Trial reportBMC health services research2025
The cost of drug repurposing: parallel economic evaluation of mirtazapine for severe breathlessness in the multinational BETTER-B trial.
Trial report in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBreathlessness is a prevalent, distressing symptom in advanced respiratory disease. Proven treatments are lacking. Mirtazapine, an antidepressant, is increasingly prescribed. The placebo-controlled BETTER-B trial did not find significant clinical benefit of mirtazapine for severe breathlessness, and patient experiences were mixed. Given mirtazapine’s low cost and wide availability, it is important to understand effects more broadly.
methodsWe conducted a parallel cost-effectiveness analysis of mirtazapine versus placebo. BETTER-B recruited 225 adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and/or Interstitial Lung Diseases in seven countries between 2021 and 2023. We calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using EuroQoL EQ-5D-5 L and national value sets, and combined self-reported healthcare and informal care frequencies with unit costs. Primary trial endpoint was at day 56, with sensitivity analysis at day 180 (trial exit).
findingsIn primary analysis mirtazapine reduced QALYs (-0.006 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.012 to -0.001)) and was associated with higher total costs (+€231 (95% CI: -218 to + 680)). For willingness-to-pay thresholds of €20,000-€40,000 per QALY, mirtazapine had a 1%-2% likelihood of being cost-effective. These findings were substantively unaffected by sensitivity analyses to timeframe, perspective, outcome measurement, and modelling strategy.
interpretationRepurposing mirtazapine to treat severe breathlessness negatively impacted patient outcomes while being associated with higher formal and informal costs, and should be discouraged. Off-label prescribing of repurposed medicines without robust evidence risks unnecessary strain on healthcare systems and families. Economic evaluation within testing of repurposed medicines is important. Parallel cost-effectiveness analyses can deliver high-value information even when the efficacy trial finds no effect.
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.