One-year costs of second-line therapies for depression
- PMID: 10830151
- DOI: 10.4088/jcp.v61n0409
One-year costs of second-line therapies for depression
Abstract
Background: We compared patterns of medical resource utilization and costs among patients receiving a serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (venlafaxine), one of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), one of the tricyclic agents (TCAs), or 1 of 3 other second-line therapies for depression.
Method: Using claims data from a national managed care organization, we identified patients diagnosed with depression (ICD-9-CM criteria) who received second-line antidepressant therapy between 1993 and 1997. Second-line therapy was defined as a switch from the first class of antidepressant therapy observed in the data set within 1 year of a diagnosis of depression to a different class of antidepressant therapy. Patients with psychiatric comorbidities were excluded.
Results: Of 981 patients included in the study, 21% (N = 208) received venlafaxine, 34% (N = 332) received an SSRI, 19% (N = 191) received a TCA, and 25% (N = 250) received other second-line antidepressant therapy. Mean age was 43 years, and 72% of patients were women. Age, prescriber of second-line therapy, and prior 6-month expenditures all differed significantly among the 4 therapy groups. Total, depression-coded, and non-depression-coded 1-year expenditures were, respectively, $6945, $2064, and $4881 for venlafaxine; $7237, $1682, and $5555 for SSRIs; $7925, $1335, and $6590 for TCAs; and $7371, $2222, and $5149 for other antidepressants. In bivariate analyses, compared with TCA-treated patients, venlafaxine- and SSRI-treated patients had significantly higher depression-coded but significantly lower non-depression-coded expenditures. Venlafaxine was associated with significantly higher depression-coded expenditures than SSRIs. However, after adjustment for potential confounding covariables in multivariate analyses, only the difference in depression-coded expenditures between SSRI and TCA therapy remained significant.
Conclusion: After adjustment for confounding patient characteristics, 1-year medical expenditures were generally similar among patients receiving venlafaxine, SSRIs, TCAs, and other second-line therapies for depression. Observed differences in patient characteristics and unadjusted expenditures raise questions as to how different types of patients are selected to receive alternative second-line therapies for depression.
Similar articles
-
Medical resource use and cost of venlafaxine or tricyclic antidepressant therapy. Following selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor therapy for depression.Pharmacoeconomics. 1999 May;15(5):495-505. doi: 10.2165/00019053-199915050-00007. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999. PMID: 10537966 Clinical Trial.
-
Pharmacy and medical costs associated with switching between venlafaxine and SSRI antidepressant therapy for the treatment of major depressive disorder.J Manag Care Pharm. 2008 Jun;14(5):426-41. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2008.14.5.426. J Manag Care Pharm. 2008. PMID: 18597572 Free PMC article.
-
A multinational pharmacoeconomic evaluation of acute major depressive disorder (MDD): a comparison of cost-effectiveness between venlafaxine, SSRIs and TCAs.Value Health. 2001 Jan-Feb;4(1):16-31. doi: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2001.004001016.x. Value Health. 2001. PMID: 11704969
-
The pharmacoeconomics of venlafaxine in depression.Am J Manag Care. 2001 Sep;7(11 Suppl):S386-92. Am J Manag Care. 2001. PMID: 11570029 Review.
-
Efficacy of SSRIs and newer antidepressants in severe depression: comparison with TCAs.J Clin Psychiatry. 1999 May;60(5):326-35. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v60n0511. J Clin Psychiatry. 1999. PMID: 10362442 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical