SynthesisPloS one2012
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antidepressants in primary care: a multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness model.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 6 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- Economic Analyses of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder Interventions: A Systematic Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A systematic review of network meta-analyses for pharmacological treatment of common mental disorders.Evidence-based mental health · 2018Pooled it
- Canadian Network for Mood and Anxiety Treatments (CANMAT) 2016 Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Adults with Major Depressive Disorder: Section 3. Pharmacological Treatments.Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie · 2016Pooled it
- The estimation of utility weights in cost-utility analysis for mental disorders: a systematic review.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Pooled it
- Efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological treatments for depressive disorders in primary care: systematic review and network meta-analysis.Annals of family medicinePooled it
- An Overview of the Systematic Reviews About the Efficacy of Fluvoxamine on Depression.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- Article
- Considering the societal perspective in economic evaluations: a systematic review in the case of depression.Health economics review · 2020Review
- Medications for alcohol use disorders: An overview.Pharmacology & therapeutics · 2018Review
- Improvements in Quality-Adjusted Life Years and Cost-Utility After Pharmacotherapy for Premenstrual Dysphoric Disorder: A Retrospective Study.Clinical drug investigation · 2018Article
- Comparative effectiveness of switching paroxetine formulation for treatment of major depressive disorder: an open-label multicenter study.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2018Article
- Lack of relationship between plasma levels of escitalopram and QTc-interval length.European archives of psychiatry and clinical neuroscience · 2017Article
- Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Treatments for Depression: A Systematic Literature Review.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2017Review
- Escitalopram versus paroxetine controlled release in major depressive disorder: a randomized trial.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2017Article
- Network Meta-Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of New Generation Antidepressants.CNS drugs · 2015Review
- Trends in the dispensation of antidepressant drugs over the past decade (2000-2010) in Andalusia, Spain.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2015Article
- Treatment of mood disorders in multiple sclerosis.Current treatment options in neurology · 2015Article
- A comparative review of escitalopram, paroxetine, and sertraline: Are they all alike?International clinical psychopharmacology · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine effectiveness and cost-effectiveness over a one-year time horizon of pharmacological first line treatment in primary care for patients with moderate to severe depression.
designA multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis was employed to determine the relative efficacy in terms of remission of 10 antidepressants (citalopram, duloxetine escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline and venlafaxine). The estimated remission rates were then applied in a decision-analytic model in order to estimate costs and quality of life with different treatments at one year. DATA SOURCES: Meta-analyses of remission rates from randomised controlled trials, and cost and quality-of-life data from published sources.
resultsThe most favourable pharmacological treatment in terms of remission was escitalopram with an 8- to 12-week probability of remission of 0.47. Despite a high acquisition cost, this clinical effectiveness translated into escitalopram being both more effective and having a lower total cost than all other comparators from a societal perspective. From a healthcare perspective, the cost per QALY of escitalopram was €3732 compared with venlafaxine.
conclusionOf the investigated antidepressants, escitalopram has the highest probability of remission and is the most effective and cost-effective pharmacological treatment in a primary care setting, when evaluated over a one year time-horizon. Small differences in remission rates may be important when assessing costs and cost-effectiveness of antidepressants.
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.