Reliability of coded data to identify earliest indications of cognitive decline, cognitive evaluation and Alzheimer's disease diagnosis: a pilot study in England.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the reliability of using diagnosis codes and prescription data to identify the timing of symptomatic onset, cognitive assessment and diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) among patients diagnosed with AD. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study using the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). The study cohort consisted of a random sample of 50 patients with first AD diagnosis in 2010-2013. Additionally, patients were required to have a valid text-field code and a hospital episode or a referral in the 3 years before the first AD diagnosis. The earliest indications of cognitive impairment, cognitive assessment and AD diagnosis were identified using two approaches: (1) using an algorithm based on diagnostic codes and prescription drug information and (2) using information compiled from manual review of both text-based and coded data. The reliability of the code-based algorithm for identifying the earliest dates of the three measures described earlier was evaluated relative to the comprehensive second approach. Additionally, common cognitive assessments (with and without results) were described for both approaches. RESULTS: The two approaches identified the same first dates of cognitive symptoms in 33 (66%) of the 50 patients, first cognitive assessment in 29 (58%) patients and first AD diagnosis in 43 (86%) patients. Allowing for the dates from the two approaches to be within 30 days, the code-based algorithm's success rates increased to 74%, 70% and 94%, respectively. Mini-Mental State Examination was the most commonly observed cognitive assessment in both approaches; however, of the 53 tests performed, only 19 results were observed in the coded data. CONCLUSIONS: The code-based algorithm shows promise for identifying the first AD diagnosis. However, the reliability of using coded data to identify earliest indications of cognitive impairment and cognitive assessments is questionable. Additionally, CPRD is not a recommended data source to identify results of cognitive assessments.

Potential cost savings to be made by slowing cognitive decline in mild Alzheimer's disease dementia using a model derived from the UK GERAS observational study.

BACKGROUND: Given the high costs associated with the care of those with Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia, we examined the likely impact of a reduction in the rate of cognitive decline upon cost outcomes associated with this disease. METHODS: Using the group of patients with mild AD dementia from the GERAS study, generalised linear modelling (GLM) was used to explore the relationship between change in cognition as measured using the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and UK overall costs (health care and social care costs, and total societal costs) associated with AD dementia. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients with mild AD dementia were identified. Least squares mean (LSM) ± standard error (SE) reduction in MMSE score was 3.6 ± 0.4 points over 18 months. Using GLM it was possible to calculate that this worsening in cognition was associated with an 8.7% increase in total societal costs, equating to an increase of approximately £2200 per patient over an 18-month period. If the rate of decline in cognition was reduced by 30% or 50%, the associated savings in total societal costs over 18 months would be approximately £670 and £1100, respectively, of which only £110 and £180, respectively, could be attributed to a saving of health care costs. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that there are potential savings to be made in the care of patients with AD dementia through reducing the rate of cognitive decline. A reduction in wider societal costs is likely to be the main contributor to these potential savings, and need to be further evaluated when intervention costs and cost offsets can be measured.

Resource utilisation, costs and clinical outcomes in non-institutionalised patients with Alzheimer's disease: 18-month UK results from the GERAS observational study.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease (AD), the commonest cause of dementia, represents a significant cost to UK society. This analysis describes resource utilisation, costs and clinical outcomes in non-institutionalised patients with AD in the UK. METHODS: The GERAS prospective observational study assessed societal costs associated with AD for patients and caregivers over 18 months, stratified according to baseline disease severity (mild, moderate, or moderately severe/severe [MS/S]). All patients enrolled had an informal caregiver willing to participate in the study. Healthcare resource utilisation was measured using the Resource Utilization in Dementia instrument, and 18-month costs estimated by applying unit costs of services and products (2010 values). Total societal costs were calculated using an opportunity cost approach. RESULTS: Overall, 526 patients (200 mild, 180 moderate and 146 MS/S at baseline) were recruited from 24 UK centres. Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) scores deteriorated most markedly in the MS/S patient group, with declines of 3.6 points in the mild group, 3.5 points in the moderate group and 4.7 points in the MS/S group; between-group differences did not reach statistical significance. Patients with MS/S AD dementia at baseline were more likely to be institutionalised (Kaplan-Meier probability 28% versus 9% in patients with mild AD dementia; p < 0.001 for difference across all severities) and had a greater probability of death (Kaplan-Meier probability 15% versus 5%; p = 0.013) at 18 months. Greater disease severity at baseline was also associated with concomitant increases in caregiver time and mean total societal costs. Total societal costs of £43,560 over 18 months were estimated for the MS/S group, versus £25,865 for the mild group and £30,905 for the moderate group (p < 0.001). Of these costs, over 50% were related to informal caregiver costs at each AD dementia severity level. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a mean deterioration in MMSE score over 18 months in patients with AD. It also showed that AD is a costly disease, with costs increasing with disease severity, even when managed in the community: informal caregiver costs represented the main contributor to societal costs.

Excess Costs Associated with Possible Misdiagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease Among Patients with Vascular Dementia in a UK CPRD Population.

BACKGROUND: Prior diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD) among patients later diagnosed with vascular dementia (VaD) has been associated with excess costs, suggesting potential benefits of earlier rule-out of AD diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether prior diagnosis with AD among patients with VaD is associated with excess costs in the UK. METHODS: Patients with a final VaD diagnosis, continuous data visibility for≥6 months prior to index date, and linkage to Hospital Episode Statistics data were retrospectively selected from de-identified Clinical Practice Research Datalink data. Patients with AD diagnosis before a final VaD diagnosis were matched to similar patients with no prior AD diagnosis using propensity score methods. Annual excess healthcare costs were calculated for 5 years post-index, stratified by time to final diagnosis. RESULTS: Of 9,311 patients with VaD, 508 (6%) had prior AD diagnosis with a median time to VaD diagnosis exceeding 2 years from index date. Over the entire follow-up period, patients with prior AD diagnosis had accumulated healthcare costs that were approximately GBP2,000 higher than those for matched counterparts (mostly due to higher hospitalization costs). Cost differentials peaked particularly in the period including the final VaD diagnosis, with excess costs quickly declining thereafter. CONCLUSION: Potential misdiagnosis of AD among UK patients with VaD resulted in substantial excess costs. The decline in excess costs following a final VaD diagnosis suggests potential benefits from earlier rule-out of AD.

Individual residual symptoms and functional impairment in patients with depression.

The aim of treatment of depression is remission of symptoms and functioning. Although there is a relationship between remission of symptoms and remission of functioning, it is not known how individual residual symptoms are related to functioning. Here we report a post-hoc analysis of two studies which treated depressed patients with duloxetine in an open fashion for 10-12 weeks. We evaluated the association of individual residual symptoms and functional impairment in patients who remitted or partially remitted after acute treatment. Logistic regression was used to investigate residual symptoms associated with functional impairment at endpoint. Our results suggest that in partial remitters, the only residual symptom associated with a reduction in the risk of having impaired function was the resolution of painful physical symptoms (PPS). In patients who remitted, the presence of residual core mood symptoms (CMS), particularly in patients without any anxiety, predicted impaired functioning. The resolution of PPS in the presence of residual CMS was associated with less risk of impaired functioning. Our results contribute to understand better the role of specific residual symptoms on functional impairment. To achieve normal functioning, intervention on specific residual symptoms is recommended.

Health care resource utilisation in primary care prior to and after a diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease: a retrospective, matched case-control study in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: This study examined medical resource utilisation patterns in the United Kingdom (UK) prior to and following Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis. METHODS: A patient cohort aged 65 years and older with newly diagnosed AD between January 2008 and December 2010 was identified through the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD). Patients with a continuous record in the CPRD (formerly the General Practice Research Database [GPRD]) for both the 3 years prior to, and the 1 year following, AD diagnosis were eligible for inclusion. A control cohort was identified by matching general older adult (GOA) patients to patients with AD based on year of birth, gender, region, and Charlson Comorbidity Index at a ratio of 2:1. Medical resource utilisation was calculated in 6-month intervals over the 4-year study period. Comparisons between AD and GOA control cohorts were conducted using conditional logistic regression for patient characteristics and a generalised linear model for resource utilisation. RESULTS: Data for the AD cohort (N = 3,896) and matched GOA control cohort (N = 7,792) were extracted from the CPRD. The groups were 65% female and the AD cohort had a mean age of 79.9 years (standard deviation 6.5 years) at the date of diagnosis. Over the entire study period, the AD cohort had a significantly higher mean primary care consultation rate than the GOA cohort (p < .0001). While the GOA cohort primary care consultation rate gradually increased over the 4-year period (ranging from 5 to 7 consultations per 6-month period), increases were more pronounced in the AD cohort (ranging from 6 to 11 consultations per 6-month period, peaking during the 6-month periods immediately prior to and post diagnosis). The AD cohort also had a higher overall specialty referral rate than the GOA cohort over the 4-year period (37% vs. 25%, respectively; p < .0001); the largest difference was during the 6 months immediately prior to AD diagnosis (17% vs. 5%, respectively; p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In the UK, AD diagnosis is associated with significant increases in primary and secondary care resource utilisation, continuing beyond diagnosis. This evidence may be important to health care commissioners to facilitate effective mobilisation of appropriate AD-related health care resources.

Efficacy and safety of duloxetine in the treatment of older adult patients with generalized anxiety disorder: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This was a flexible-dosed study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of duloxetine 30-120 mg once daily in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) in older adult patients. METHODS: Patients with GAD, who were at least 65 years of age, were randomly assigned to double-blind treatment with either duloxetine (N = 151) or placebo (N = 140). The primary efficacy measure was the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) total score, and the primary endpoint was at week 10. Global functioning was assessed by the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). Safety and tolerability was assessed by the occurrence of treatment-emergent adverse events, serious adverse events, laboratory analyses, and vital signs. Analyses were conducted on an intent-to-treat basis. RESULTS: The overall baseline mean HAM-A total score was 24, and SDS global score was 14. Completion rates were 75% for placebo and 76% for duloxetine. At week 10, duloxetine was superior to placebo on mean changes from baseline in HAM-A total scores (-15.9 vs. -11.7, p < 0.001) and in SDS global scores (-8.6 vs. -5.4, p < 0.001). Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in ≥5% of duloxetine-treated patients and twice the rate than with placebo including constipation (9% vs. 4%, p = 0.06), dry mouth (7% vs. 1%, p = 0.02), and somnolence (6% vs. 2%, p = 0.14). CONCLUSION: Duloxetine treatment was efficacious in the improvement of anxiety and functioning in older adult patients with GAD, and the safety profile was consistent with previous GAD studies.

Impact of patient selection and study characteristics on signal detection in placebo-controlled trials with antidepressants.

An increasing rate of antidepressant trials fail due to large placebo responses. This analysis aimed to identify variables influencing signal detection in clinical trials of major depressive disorder. Patient-level data of randomized patients with a duloxetine dose ≥ 60 mg/day were obtained from Lilly. Total scores of the Hamilton Depression Rating scale (HAM-D) were used as efficacy endpoints. In total, 4661 patients from 14 studies were included in the analysis. The overall effect size (ES), based on the HAM-D total score at endpoint, between duloxetine and placebo was -0.272. Although no statistically significant interactions were found, the following results for factors influencing ES were seen: a very low ES (-0.157) in patients in the lowest baseline HAM-D category and in patients recruited in the last category of the recruitment period (-0.122). A higher ES in patients recruited in centers with a site-size at but not more than 2.5 times the average site-size for the study (-0.345). Study characteristics that resulted in low signal detection in our database were: <80% study completers, a HAM-D placebo response >5 points, a high variability of placebo response (SD > 7 points HAM-D), >6 post baseline visits per study, and use of an active control drug. Simpler trial designs, more homogeneous and mid-sized study sites, a primary analysis based on a higher cutoff blinded to investigators to avoid the influence of score inflation in mild patients and, if possible, studies without an active control group could lead to a better signal detection of antidepressive efficacy.

A 12-week nursing support programme for carers of children and adolescents in the UK with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prescribed atomoxetine.

INTRODUCTION: Patient support programmes are assuming greater importance in the UK in many therapeutic areas, mostly with the aim of improving adherence to medication and many being provided by the pharmaceutical industry. Atomoxetine is a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder that has recently demonstrated incremental efficacy for at least 12 weeks. Issues of adherence may be predicted over this initial period particularly if adverse events are reported. The Strattera Support Service was initiated in 2006 ( funded by Eli Lilly) to provide advice, initially through telephone contact, by trained nurses during the first 12 weeks of atomoxetine therapy and is offered to carers of patients diagnosed with ADHD after atomoxetine has been prescribed. The aim of this pilot service evaluation is to assess discontinuation rates and compare them with historical control data. METHODS: Data from patients in the service who initiated atomoxetine between 1 January 2009 and 31 March 2010 were analysed to provide a pilot service evaluation. Continuation rates of patients in the service who were taking atomoxetine at week 12 were assessed and compared with historical control data. RESULTS: Between 1 January 2009 and 31 March 2010, 346 patients (300 male patients) enrolled in the programme and commenced treatment with atomoxetine. The mean age of patients was 10.5 years. At 12 weeks, 33 (9.5%) patients had discontinued treatment; continuation rates were similar regardless of age and sex. Discontinuation rates of 39% are reported from historical control data. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary data from a 12-week atomoxetine patient support programme are supportive that discontinuation rates may be lower than historically expected. Further service evaluations of this programme may be required.

A review of the suitability of duloxetine and venlafaxine for use in patients with depression in primary care with a focus on cardiovascular safety, suicide and mortality due to antidepressant overdose.

Depression and anxiety disorders are among the most common disorders treated by general practitioners (GPs) in the UK. Since both disorders are associated with a significantly increased risk of suicide, including with antidepressant overdose, the safety of antidepressants in overdose is of paramount importance. Numerous updates relating to antidepressant safety have been issued by regulators in the UK which may have eroded GP confidence in antidepressants. Venlafaxine, a serotonin nor adrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) had primary care prescribing restrictions placed on it in 2004 due to concerns about cardiotoxicity and mortality in overdose. Although a review of the evidence led to a reversal of the majority of restrictions in 2006, evidence suggests GPs may still be cautious in their prescribing of venlafaxine and possibly other SNRI antidepressants for patients with depression and anxiety disorders. This paper reviews the evidence pertaining to the safety of SNRI antidepressants from a perspective of cardiovascular safety and overdose. The currently available evidence suggests a marginally higher toxicity of venlafaxine in overdose compared with another SNRI duloxetine and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), although this may be related to differential patterns of prescribing in high-risk patients. Based on this review SNRIs have a positive risk benefit profile in the treatment of depression and generalized anxiety disorder in primary care, especially as second-line agents to SSRIs.

Incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain in primary care - a retrospective cohort study using the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database.

PURPOSE: To determine the incidence of diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain (DPNP) in the United Kingdom (UK) primary care population using the General Practice Research Database (GPRD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified incident cases of DPNP in the UK GPRD between July 1, 2002 and June 30, 2011, using diagnostic codes. Trends in the incidence rate were examined by dividing the study period into 3-year periods: (1) July 1, 2002-June 30, 2005; (2) July 1, 2005-June 30, 2008; and (3) July 1, 2008-June 30, 2011. Patient characteristics (age, sex, comorbidities) and initial pharmacological treatment were described; the proportion of patients with incident DPNP, who had previously been screened for neuropathic symptoms, was determined. RESULTS: Among almost 7.5 million persons contributing 38,118,838 person-years of observations in the GPRD, 6,779 new cases of DPNP were identified (45.5%, women), giving an incidence rate of 17.8 per 100,000 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI] 17.4-18.2). The incidence of DPNP increased with age, but it was stable over the three consecutive 3-year periods: 17.9, 17.2, and 18.4 cases per 100,000 person-years. Of the 6,779 patients with incident DPNP, 15.5% had prior neuropathic screening during the study period. The majority of patients with incident DPNP (84.5%) had a treatment for pain initiated within 28 days of first diagnosis. The most common first-line treatments prescribed were tricyclic antidepressants (27.2%), anticonvulsants (17.0%), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (14.9%), with 26.6% of patients receiving combination therapy as their initial treatment. CONCLUSION: The incidence of DPNP in UK primary care has remained steady over the past 10 years. Our results suggest that DPNP is underdiagnosed, and initial treatment prescribed does not follow clinical guidelines.

Does adding noradrenaline reuptake inhibition to selective serotonin reuptake inhibition improve efficacy in patients with depression? A systematic review of meta-analyses and large randomised pragmatic trials.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are recommended as first-line pharmacological treatment for depression and are the most commonly prescribed class of antidepressants. However, there is substantial evidence that noradrenaline has a role in the pathogenesis and treatment of depression. This review aims to examine the evidence of including noradrenaline reuptake inhibition with serotonin reuptake inhibition with respect to increasing efficacy in the treatment of depression. Evidence from meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised pragmatic trials was found in support of greater efficacy of the serotonin noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), venlafaxine and duloxetine, in moderate to severe depression compared to SSRIs but no evidence was found for superiority of milnacipran. There is sufficient current evidence that demonstrates an increase in efficacy, when noradrenaline reuptake is added to serotonin (5-HT) reuptake, to suggest that patients with severe depression or those who have failed to reach remission with a SSRI may benefit from treatment with a SNRI. However, as these conclusions are drawn from the evidence derived from meta-analyses and pragmatic trials, large adequately powered RCTs using optimal dosing regimens and clinically relevant outcome measures in severe depression and SSRI treatment failures are still required to confirm these findings.

Health care costs before and after diagnosis of depression in patients with unexplained pain: a retrospective cohort study using the United Kingdom General Practice Research Database.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of pain severity and time to diagnosis of depression on health care costs for primary care patients with pre-existing unexplained pain symptoms who subsequently received a diagnosis of depression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 4000 adults with unexplained pain (defined as painful physical symptoms [PPS] without any probable organic cause) and a subsequent diagnosis of depression, identified from the UK General Practice Research Database using diagnostic codes. Patients were categorized into four groups based on pain severity (milder or more severe; based on number of pain-relief medications and use of opioids) and time to diagnosis of depression (≤1 year or>1 year from PPS index date). Annual health care costs were calculated (2009 values) and included general practitioner (GP) consultations, secondary care referrals, and prescriptions for pain-relief medications for the 12 months before depression diagnosis and in the subsequent 2 years. Multivariate models of cost included time period as a main independent variable, and adjusted for age, gender, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Total annual health care costs before and after depression diagnosis for the four patient groups were higher for the groups with more severe pain (£819-£988 versus £565-£628; P < 0.001 for all pairwise comparisons) and highest for the group with more severe pain and longer time to depression diagnosis in the subsequent 2 years (P < 0.05). Total GP costs were highest in the group with more severe pain and longer time to depression diagnosis both before and after depression diagnosis (P < 0.05). In the second year following depression diagnosis, this group also had the highest secondary care referral costs (P < 0.01). The highest drug costs were in the groups with more severe pain (P < 0.001), although costs within each group were similar before and after depression diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Among patients with unexplained pain symptoms, significant pain in combination with longer time from pain symptoms to depression diagnosis contribute to higher costs for the UK health care system.

Quality of Life in Depressed Patients in UK Primary Care: The FINDER Study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of depression and its treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a naturalistic, primary care setting in the UK. METHODS: The Factors Influencing Depression Endpoints Research (FINDER) study was a European, 6-month, prospective, observational study designed to estimate HRQoL in patients with a clinical diagnosis of depression. This paper examines primary care patients recruited in the UK. HRQoL was measured at baseline and at 3 and 6 months after starting antidepressant therapy using the Short Form 36 Health Status Survey and the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D). Regression analysis was used to identify baseline and treatment variables independently and significantly associated with HRQoL. Further analyses included the effect of caseness for depression on HRQoL, the effect of moderate/severe pain at baseline on HRQoL, changes in overall pain, pain interference scores, and the use of different antidepressants by pain cohort. RESULTS: A total of 608 patients was recruited from 58 centres and mean HRQoL was significantly below reported population norms at baseline. Most improvement in HRQoL was seen at 3 months for EQ-5D, with small additional improvement at 6 months. Worse HRQoL outcomes at 6 months were associated with higher somatic symptoms score, duration of depression at baseline, and switching within antidepressant classes. Patients meeting the criteria for caseness for depression, or with significant pain at baseline showed less improvement in HRQoL scores at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Patients presenting with depression in primary care show reduced HRQoL compared to population norms. HRQoL improves during antidepressant treatment particularly within the first 3 months. Nonpainful somatic symptoms, socioeconomic factors, depression variables and switching within antidepressant class predict poor HRQoL outcome. Pain is a common symptom in depressed patients and remains after 6 months' treatment. Pain and somatic symptoms should be assessed in all patients with depression in primary care.

Cost effectiveness of venlafaxine compared with generic fluoxetine or generic amitriptyline in major depressive disorder in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of venlafaxine compared with generic fluoxetine and generic amitriptyline used in major depressive disorder in primary care in the UK. METHODS: A decision-tree model for the treatment of major depressive disorder was constructed using a Delphi panel. The tree was populated with clinical success rates from a pooled analysis of fluoxetine compared with venlafaxine and a clinical trial of amitriptyline compared with venlafaxine using remission as the key endpoint. Where there was insufficient data from clinical trials, the Delphi panel was used. Costs within the tree were taken from contemporary UK sources. Six-monthly costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were then estimated. RESULTS: Treatment costs for 6 months were pound1530 for venlafaxine, pound1539 for fluoxetine and pound1558 for amitriptyline (year of costing 2006). Cost effectiveness as assessed by incremental cost per QALY ratio at 8 weeks was pound20 600 for venlafaxine compared with fluoxetine, with fluoxetine dominating (being less costly and more effective than) amitriptyline. To test the robustness of the model a Rank Order Stability Assessment was performed that showed that even if fluoxetine and/or amitriptyline were given away free, a scenario starting with venlafaxine would still be the least costly treatment over a 6-month period. CONCLUSION: In this model, venlafaxine was shown to be a cost-effective alternative to generic fluoxetine and amitriptyline when used as a first-line therapy. Thus, cost of therapy should not be a barrier to use of venlafaxine as a first-line option in treating major depressive disorder in primary care in the UK.

Venlafaxine extended release versus citalopram in patients with depression unresponsive to a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor.

Findings from the National Institute of Mental Health's Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression trial indicate that approximately 50% of patients with major depressive disorder do not experience a treatment response after adequate first-line treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). This study was designed to test the hypothesis that, after treatment failure with an SSRI, switching to venlafaxine extended release (ER) would offer advantages over switching to another SSRI, citalopram. The objectives of this trial were to compare the efficacy and safety of venlafaxine ER and citalopram in the treatment of moderate-to-severe depression in patients who did not experience a treatment response to an SSRI other than citalopram and to investigate the effects of severity of depression by categorizing treatment groups according to baseline severity. This was a 12-week, double-blind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter study. Participants were adult outpatients who, following 8 weeks of monotherapy with an adequate dosing regimen of an SSRI other than citalopram and had not responded, met the diagnostic criteria for depression as described in the Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fourth edition, and had a score > or =20 on the 21-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D21). After a 7-day screening period, patients were randomly assigned to receive venlafaxine ER 75 mg/day or citalopram 20 mg/day for the first 2 weeks. Doses could be increased every 2 weeks through week 6. Treatment lasted 12 weeks and was followed by a 1-week tapering period. Maximum dosages were venlafaxine ER 300 mg/day or citalopram 60 mg/day. The primary end point was the final on-therapy total HAM-D21 score. To investigate the treatment effects of the severity of depression on efficacy, a subgroup analysis was performed for baseline HAM-D21 total score < or =31 and >31. The analyses for HAM-D21, Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions - Severity (CGI-S), and Clinical Global Impressions - Improvement scores were based on intent-to-treat (ITT) population, for both the primary analysis and subgroup analysis according to baseline HAM-D21 total scores < or =31 or >31. Safety assessments included the recording of adverse events (AEs). A total of 406 patients (200 venlafaxine ER, 206 citalopram) were randomly assigned and 396 patients were included in the ITT population (194 venlafaxine ER, 202 citalopram). Treatment groups were similar in terms of demographics and baseline psychiatric assessments. Two hundred and eighty-four patients (137 venlafaxine ER, 147 citalopram) were present in the ITT population with a baseline HAM-D21 total score < or =31 and 112 patients (57 venlafaxine ER, 55 citalopram) in the >31 group. In the primary analysis, there was no statistical difference between groups. The group with a baseline HAM-D21 total score of 20-31 did not differ significantly in any efficacy parameters. In the group with a baseline HAM-D21 total score >31, the venlafaxine ER group differed significantly from the citalopram group on the primary end point HAM-D21 total score (P=0.0121). The secondary end point CGI-S score was statistically significant (P=0.0359), although the MADRS total score (P=0.0930) was not. AEs were reported by 57.8 and 63.4% of venlafaxine ER and citalopram patients, respectively. Overall discontinuation rates were 24.5% for venlafaxine ER and 20.9% for citalopram. Discontinuation rates owing to an AE as a primary or secondary reason were 5.5% for venlafaxine ER and 5.3% for citalopram. Overall, venlafaxine ER and citalopram showed similar efficacy in patients who had an inadequate response to an SSRI. In the subset of more severely depressed patients, venlafaxine ER was significantly more effective on a number of efficacy measures. Patients who remain severely depressed following treatment with an SSRI may gain more benefit from the dual-action drug venlafaxine, rather than switching to another SSRI.

Cost effectiveness of representatives of three classes of antidepressants used in major depression in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost effectiveness of representatives of three different classes of antidepressants used in major depression in the UK NHS. DESIGN, PATIENTS AND INTERVENTIONS: A decision-tree model for the treatment of major depression was constructed by interviewing UK GPs and psychiatrists (as part of a Delphi panel). An important part of the tree was that patients in primary care were treated until remission (pre-morbid state). Three classes of antidepressants (serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs; venlafaxine], selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs; fluoxetine, paroxetine and fluvoxamine] and tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs; amitriptyline]) were compared by populating the tree with clinical success rates determined by a meta-analysis and a clinical trial. Where there were insufficient data from clinical trials a Delphi panel was used. Costs within the tree were taken from UK data sources. Six-monthly costs and cost effectiveness were then calculated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND RESULTS: Treatment costs for 6 months were pound 1285 for venlafaxine, pound 1348 for SSRIs and pound 1385 for amitriptyline. Cost effectiveness as measured by cost per symptom-free day was pound 21 for venlafaxine, pound 26 for SSRIs and pound 32 for TCAs (2001 values). Incremental cost-effectiveness analyses showed a treatment strategy of using venlafaxine and switching if necessary to an SSRI was dominant over all other strategies considered. Sensitivity testing demonstrated that the cost of an SSRI could be reduced to 4 pence daily and amitriptyline to zero before the expected 6-monthly cost of venlafaxine ceased to be the lowest. CONCLUSION: The SNRI, venlafaxine, may be a cost-effective option compared with the SSRIs and TCAs when used as a first-line drug for depression in primary care in the UK. As this is a model, cost effectiveness can be suggested but not proven.