Research Article| Volume 17, ISSUE 1, P136-153, January 1995

A model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of oral therapies in the management of patients with major depressive disorders

      This paper is only available as a PDF. To read, Please Download here.


      The introduction of a new antidepressant, venlafaxine, a serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), has provided researchers with the opportunity to take a closer look at the issues involved in selecting a product for a formulary. To aid decision makers in considering the adoption of this new therapy, a pharmacoeconomic simulation model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SNRIs versus traditional oral therapies in the management of patients with major depressive disorders (MDDs) from a cost-based payer perspective. Four treatment regimens for MDD were compared: tricyclic antidepressants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, heterocyclic antidepressants, and SNRIs. The principles of decision analysis were used to calculate outcome probabilities based on data from a meta-analysis. The expected cost of each regimen was calculated using cost data from a survey of three health maintenance organizations located in Missouri, Massachusetts, and California. The model suggests that SNRI therapy demonstrates the highest level of cost-effectiveness in an inpatient setting when using both brand and generic acquisition costs of the drugs. When comparing treatment regimens for outpatients, the generic heterocyclic antidepressants demonstrate the highest level of cost-effectiveness; when using brand acquisition costs, the SNRIs demonstrate the highest level of cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis calculated the robustness of the conclusions to all major parameters.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Clinical Therapeutics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Summers KH
        • Szeinbach SL
        Formularies: The role of pharmacy and therapeutics (P & T) committees.
        Clin Ther. 1993; 15: 433-441
        • Shepherd MD
        • Salzman RD
        The formulary decision-making process in a HMO setting.
        PharmacoEconomics. 1994; 5: 29-38
        • Douglass CW
        • Fox CH
        The emerging field of oral pharmaceuticals.
        J Am Dent Assoc. 1994; 125 (special edition): 2S-4S
        • Schweizer E
        • Feighner J
        • Mandos LA
        • Rickels K
        Comparison of venlafaxine and imipramine in the acute treatment of major depression in outpatients.
        J Clin Psychiatry. 1994; 55: 104-108
        • Montgomery SA
        Venlafaxine: A new dimension in antidepressant pharmacotherapy.
        J Clin Psychiatry. 1993; 54: 119-126
        • Schweizer E
        • Weise C
        • Clary C
        • et al.
        Placebo-controlled trial of venlafaxine for the treatment of major depression.
        J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1991; 11: 233-236
        • Cunningham LA
        • Borison RL
        • Carman JS
        • et al.
        A comparison of venlafaxine, trazodone, and placebo in major depression.
        J Clin Psychopharmacol. 1994; 14: 99-106
        • Entsuah AR
        • Bradley MM
        • Littman GS
        Cumulative mean change procedure: Application to a comparative trial of venlafaxine, imipramine, and placebo in the treatment of major depression.
        Prog Neuro-Psychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 1994; 18: 695-706
        • Laupacis A
        • Feeny DH
        • Detsky AS
        • Tugwell P
        How attractive does a new technology have to be to warrant adoption and utilization? Tentative guidelines for using clinical and economic evaluations.
        Can Med Assoc J. 1992; 146: 473-481
        • Hillman AL
        • Eisenberg JM
        • Pauly MV
        • et al.
        Avoiding bias in the conduct and reporting of cost-effectiveness research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.
        NEJM. 1991; 324: 1362-1365
      1. Depression Guideline Panel. Treatment of major depression.
        Depression in Primary Care, II. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Rockville, Md1993
        • DerSimonian R
        • Laird N
        Meta-analysis in clinical trials.
        Control Clin Trials. 1986; 7: 177-188
        • Velanovich V
        Meta-analysis for combining Bayesian probabilities.
        Med Hypotheses. 1991; 35: 192-195
        • Hamilton M
        Development of a rating scale for primary depressive illness.
        Br J Soc Clin Psychol. 1968; 6: 278-296
      2. Snesil NR 1993 Red Book. Medical Economics Data, Inc., Montvale, NJ1993
      3. Data on file, Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, Philadelphia, PA.

      4. Physicians' Desk Reference®. Medical Economics Data Production Company, Montvale, NJ1994
      5. Crought CME 29th ed. Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties. Canadian Pharmaceuticals Association, Ottawa1994
      6. Einarson TR, Arikian SR, Doyle J. Rank order stability analysis (ROSA): Testing pharmacoeconomic data. Med Decis Mak. In press.

        • McCombs JS
        • 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. 1990; 51 (Suppl): 60-71