Department of Health Services Organization & Management, National School of Public Health, 196 Alexandras Avenue, Athens 11521, Greece.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 May 10;13:173. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-173.
Major depressive disorder (MDD) constitutes an important public health problem, as it is highly prevalent in the industrialized world and it is associated with substantial economic consequences for patients, health care providers, insurance and social security organizations and employers. To conduct an economic evaluation comparing agomelatine with other commonly used alternatives for treating patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in Greece.
An existing international Markov model designed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of agomelatine was adapted to the Greek setting. It reflects six different health states, in which patients may move on a monthly basis. The analysis was undertaken from a societal perspective. Transition probabilities, utilities and costs assigned to each health state were extracted from the published literature, government sources and expert opinion. Data reflects the year 2012 and was discounted using a rate of 3.5%. Probabilistic analysis was undertaken to deal with uncertainty.
Base case analyses revealed that agomelatine is a dominant therapy for MDD relative to escitalopram, fluoxetine and sertraline, and it appeared to be cost-effective compared to venlafaxine (ICER: €547/QALY). Agomelatine remained a dominant treatment against generic sertraline and fluoxetine, and it appeared to be a cost-effective alternative compared to generic venlafaxine and escitalopram (ICER: €1,446/QALY and €3,303/QALY, respectively). Excluding the indirect cost from the analysis, agomelatine remained a cost-effective alternative over all comparators. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis agomelatine was dominant in 44.5%, 89.6%, 70.6% and 84.6% of simulated samples against branded venlafaxine, escitalopram, fluoxetine and sertraline, respectively.
The present evaluation indicates that agomelatine is either a dominant or a cost-effective alternative relative to branded or generic alternatives, in Greece.
重度抑郁症(MDD)是一个重要的公共卫生问题,因为它在工业化世界中非常普遍,并且给患者、医疗保健提供者、保险公司和社会保障机构以及雇主带来了巨大的经济后果。本研究旨在比较曲唑酮与其他常用于治疗希腊重度抑郁症(MDD)患者的替代药物的经济学效果。
本研究改编了一个现有的国际马尔可夫模型,以评估曲唑酮治疗 MDD 的成本效果。它反映了患者每月可能移动的六个不同健康状态。该分析从社会角度进行。从已发表的文献、政府来源和专家意见中提取了分配给每个健康状态的转移概率、效用和成本。数据反映了 2012 年的情况,并使用 3.5%的贴现率进行了贴现。概率分析用于处理不确定性。
基础分析结果表明,与依地普仑、氟西汀和舍曲林相比,曲唑酮治疗 MDD 是一种主导疗法,并且与文拉法辛相比具有成本效果(ICER:€547/QALY)。曲唑酮仍然是通用舍曲林和氟西汀的主导治疗方法,并且与通用文拉法辛和依地普仑相比,它具有成本效果(ICER:€1,446/QALY 和 €3,303/QALY)。从分析中排除间接成本后,曲唑酮在所有比较药物中仍然具有成本效果。在概率敏感性分析中,曲唑酮在 44.5%、89.6%、70.6%和 84.6%的模拟样本中均优于文拉法辛、依地普仑、氟西汀和舍曲林。
本研究表明,在希腊,与品牌或通用替代药物相比,曲唑酮是一种主导或具有成本效果的替代药物。