Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Severe depression is associated with an extensive economic burden on both the patient and society.
OBJECTIVE:
To estimate the cost-effectiveness in Austria of escitalopram compared with citalopram in the management of severe depression (Montgomery—Åsberg Depression Rating Scale score ≥30).
METHODS:
A decision model incorporated treatment paths and associated direct resource use (psychiatric hospitalization, medications, general practitioner and psychiatrist visits, treatment discontinuation, suicide attempts) associated with managing severe depression and the indirect cost of work absenteeism over a 6-month period. Main outcomes were clinical success (remission at 6 mo) and cost (2002 Euros equals ∼1.25 US) of treatment. The analysis was performed from the Austrian societal and Social Healthcare Insurance System (SHIS) perspectives. Clinical input data were derived from a meta-analysis of 8-week randomized clinical trials. Costs were derived from standard Austrian price lists or from the literature.
RESULTS:
Six months after the start of treatment, the overall clinical success remission rate was higher for escitalopram (53.7%) than for citalopram (48.7%). From the SHIS perspective, the total expected cost per successfully treated severely depressed patient was €924 (32.1%) lower for escitalopram (€2879) compared with citalopram (€3803). From the societal perspective, the total expected cost per successfully treated severely depressed patient was €1369 (24.4%) lower for escitalopram (€5610) than for citalopram (€6979). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model was robust and that, even if citalopram had no acquisition cost, escitalopram remained the dominant strategy for both perspectives.
CONCLUSIONS:
Treatment with escitalopram was the dominant strategy. These data suggest that escitalopram is a cost-effective antidepressant compared with citalopram in the management of severe depression in Austria.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.