Search

Background Patients frequently require several lines of therapy for treatment of major depressive episodes. This economic analysis details the management of patients who responded inadequately due to lack of efficacy or intolerability to two previous antidepressants in the UK. Methods The model included a decision tree and a Markov component. Health states considered in the decision tree were remission, response, no response, withdrawal due to adverse events, relapse, recovery, and recurrence. The time horizon was 24 months. Patients were on third-line treatment for up to a 3-month acute phase and a 6-month maintenance phase. As third-line efficacy data were not available, inputs were calculated by adjusting original second-line data to third-line based on proportionate reductions observed in STAR*D. Equivalent efficacy was assumed for all comparators. Healthcare resource use and utilities were based on UK estimates. Results Vortioxetine was a cost-effective treatment option at a threshold of £20,000/QALY vs. escitalopram, citalopram, sertraline, and was associated with more health benefits, less costs (was dominant) versus relevant third-line comparators venlafaxine and duloxetine. Agomelatine was found not to be a cost-effective option. The 22-month maintenance phase treatment scenario results were similar to the 6-month base case. Limitations Third-line efficacy data were not available. This highlights the need for studies in patients receiving third-line treatment. Conclusion This model provides an overview for the management of patients receiving third-line treatment where limited evidence currently exists. Vortioxetine, with its novel mechanism of action, is expected to be a dominant treatment option versus relevant comparators in the UK.

There is limited research on the impact of antidepressant treatment on family functioning. This study examines the impact of vortioxetine and agomelatine on family functioning using the Depression and Family Functioning Scale (DFFS).The DFFS was included in REVIVE, a randomized, double-blind study of adults with major depressive disorder with inadequate response to antidepressant treatment who switched to vortioxetine or agomelatine. The prespecified DFFS analyses were performed using change from baseline to weeks 8 and 12, analyzed by mixed models for repeated measurements by treatment groups. Post hoc analyses compared DFFS scores for remitters and nonremitters. Patients were stratified into quartiles using DFFS scores, and scores on other clinical outcome assessments were compared.Sizeable improvements in DFFS scores were observed from baseline to week 8 (-10.8, -7.9 for vortioxetine and agomelatine, respectively), with further improvements at week 12 (-13.5, -11.0). Vortioxetine (n = 189) was superior to agomelatine (n = 187) by 2.9 DFFS points at week 8 (p .01) and 2.5 points at week 12 (p .05), and DFFS item-level improvements were also significantly greater for vortioxetine for 8 of 15 DFFS items at week 8 and 7 items at week 12. At week 8, remitters (n = 142) and nonremitters (n = 233) differed by 11 DFFS points; at week 12, remitters (n = 183) and nonremitters (n = 121) differed by almost 12 DFFS points. Patients stratified into baseline DFFS quartiles showed trends on clinical outcomes such that better family functioning was associated with better functional status and depressive symptoms.Vortioxetine was significantly superior to agomelatine in terms of family functioning and partner relationships, as well as social functioning, health status, and depression symptoms at weeks 8 and 12. Depressed patients with impaired family functioning showed worse overall functioning, health status, and depression symptoms, suggesting that more attention should be given to family functioning of depressed patients.

Switching antidepressant therapy is a recommended strategy for depressed patients who neither respond to nor tolerate an initial pharmacotherapy course. This paper reviews the efficacy and tolerability of switching to vortioxetine. All three published studies of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) switched from SSRI/SNRI therapy to vortioxetine due to lack of efficacy or tolerability were selected. Vortioxetine was evaluated versus agomelatine directly (REVIVE) and versus sertraline, venlafaxine, bupropion, and citalopram in an indirect treatment comparison (ITC) from switch studies retrieved in a literature review. Vortioxetine׳s impact on SSRI-induced treatment-emergent sexual dysfunction (TESD) was assessed directly versus escitalopram (NCT01364649) in stable patients with MDD. Vortioxetine׳s tolerability in the switch population was compared to the overall MDD population. Vortioxetine showed significant benefits over agomelatine on efficacy, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes, with fewer withdrawals due to adverse events (AEs) (REVIVE). Vortioxetine had numerically higher remission rates versus all therapies included (ITC). Withdrawal rates due to AEs were significantly lower for vortioxetine versus sertraline, venlafaxine, and bupropion, and numerically lower versus citalopram. Switching to vortioxetine was statistically superior to escitalopram in improving TESD (NCT01364649). Tolerability was similar in the switch and overall MDD populations. These findings suggest that vortioxetine is an effective switch therapy for patients with MDD whose response to SSRI/SNRI therapy is inadequate. Vortioxetine was well tolerated and, for patients with a history of TESD, showed significant advantages versus escitalopram. Vortioxetine appears to be a valid option for patients with MDD who have not been effectively treated with first-line pharmacotherapies.

ObjectiveTo identify and explore concepts important to patients with cognitive symptoms of major depressive disorder (MDD) and adapt an existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure to assess these symptoms.MethodsFour focus groups were conducted with MDD patients (n = 33) to elicit relevant concepts and determine whether one of several PRO scales could be used to assess cognitive symptoms of depression. Following selection and minor modification of the Perceived Deficits Questionnaire (PDQ), cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with additional patients (n = 17) to further refine and adapt this measure for use in MDD. Minor revisions based on patient input yielded the PDQ for Depression (PDQ-D).ResultsFocus group participants reported a variety of cognitive symptoms that were classified into 7 general categories: lack of focus and clear thought, memory problems, difficulty with lexical access, difficulty with divided attention, difficulty with decision making, difficulty thinking quickly, and difficulty learning new things. Limitations in work productivity were the most commonly reported impacts of cognitive symptoms. While suggesting a few modifications, focus group participants reacted positively to the PDQ based on the breadth, specificity, and relevance of the items. Cognitive debriefing participants indicated that the modified PDQ items were generally easy to understand and relevant to their experiences with MDD.ConclusionBecause cognitive symptoms are burdensome to patients with MDD, their assessment is important to optimize treatment outcomes. The PDQ-D has the potential to supplement existing assessment methods, providing unique information important for both comprehensive evaluation of individuals with MDD and evaluation of new treatments.

To assess the cost-utility of vortioxetine versus relevant comparators (agomelatine, bupropion SR, sertraline, and venlafaxine XR) in the finnish setting in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients with inadequate response to selective serotonin- /serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.A one-year analysis was conducted using a decision tree with a Markov state transition component. The health states were remission, relapse and recovery. A Finnish healthcare payer perspective was adopted.Vortioxetine was less costly and more effective versus all comparators in both direct and societal perspectives. Vortioxetine reduced the average annual direct costs by 4% versus venlafaxine XR and 8% versus sertraline. The greater efficacy associated with vortioxetine was translated into a higher percentage of patients in remission and recovery. The model was most sensitive to changes in remission rates at 8 weeks.This cost-utility analysis showed vortioxetine to be a good alternative for MDD patients switching therapy in Finland.

Background: Anxiety and irritability often coexist in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) added criteria for an anxious distress specifier for MDD. This study aimed at understanding the various components of anxiety and irritability, their impact, and relationships among them in MDD; and the association of anxious distress and irritability with treatment response. Methods: Focus groups were conducted with patients with MDD reporting symptoms of anxiety, irritability, agitation, and/or aggression. Clinical study data were pooled from open-label antidepressant treatment (ADT) phases of seven studies in patients with MDD and a history of inadequate response for the current depressive episode to one to three ADTs (N = 5,182). Post hoc criteria using study measures were applied to identify patients with symptoms of anxious distress and irritability. ADT response rates were compared for patients with and without anxious distress and irritability. Results: Symptoms of anxiety and irritability frequently coexisted for the focus group participants who often described symptoms of anxious distress (e.g., nervous, tense, restless, worry, fear, out of control, acting out). In the clinical studies, approximately 50% of patients with inadequate response to ADTs presented with symptoms of anxious distress and irritability. The presence of anxious distress was associated with lower ADT response rates. Conclusions: Various anxiety symptoms, including those comprising anxious distress, are prevalent and meaningful in depression, and frequently associated with irritability. Symptoms of anxious distress are associated with a decreased likelihood of ADT response.

Objective: Obtaining patient and caregiver perspectives may be critical for informing disease management, particularly with conditions like schizophrenia. The primary objective of the current study was to obtain and assess patient and caregiver perspectives on associated symptoms and behaviors of schizophrenia and their impact or burden on patients and their caregivers through patient interviews and caregiver focus groups. Research design and methods: Seven in-depth individual interviews were conducted with individuals with schizophrenia, and four focus groups were conducted with caregivers of adults with schizophrenia (n = 21) in two different locations in the United States. Following a discussion guide, interviewers asked open-ended questions to ascertain specific definitions and experiences related to five associated symptoms and behaviors (anxiety, irritability, agitation, impulsivity, and aggression), the impact of these symptoms, and how they were associated with schizophrenia. Additionally, patients completed the 8-item Birchwood Insight Scale developed to assess insight in patients with schizophrenia. Results: The impacts of anxiety were the most widespread and persistent for the patients, primarily relating to social and family interactions and relationships. For both patients and caregivers, patients’ anxiety comprised a mental and a physical component and contributed to escalation of other emotions and behaviors. Other significant or debilitating impacts, such as emotional functioning, legal issues, and financial distress, were attributed to aggression and impulsivity for both the patients and the caregivers. Conclusion: This study provides evidence of the impact of anxiety in the lives of patients with schizophrenia and their caregivers, and the potential relationship of and escalation from anxiety to aggression. Additionally, the study reinforces the importance of ensuring that treatment is taking into account the highly prevalent anxiety symptoms and behavioral disturbances in patients with schizophrenia as well as the implications of these symptoms and disturbances on the caregivers.

Objective Mood disorders are associated with a high societal cost, mainly due to presenteeism. The objective of this study was to review the use of 10 instruments that rate presenteeism in mood disorders and to provide recommendations regarding the appropriateness of instruments in different study settings. Methods A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify scales used to measure presenteeism, including the World Health Organization Health and Work Performance Questionnaire, the Lam Employment Absence and Productivity Scale, the Sheehan Disability Scale, the Work Limitation Questionnaire, and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment questionnaire. Study characteristics and major results (by symptom level, by treatment arm, correlation to other scales, and use of monetization) were data extracted. Results Twenty-nine studies were identified. The Sheehan Disability Scale, the Work Limitation Questionnaire, and Health and Work Performance Questionnaire were the most commonly used instruments. The majority (60%) of scales demonstrated higher presenteeism in individuals with mood disorders than in individuals without. The Lam Employment Absence and Productivity Scale, the Sheehan Disability Scale, and the Work Limitation Questionnaire showed that presenteeism increased with increasing severity of disease. Few studies reported results on presenteeism by treatment, with only small between-treatment differences observed. Good correlations between presenteeism instruments and clinical or quality-of-life scales were reported. Three studies converted results from presenteeism scales into monetary units. Conclusions Limited experiential evidence exists comparing the performance of presenteeism scales in mood disorders. Therefore, recommendations for inclusion of a presenteeism tool must be driven by instrument properties (ease of administration, amenability to monetization) and the study type. Future research should focus on the responsiveness of the instrument and on how mood disorders impact self-reported assessment.

Objectives Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a major public health concern associated with a high burden to society, the health-care system, and patients and an estimated cost of €3.5 billion in Sweden. The objective of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram versus generic venlafaxine extended-release (XR) in MDD, accounting for the full clinical profile of each, adopting the Swedish societal perspective, and identifying major cost drivers. Methods Cost-effectiveness of escitalopram versus venlafaxine XR was analyzed over a 6-month time frame, on the basis of a decision tree, for patients with MDD seeking primary care treatment in Sweden. Effectiveness outcomes for the model were quality-adjusted life-years and probability of sustained remission after acute treatment (first 8 weeks) and sustained for 6 months. Cost outcomes included direct treatment costs and indirect costs associated with sick leave. Results Compared with generic venlafaxine XR, escitalopram was less costly and more effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years (expected gain 0.00865) and expected 6-month sustained remission probability (incremental gain 0.0374). The better tolerability profile of escitalopram contributed to higher expected quality-adjusted life-years and lower health-care resource utilization in terms of pharmacological treatment of adverse events (though only a minor component of treatment costs). Expected per-patient saving was €169.15 for escitalopram versus venlafaxine. Cost from sick leave constituted about 85% of total costs. Conclusions Escitalopram was estimated as more effective and cost saving than generic venlafaxine XR in first-line MDD treatment in Sweden, driven by the effectiveness and tolerability advantages of escitalopram. The study findings are robust and in line with similar pharmacoeconomic analyses.

To better understand depression's impact on family functioning from the perspectives of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) and their partners; to develop and test patient and partner versions of a new self-reported measure, the Depression and Family Functioning Scale (DFFS), for use in clinical trials.Concept elicitation interviews were conducted with 32 adults with clinician-diagnosed moderate-to-severe MDD and their respective partners. Twenty-six items were drafted to address relevant aspects of family functioning and were then tested and refined through two iterative sets of cognitive debriefing interviews, each conducted by the same pair of highly experienced researchers, including a licensed clinical psychologist.Depression negatively affects family functioning through poorer communication, increased conflicts, decreased family interaction, and decreased intimacy. No existing instrument measured all domains of interest, or had been rigorously developed and psychometrically validated in the target populations. The draft DFFS items generally tested well and only minor modifications were made to the items after the second set of interviews. Both patients and partners indicated that the final set of 15 DFFS items addresses all concepts of importance.The DFFS evaluates the impact of depression on family functioning and has the potential to provide important information that can facilitate a more comprehensive evaluation of new treatments in clinical trial settings. Although MDD severity was not confirmed with a standardized interview, in clinical practice in the US, MDD is generally not diagnosed with the use of a structured clinical interview or clinician-administered tool. In the current study, depression severity had little (if any) impact on the specific concepts elicited as being important to family functioning. In fact, patients with milder depression had more insight and were able to better articulate changes in family functioning with treatment.

Objective. To compare the costs and effectiveness of escitalopram with venlafaxine and fluvoxamine for treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) from the societal perspective in Singapore. Methods. The decision analytical model consisted of two pathways, one for primary care and the other for secondary care over a time horizon of 6 months. The parameters in the model were derived from clinical trials and results of a survey on local general practitioners and psychiatrists. The proportion of patients successfully treated was the main effectiveness measurement. Both direct and indirect costs were estimated and reported in 2007 Singapore dollars. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results. The overall success rate for the 6-month treatment was 68.1% for escitalopram compared to 66.0% for venlafaxine. The total costs per patient treated were $2845 for escitalopram compared to $3176 for venlafaxine. The overall success rate was 64.7% for escitalopram and 60.0% for fluvoxamine. The total costs per patient treated were $3133 for escitalopram compared to $3297 for fluvoxamine. Probability sensitivity analysis demonstrated that escitalopram was dominant to venlafaxine and fluvoxamine in more than 95% of the random samples. Conclusion. Escitalopram is a cost-effective pharmacotherapy for MDD compared to venlafaxine and fluvoxamine.

Background: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotoninnoradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are approved for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). The allosteric SSRI escitalopram has been shown to be at least as clinically effective as the SNRIs venlafaxine and duloxetine in MDD, with a better tolerability profile. In addition, escitalopram has been shown to be cost saving compared with venlafaxine. Objective: To evaluate the cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus duloxetine in the treatment of MDD, and to identify key cost drivers. Methods: The pharmacoeconomic evaluation was conducted alongside a 24-week, double-blind, multinational randomized study (escitalopram 20 mg/day and duloxetine 60 mg/day) in outpatients with MDD, aged 18–65 years, with Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score ≥26 and Clinical Global Impression Severity (CGI-S) score ≥4, and baseline duration of the current depressive episode of 12 weeks to 1 year. The analysis was conducted on the full analysis set (FAS), which included all patients with ≥1 valid post-baseline health economic assessment. Effectiveness outcomes of the cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) included the change in Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) score (primary CEA), treatment response (MADRS score decrease ≥50%) and remission (MADRS score ≤12) rates at week 24. Cost outcomes were assessed from the societal perspective. Healthcare resource use and sick leave were evaluated using a health economic assessment questionnaire. Unit costs of healthcare services were obtained from standard UK sources (£, year 2006 values). Results: Over the total 24-week study period, escitalopram was associated with significant cost savings compared with duloxetine (total per-patient monthly cost £188 vs £334, respectively). In the primary CEA, escitalopram dominated duloxetine (i.e. was more effective on the disability scale and less costly). Treatment with escitalopram resulted in significantly lower mean sick leave duration per patient over 24 weeks than duloxetine (30.7 days vs 62.2 days). In multivariate analyses, escitalopram as a treatment choice was associated with a 54% reduction in sick leave duration (p < 0.001). Treatment with escitalopram also resulted in 49% lower total costs than treatment with duloxetine (p = 0.002). Absenteeism accounted for about two-thirds of the overall cost. Early clinical improvement (mean change in MADRS total score, response and remission) had an independent significant impact on the sick leave duration, after controlling for key co-variates. Conclusions: Escitalopram was associated with significantly lower duration of sick leave and significant savings in the total cost compared with duloxetine; it dominated duloxetine when effectiveness was assessed on the SDS scale. Indirect costs due to sick leave accounted for the most substantial portion of the total cost and should, therefore, be an important consideration when pharmacoeconomic comparisons between treatments are made from the societal perspective. The link between decrease in absenteeism and early (8-week) clinical improvement suggested in the additional analyses may explain the reduced sick leave observed with escitalopram, given its superior short-term efficacy compared with duloxetine (demonstrated in the underlying clinical trial).

Background The objectives of this meta-analysis of data from randomized, placebo-controlled studies were to assess the effect of vortioxetine on overall functioning (primary) and functional remission (secondary) using the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) in adults with major depressive disorder (MDD). Methods Data from nine short-term (6/8 weeks) pivotal studies that included patient functioning assessments were included in this random-effects meta-analysis, which used aggregated study-level data for all therapeutic vortioxetine doses and a mixed-effect model for repeated measures using the full analysis set. Results A total of 4,216 patients received ≥1 dose of study treatment (1,522 placebo, 2,694 vortioxetine 5–20 mg/day). At study end, the meta-analysis showed improvement for vortioxetine versus placebo (n = 911) in SDS total score (vortioxetine 5 mg, n = 564, change from baseline versus placebo [Δ] −0.24, p = NS; 10 mg, n = 445, Δ −1.68, p ≤ .001; 15 mg, n = 204, Δ −0.91, p = NS; 20 mg, n = 340, Δ −1.94, p ≤ .01). Functional remission (SDS total score ≤6) was observed with vortioxetine 10 mg (n = 170/573; odds ratio [OR] relative to placebo 1.7, p

Escitalopram is the S-enantiomer of citalopram and is the most discriminating of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). The aim of the current analysis was to assess the cost effectiveness of escitalopram versus the serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) duloxetine and generic venlafaxine as second-step treatment of major depressive disorder.The analysis was based on a decision analytic model. Effectiveness outcomes were quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and remission rates; cost outcomes were direct medical costs, including impact of treating adverse events, and indirect costs associated with lost productivity. The analysis was performed from the societal perspective in Sweden over a 6-month timeframe.Estimated remission rates showed an incremental effectiveness in favour of escitalopram of 16.4 percentage points compared with both SNRI comparators. The escitalopram strategy was associated with a 0.025 increase in QALYs. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model is robust and that escitalopram remains a cost-effective option when considering future predicted price reductions of generic venlafaxine.The main limitation in this study was the lack of data available for second-step treatment. The remission rates, which are a key input to the model, were obtained from a relatively small sample of patients on second-step treatment and there are no published relapse rates for second-step treatment. The model also assumed that there was no difference in the adverse event (AE) rates between treatments after the first 8 weeks.This cost-effectiveness analysis indicates that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000, escitalopram is the most cost-effective second-step treatment option for MDD in Sweden in over 85% cases compared with both venlafaxine and with duloxetine. Benefits for escitalopram included both increased effectiveness and reduced overall costs. The major contributing costs were those associated with productivity loss. The model was shown to have internal validity and robustness through the use of stochastic simulations and sensitivity analyses, which were conducted around the key efficacy parameters.

PurposeMajor depressive disorder (MDD) has detrimental effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We describe the effect of vortioxetine on HRQoL in MDD patients by using patient-reported outcome instruments.MethodsHRQoL was evaluated in 5 short-term (6–8 weeks), randomized studies of vortioxetine (5–20 mg/d; n = 2155) versus placebo (n = 1316) in adults with MDD by using the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire–Short Form, the EuroQol 5-Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D), and the 12-item Health Status Questionnaire in 1 study in elderly patients. Only patients receiving the approved doses of vortioxetine 5, 10, 15, or 20 mg/d were included in the analysis. A random effects meta-analysis was performed on the 4 adult MDD studies that used the SF-36. A within-studies mixed model for repeated measures analysis based on the full analysis set (FAS) was used unless otherwise specified. Standardized effect size (SES) was calculated to reflect clinical relevance, based on a Cohen’s d of 0.2.FindingsVortioxetine produced significantly better results compared with placebo in the SF-36 mental component summary score (5 mg: 2.6, P = 0.001, SES of 0.22, n = 604; 10 mg: 4.8, P < 0.001, SES of 0.42, n = 328) and 4 domain scores (vitality, social functioning, role emotional, and mental health). Vortioxetine was also significantly better in the EuroQoL-5 Dimension Questionnaire Health State score (10 mg: 7.5, P < 0.05, SES of 0.33, n = 86) and Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire–Short Form total score (15 mg: 3.3, P < 0.01, SES of 0.38, n = 127; 20 mg: 4.5, P < 0.0001, SES of 0.52, n = 134) (FAS, last-observation-carried-forward). In the study of elderly patients, vortioxetine 5 mg (n = 136) improved 12-item Health Status Questionnaire scores significantly more than placebo (n = 148) for the domains of health perception (10.4, P < 0.0001, SES of 0.54), mental health (7.9, P < 0.001, SES of 0.44), and energy (6.4, P < 0.05, SES of 0.28) (FAS, mixed model for repeated measures).ImplicationsVortioxetine yielded significant, meaningful HRQoL improvements in 6 MDD studies of 6 to 8 weeks’ duration.