Качественная клиническая практика (May 2018)
Comparative pharmacoeconomical analysis of modern antidepressants in monotherapy
Abstract
Compare the cost effectiveness and budget impact of vortioxetine in monotherapy of depressive disorders with several other important antidepressants using pharmacoeconomic methods within context of Russian healthcare. Agomelatine, fluvoxamine, escitalopram and paroxetine were used as comparators. A «decision tree» model describing probabilities of relevant clinical outcomes and events during the course of therapy with vortioxetine and the comparator drugs (including adverse events) was built using information from available clinical trials. Afterwards, data obtained via modelling, existing Russian documents regarding medical care standards and expert opinion survey data were used to calculate cost of treatment for vortioxetine and for each of the comparators (including costs associated with adverse events). These estimates were used to perform the following types of pharmacoeconomic analysis: cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), sensitivity analysis (SA) and budget impact analysis (BIA). CEA has demonstrated that vortioxetine definitely dominates among all compounds investigated in the current study with a CER of 41.990 rub., and escitalopram ranks as second with a CER of 77.360 rub. SA confirmed the robustness of this result. BIA indicated that utilization of vortioxetine, as the monotherapy regimen choice is associated with minimum fund expenditure among the compounds compared in the current study. wtP/CER was best for vortioxetine (35,5) according to pharmacoeconomic expediency analysis. The results of this pharmacoeconomic analysis of vortioxetine performance as monotherapy solution for treating depressive disorders in the RF indicate the following: • costs associated with adverse events constitute a significant portion of overall depression treatment costs; • possessing a favorable combination of clinical effectiveness and tolerability parameters, vortioxetine confidently dominates both in terms of raw effectiveness and in terms of CEA; • the aforementioned result is robust - according to sensitivity analysis it remains stable even under considerably unfavorable assumptions; • both complete and incomplete suicide, in addition to having considerable social and clinical consequences, contribute to increasing the budgetary burden; • according to BIA, vortioxetine use is associated with a decreased budgetary burden, which is explained by its low suicidogenic potential and high cost effectiveness; • it is interesting to note that paroxetine use is associated with a very high budgetary burden (which is especially relevant given that paroxetine remains widespread in Russian clinical practice). Compared to vortioxetine, the overall budget spending in case of paroxetine use is 60.3% higher; • among the compounds investigated in this study, vortioxetine is the most attractive from the RF drug reimbursement system point of view.
