyses uncertain basis for first choice antidepressive agents].
Lakartidningen. 2009;106(14):1030-1.
3
Depression in adults: drug and physical treatments.成人抑郁症:药物治疗与物理治疗
BMJ Clin Evid. 2007 Jun 15;2007:1003.
强迫症干预措施的经济学分析:一项系统综述。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2023 May;41(5):499-527. doi: 10.1007/s40273-023-01250-1. Epub 2023 Feb 25.
4
Considering the societal perspective in economic evaluations: a systematic review in the case of depression.经济评估中的社会视角考量:抑郁症案例的系统评价
Health Econ Rev. 2020 Sep 22;10(1):32. doi: 10.1186/s13561-020-00288-7.
5
Comparative risk of Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs)-induced nausea among Chinese senile depression patients: A network meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.中国老年抑郁症患者中选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂(SSRIs)所致恶心的比较风险:一项随机对照试验的网状Meta分析
Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Feb;99(7):e19133. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000019133.
6
Comparative effectiveness of switching paroxetine formulation for treatment of major depressive disorder: an open-label multicenter study.更换帕罗西汀制剂治疗重度抑郁症的比较疗效:一项开放标签多中心研究。
Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2018 Apr 6;14:955-966. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S152985. eCollection 2018.
7
Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Treatments for Depression: A Systematic Literature Review.基于模型的抑郁症治疗经济评估:系统文献综述
Pharmacoecon Open. 2017 Sep;1(3):149-165. doi: 10.1007/s41669-017-0014-7.
8
A systematic review of network meta-analyses for pharmacological treatment of common mental disorders.常见精神障碍药物治疗的网络荟萃分析系统评价
Evid Based Ment Health. 2018 Feb;21(1):7-11. doi: 10.1136/eb-2017-102718. Epub 2018 Jan 12.
9
Medications for alcohol use disorders: An overview.酒精使用障碍的药物治疗:概述。
Pharmacol Ther. 2018 May;185:64-85. doi: 10.1016/j.pharmthera.2017.11.007. Epub 2017 Dec 2.
10
Improvements in Quality-Adjusted Life Years and Cost-Utility After Pharmacotherapy for Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder: A Retrospective Study.经药物治疗改善经前烦躁障碍的生活质量调整生命年和成本效用:一项回顾性研究。
Clin Drug Investig. 2018 Jan;38(1):49-55. doi: 10.1007/s40261-017-0583-3.
4
Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis.12种新一代抗抑郁药的疗效与可接受性比较:一项多治疗组元分析
Lancet. 2009 Feb 28;373(9665):746-58. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60046-5.
5
Exploring uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis.探索成本效益分析中的不确定性。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):781-98. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00008.
6
Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment.间接和混合治疗比较在技术评估中的应用。
Pharmacoeconomics. 2008;26(9):753-67. doi: 10.2165/00019053-200826090-00006.
7
Efficacy, tolerability and side-effect profile of fluvoxamine for major depression: meta-analysis.
J Psychopharmacol. 2009 Jul;23(5):539-50. doi: 10.1177/0269881108089876. Epub 2008 Jun 18.
8
Observational studies of depression in primary care: what do we know?基层医疗中抑郁症的观察性研究:我们了解什么?
BMC Fam Pract. 2007 May 11;8:28. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-8-28.
9
Cost of depression in Europe.欧洲抑郁症的成本。
J Ment Health Policy Econ. 2006 Jun;9(2):87-98.
10
Remission, dropouts, and adverse drug reaction rates in major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis of head-to-head trials.重度抑郁症的缓解率、脱落率及药物不良反应率:一项头对头试验的荟萃分析
Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Sep;22(9):1825-37. doi: 10.1185/030079906X132415.