Search

Objective. To evaluate the benefit of pharmacogenetics in antidepressant treatment. Methods. In a simulated trial 100,000 subjects in a current episode of major depressive disorder (MDD) received citalopram or bupropion based on the clinician's decision (algorithm A) or following indications from 5-HTTLPR genetic testing (algorithm B), which effect size of was estimated from a meta-analysis of pharmacogenetic trials. A and B were compared in a cost-utility analysis (12 weeks). Costs (international $$, 2010) were drawn from official sources. Treatment effects were expressed as quality-adjusted life weeks (QALWs). Outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results. Under base-case conditions, genetic test use was associated with increases in antidepressant response (0.062 QALWs) and tolerability (0.016 QALWs) but cost benefit was not acceptable (ICER == $$2,890; $$1,800-$$4,091). However, when the joint effect on antidepressant response and tolerability was analyzed in two recurrent episodes, ICER dropped to $$1,392 ($$837-$$1,982). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) showed a >80% probability that ICER value fell below the commonly accepted 3 times Gross Domestic Product (GDP) threshold (World Health Organization) and therefore suggesting cost-effectiveness. Conclusion. Notwithstanding some caveats (exclusion of gene-gene and gene-environment interactions; simple 5-HTTLPR architecture), this simulation is favourable to incorporate pharmacogenetic test in antidepressant treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In major depression, when a first antidepressant does not cause remission of symptoms (60%–75%), there are several options for continuing treatment in the next step. This study is a cost-utility analysis (CUA) of different second-line approaches. In a simulated trial outpatients with MDD were treated with citalopram for 13 weeks (level 1), then based on two alternative algorithms implemented from the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study. Algorithm A: citalopram was continued until study endpoint (week 26). Algorithm B: patients who remitted during level 1 continued citalopram. Those who did not remit could opt for switching to another antidepressant (venlafaxine; sertraline) (b1) or adding bupropion to citalopram treatment (augmentation; b2). Algorithm B increased remission rate by 10.6% over Algorithm A (number needed to treat: 9.9; sensitivity range: 9.1–12.5). As a comparison, differences between active antidepressants and placebo are associated with NNT values of 6 to 8. In CUA Algorithm B was dominant with an ICER of $11,813 (sensitivity range=$1783 – $21,784), which is <1GDP per capita cost-effectiveness threshold (USA=$47,193). Among Algorithm B options, switching (b1) dominated Algorithm A with a smaller number of responders than augmentation approach (b2) (NNT 11 vs. 7.7), whereas ICER values were similar (b1: $14,738; b2: $15,458). However we cannot exclude a bias in selecting second treatment. This cost-utility analysis shows (in line with current guidelines) a benefit in modifying antidepressant treatment if response to first-line agent does not occur within 3 months, but not a clear-cut evidence in terms of NNT. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The serotonin transporter 5-HTTLPR polymorphism moderates response to SSRIs and side-effect burden. The aim of this study is to quantify the cost-utility of incorporating 5-HTTLPR genotyping in drug treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). We previously reported a theoretical model to simulate antidepressant treatment with citalopram or bupropion for 12weeks. The drugs were alternatively selected according to an ‘as usual’ algorithm or based on response and tolerability predicted by 5-HTTLPR profile. Here we apply this model to conduct a cost-utility analysis in three European regions with high GDP (Euro A), middle GDP (Euro B) and middle-high GDP (Euro C).. In addition we test a verification scenario in which citalopram+bupropion augmentation is administered to individuals with the least favorable 5-HTTLPR genotype. Treatment outcomes are remission and Quality Adjusted-Life Weeks (QALW). Cost data (international $, year 2009) are retrieved from the World Health Organization (WHO) and national official sources. In base-case scenario incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) values are $1147 (Euro A), $ 1185 (Euro B) and $1178 (Euro C). From cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC), the probability of having an ICER value below WHO recommended cost-utility threshold (3 GDP per capita=$1926) is >90% in high-income countries (Euro A). In middle- income regions, these probabilities are <30% (Euro B) and <55% (Euro C) respectively. All estimates are robust against variations in treatment parameters, but if genetic test cost decreases to $100, pharmacogenetic approach becomes cost-effective in middle-income countries (Euro B). This simulation using data from 27 European states suggests that choosing antidepressant treatment from the results of 5-HTTLPR might be a cost-effective solution in high income countries. Its feasibility in middle income countries needs further research. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]