Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Economic considerations in the prescribing of third-generation antidepressants

  • Review Article
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A comprehensive, multinational literature search was conducted of all articles published from 1993 to 2003 regarding the cost effectiveness of antidepressant drugs, with special emphasis on comparing third-generation antidepressants (TGAs) with tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Information from the collected articles was entered into a database and then analysed to assess the different approaches to cost effectiveness comparisons for the various classes of antidepressants. Factors examined included direct and indirect costs, treatment endpoints, healthcare cost burden and productivity gains for patients successfully treated for depression.

Most model-based studies published between 1993 and 2003 supported the cost effectiveness of TGAs compared with TCAs or SSRIs. While the purchase price of TGAs may be greater, cost savings in terms of direct and indirect costs were realised because of the reduced adverse effects of TGAs and subsequent improved patient compliance. Studies based on patient level cost data, however, were less conclusive about the economic benefits of TGAs compared with SSRIs or TCAs.

While it may be premature to conclude that TGAs have a significant net economic benefit compared with other antidepressant classes, prescribers and payers may find it helpful when choosing antidepressants for depressed patients to consider that the higher drug prices for TGAs may be offset by savings, in terms of their greater compliance and resultant therapeutic success rates compared with TCAs or SSRIs. Additional research is needed to clarify how cost effectiveness is assessed in different patient populations, such as geriatric patients — who commonly have more co-morbidities and higher total healthcare costs than other patient populations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Table II
Table III

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.

References

  1. DSM-IV-IR Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association, 2000

  2. Moore JD, Bona JR. Depression and dysthymia. Med Clin North Am 2001; 85: 631–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hirschfeld RM, Keller MB, Panico S, et al. The National Depressive and Manic-Depressive Association consensus statement on the undertreatment of depression. JAMA 1997; 277: 333–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Simon GE, VonKorff M, Heiligenstein JH, et al. Initial antidepressant choice in primary care: effectiveness and cost of fluoxetine vs tricyclic antidepressants. JAMA 1996; 275: 1897–902

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Franco K, Tamburino M, Campbell N, et al. The added costs of depression to medical care. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 7: 28491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Holm KJ, Jarvis B, Foster RH. Mirtazapine: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in depression. PharmacoEconomics 2000; 17: 515–34

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis MP, Dickerson ED, Pappagallo M, et al. Mirtazepine: heir apparent to amitriptyline? Am J Hosp Palliat Care 2001; 18: 42–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mattia C, Paoletti F, Coluzzi F, et al. New antidepressants in the treatment of neuropathic pain: a review. Minerva Anesthesiol 2002; 68: 105–14

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Casey DE. Striking a balance between safety and efficacy: experience with the SSRI sertraline. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1994; 9 Suppl. 3: 5–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. McCombs IS, Nichol MB, Stimmel GL, et al. The cost of antidepressant drug therapy failure: a study of antidepressant use patterns in a Medicaid population. J Clin Psychiatry 1993; 51: 60–9

    Google Scholar 

  11. Le Pen C, Levy E, Ravily V, et al. The cost of treatment dropout in depression: a cost-benefit analysis of fluoxetine versus tricyclics. J Affect Disord 1994; 31: 1–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Simon G, Von Korff M, Wagner EH, et al. Patterns of antidepressant use in community practice. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 1993; 15: 339–408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Beasley Jr CM, Holman SL, Potvin JH. Fluoxetine compared with imipramine in the treatment of inpatient depression: a multicenter trial. Ann Clin Psychiatry 1993; 5: 199–207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Johnson RE, McFarland B, Nicholas GA. Changing patterns of antidepressant use and costs in a health maintenance organization. PharmacoEconomics 1997; 22: 274–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Greenberg PE, Stiglin LE, Finkelstein SN, et al. The economic burden of depression in 1990. J Clin Psychiatry 1993; 54: 40518

    Google Scholar 

  16. Greenberg PE, Kessler RC, Birnbaum HG, et al. The economic burden of depression in the United States: how did it change between 1990 and 2000? J Clin Psychiatry 2003; 64: 1465–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Henry JA, Rivas CA. Constraints on antidepressant prescribing and principles of cost-effective antidepressant use. Part I: Depression and its treatment. PharmacoEconomics 1997; 11: 419–43

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Cohen L. Pharmacoeconomic issues in the treatment of depression. Formulary 1995; 30: S20–5

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Burrows GD, Norman TR, IS Olver. Third-generation antidepressants: do they offer advantages over the SSRIs? CNS Drugs 2001; 15: 941–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Anton SF, Revicki DA. The use of decision analysis in the pharmacoeconomic evaluation of an antidepressant: a costeffectiveness study of nefazodone. Psychopharmacol Bull 1995; 31: 249–58

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Doyle JJ, Casciano J, Arikian S, et al. A multinational pharmacoeconomic evaluation of acute major depressive disorder (MDD): a comparison of cost-effectiveness between venlafaxine, SSRIs and TCAs. Value Health 2001; 4: 16–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Montgomery SA, Brown RE, Clark M. Economic analysis of treating depression with nefazodone v. imipramine. Br J Psychiatry 1996; 168: 768–71

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Borghi J, Guest IF. Economic impact of using mirtazapine compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine in the treatment of moderate and severe depression in the UK. Fur Psychiatry 2000; 15: 378–87

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Brown MC, Nimmerrichter AA, Guest IF. Cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine compared to amitriptyline and fluoxetine in the treatment of moderate and severe depression in Austria. Fur Psychiatry 1999; 14: 230–44

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Casciano J, Arikian S, Tarride JE, et al. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of major depressive disorder (Italy). Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc 1999; 8: 220–31

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Casciano J, Doyle J, Arikian S, et al. The health economic impact of antidepressant usage from a payer’s perspective: a multinational study. Int J Clin Pract 2001; 55: 292–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Casciano R. A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of major depressive disorder. Manag Care Interface 2003; Suppl. B: 16–21

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Einarson TR, Addis A, Iskedjian M. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of venlafaxine in the treatment of major depressive disorder. PharmacoEconomics 1997; 12: 286–96

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Einarson TR, Arikian S, Sweeney S, et al. A model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of oral therapies in the management of patients with major depressive disorders. Clin Ther 1995; 17: 136–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Freeman H, Arikian S, Lenox-Smith A. Pharmacoeconomic analysis of antidepressants for major depressive disorder in the United Kingdom. PharmacoEconomics 2000; 18: 143–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Revicki DA, Brown RE, Palmer W, et al. Modelling the cost effectiveness of antidepressant treatment in primary care. PharmacoEconomics 1995; 8: 524–40

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Revicki DA, Brown RE, Keller MB, et al. Cost-effectiveness of newer antidepressants compared with tricyclic antidepressants in managed care settings. J Clin Psychiatry 1997; 58: 47–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Brown M, Martin CJ, Van-Loon J. Cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine relative to amitriptyline in the treatment of moderate and severe depression in France. Fur J Psychiat 1999; 13: 197–208

    Google Scholar 

  34. Brown M, Van-Loon J, Guest IF, et al. Cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine relative to fluoxetine in the treatment of moderate and severe depression in France. Fur J Psychiat 2000; 14 (1): 15–25

    Google Scholar 

  35. Priest RG. Cost-effectiveness of venlafaxine for the treatment of major depression in hospitalized patients. Clin Ther 1996; 18: 347–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Ackerman DL, Unutzer J, Greenland S, et al. Inpatient treatment of depression and associated hospital charges. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2002; 11: 219–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Griffiths RI, Sullivan EM, Frank RG, et al. Medical resource use and cost of venlafaxine or tricyclic antidepressant therapy: following selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor therapy for depression. PharmacoEconomics 1999; 15: 495–505

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Wan GJ, Crown WH, Berndt ER, et al. Treatment costs of venlafaxine and selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors for depression and anxiety. Manag Care Interface 2002; 15: 24–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Wan GJ, Crown WH, Berndt ER, et al. Healthcare expenditure in patients treated with venlafaxine or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for depression and anxiety. IntI Clin Pract 2002; 56: 434–9

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Croom KF, Plosker GL. Escitalopram: a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in depression. PharmacoEconomics 2003; 21: 1185–209

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gross P. Potential economic effects of venlafaxine in the treatment of inpatients with major depression disorder. Sydney: Institute of Health Economics and Technology Assessment 1994; Health Economics Monograph, 64

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review, which was supported by a grant from Novartis, Inc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Imperial College School of Medicine, University of London, London, England

    Stuart Montgomery

  2. The Analytica Group, 450 Park Avenue South, New York, New York, 1000, USA

    John J. Doyle & Lee Stern

  3. Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA

    Christopher R. McBurney

Authors
  1. Stuart Montgomery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John J. Doyle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lee Stern
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher R. McBurney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John J. Doyle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Montgomery, S., Doyle, J.J., Stern, L. et al. Economic considerations in the prescribing of third-generation antidepressants. Pharmacoeconomics 23, 477–491 (2005). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523050-00007

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200523050-00007

Keywords

Search

Navigation