Open AccessThe cost‐utility of maintenance treatment with venlafaxine in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder
Author(s) -
Sobocki P.,
Ekman M.,
Ovanfors A.,
Khandker R.,
Jönsson B.
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
international journal of clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.756
H-Index - 98
eISSN - 1742-1241
pISSN - 1368-5031
DOI - 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2008.01711.x
Subject(s) - medicine , venlafaxine , quality adjusted life year , quality of life (healthcare) , major depressive disorder , observational study , tolerability , maintenance therapy , cost–utility analysis , eq 5d , cost effectiveness , psychiatry , pediatrics , health related quality of life , mood , disease , adverse effect , risk analysis (engineering) , antidepressant , anxiety , chemotherapy , nursing
Summary Aims: The Prevention of Recurrent Episodes of Depression with venlafaxine XR for Two Years trial has reported advantages with maintenance treatment for patients with recurrent depressive disorder. The aim of this study was to assess the cost‐utility of maintenance treatment with venlafaxine in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder, based on a recent clinical trial. Methods: A Markov simulation model was constructed to assess the cost‐utility of maintenance treatment for 2 years in recurrently depressed patients in Sweden. Risk of relapse and recurrence was based on a recent randomised clinical trial assessing the efficacy and tolerability of maintenance treatment with venlafaxine over 2 years. Costs and quality of life estimations were retrieved from a naturalistic longitudinal observational study conducted in Sweden. Health effects were quantified as quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs). Sensitivity analyses were conducted on key parameters employed in the model. Results: In the base‐case analysis, the cost per QALY gained of venlafaxine compared with no treatment was estimated at $18,500 over 2 years. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, we found that maintenance treatment with venlafaxine is cost‐effective with 90% probability at a willingness to pay per QALY of $67,000 or less. Our long‐term analyses also indicate that even under conservative assumptions about future risks of recurrences, maintenance treatment is cost‐effective. Conclusion: The present study indicates that maintenance treatment for 2 years with venlafaxine is cost‐effective in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder.