Cost-Effectiveness/Utility Analysis of Two Drug Regimens in the Treatment of Depression
journal contributionposted on 08.06.2017 by Sintonen, Harri, Lönnqvist, Jouko, Kiviruusu, Olli
Any type of content formally published in an academic journal, usually following a peer-review process.
This paper compares the cost-effectiveness/utility of drug regimens based on fluoxetine and moclobemide in the treatment of depression in Finland. The outcome data are based on a 6 week double-blind RCT (n=209) and the cost data on a cost study linked to the RCT (n=141). Quality of life changes were measured by 15D. Five different outcome measures were used. Moclobemide showed consistently a better outcome in all outcome measures, but the differences did not generally reach the conventional limit of statistical significance (5%). The difference in the average time-weighted quality-of-life gain on a 0-1 scale was 0.02 (p=0.08). The direct costs were on average lower in the moclobemide regimen, but the difference was not significant (p=0.14), whereas the average total costs (direct and indirect) were almost the same in both regimens. These results suggest that in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness/utility the moclobemide regimen would dominate (produce a better marginal outcome at a equal or less cost), but this conclusion is surrounded by a slightly higher degree of uncertainty than what is conventionally applied. A larger study is needed to give more precision especially to the cost estimates.