ArticleCNS drugs2004
A comparison of the direct costs and cost effectiveness of serotonin reuptake inhibitors and associated adverse drug reactions.
Article in CNS drugs, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic evaluation of interventions for treatment-resistant depression: A systematic review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: a systematic review.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Pooled it
- Do productivity costs matter?: the impact of including productivity costs on the incremental costs of interventions targeted at depressive disorders.PharmacoEconomics · 2011Pooled it
- Trial
- Primary versus specialty care outcomes for depressed outpatients managed with measurement-based care: results from STAR*D.Journal of general internal medicine · 2008Trial
- Pharmacogenomics ofPharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Differences in sexual adverse events for premature ejaculation medications from a public federal database.International journal of impotence research · 2024Article
- A Double-Blind Randomized Trial to Investigate Mechanisms of Antidepressant-Related Dysfunctional Arousal in Depressed or Anxious Youth at Familial Risk for Bipolar Disorder.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Does Screening for Depressive Symptoms Help Optimize Duloxetine Use in Knee Osteoarthritis Patients With Moderate Pain? A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.Arthritis care & research · 2022Article
- The Incidence and Costs of Adverse Events Associated with Antidepressants: Results from a Systematic Review, Network Meta-Analysis and Multi-Country Economic Model.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2022Article
- Cost-effectiveness of psychological treatments for post-traumatic stress disorder in adults.PloS one · 2020Article
- Model Structuring for Economic Evaluations of New Health Technologies.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Review
- Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Treatments for Depression: A Systematic Literature Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2017Review
- The Clinical and Cost Effectiveness of Vortioxetine for the Treatment of a Major Depressive Episode in Patients With Failed Prior Antidepressant Therapy: A Critique of the Evidence.PharmacoEconomics · 2016Review
- Article
- Efficacy and safety of generic escitalopram (Lexacure(®)) in patients with major depressive disorder: a 6-week multicenter, randomized, rater-blinded, escitalopram-comparative, non-inferiority study.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2015Article
- Practice nurse involvement in primary care depression management: an observational cost-effectiveness analysis.BMC family practice · 2014Observational
- Economic evaluation of agomelatine relative to other antidepressants for treatment of major depressive disorders in Greece.BMC health services research · 2013Article
- Cost-effectiveness evaluation of escitalopram in major depressive disorder in Italy.ClinicoEconomics and outcomes research : CEOR · 2013Article
- A proposed model for economic evaluations of major depressive disorder.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe economic burden of depression is known to be high and was estimated to be USD 83.1 billion in 2000. Serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SRIs), including both selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), have a superior adverse effect and safety profile relative to traditional agents (e.g. TCAs), and as a result have demonstrated superior cost effectiveness. Although efficacy across the SRIs is similar, the incidence of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) within SRIs remains significant and varies by agent. Patients who experience ADRs from SRIs may seek medical care, require additional treatment, and even discontinue treatment altogether, leading to increased utilisation and cost of therapy.
objectiveThis study estimates the direct cost and cost effectiveness, taking into account the impact of treatment-related ADRs, of eight currently marketed SRIs (citalopram, escitalopram, generic fluoxetine, paroxetine, paroxetine controlled release [CR], sertraline, venlafaxine and venlafaxine extended release [XR]) used as initial treatment for depression.
methodsA decision analytic model with a 6-month treatment goal was used to estimate the direct cost and cost effectiveness of treatment from the managed care/payer perspective. Estimates of SRI-related ADRs, associated treatments and costs were derived from the US FDA-approved prescribing information and published literature. Efficacy was assumed to be similar across all SRIs. Effectiveness was measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALY) based on EuroQol EQ-5D scores derived from the 2000 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Censored least absolute deviations (CLAD) regression analysis was used to derive age-adjusted estimates of utility for all health states. Univariate and Bayesian second-order multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the impact of uncertainty in the parameter estimates.
resultsThe expected direct cost and cost effectiveness of treatment from least to most expensive were: escitalopram (USD 3891; 0.341), citalopram (USD 3938; 0.340), generic fluoxetine (USD 4034; 0.335), venlafaxine XR (USD 4226; 0.336), sertraline (USD 4250; 0.335), generic paroxetine (USD 4385; 0.332), paroxetine CR (USD 4440; 0.332) and venlafaxine (USD 4613; 0.326). Monte Carlo simulation results suggested that escitalopram was the most likely (77%) to be cost effective for a willingness to pay < or = USD 50,000 per QALY, followed by citalopram (22%), generic fluoxetine (0.3%) and all other SRIs (0%). Sensitivity analyses indicated that the results of the study were robust to the assumptions underpinning the model.
conclusionsSRI-related ADRs have a significant impact on the direct cost and cost effectiveness of treatment. Escitalopram, with the lowest ADR rate of the SRIs, had the lowest expected treatment cost and greatest effectiveness when compared with citalopram, generic fluoxetine, generic paroxetine, paroxetine CR, sertraline, venlafaxine and venlafaxine XR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.