Clinical outcomes following switch from venlafaxine ER to desvenlafaxine in nonresponders and responders.

OBJECTIVE: This post hoc analysis examined efficacy and tolerability of open-label desvenlafaxine in patients with major depressive disorder switched from blinded placebo, venlafaxine extended release (ER), or desvenlafaxine. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients who completed 8 weeks of double-blind therapy with placebo (n = 176), venlafaxine ER (n = 175), or desvenlafaxine (n = 143) enrolled in a 10-month, open-label extension study and received desvenlafaxine 200 to 400 mg/d. Efficacy (17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS(17)]) was assessed separately for nonresponders and responders to double-blind treatment. Tolerability during the first month of open-label desvenlafaxine was assessed. RESULTS: Among nonresponders (n = 134) to double-blind placebo, venlafaxine ER, and desvenlafaxine, mean decreases in HDRS(17) scores were -10.9, -7.3, and -7.7, respectively; HDRS(17) response rates were 67%, 53%, and 48%, respectively. Although responders (n = 360) to double-blind placebo, venlafaxine ER, and desvenlafaxine had more modest decreases on the HDRS(17), response rates were higher (84%, 87%, and 83%, respectively). Rates of adverse events were highest during week 1, and decreased afterward for the remainder of the first month of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among nonresponders to 8 weeks of double-blind venlafaxine ER, desvenlafaxine, or placebo, 48% to 67% subsequently responded to open-label desvenlafaxine. Over 80% of responders to double-blind therapy maintained response on open-label desvenlafaxine. The switch from venlafaxine ER to desvenlafaxine was well tolerated.

Indirect cost of ischemic heart disease to employers.

BACKGROUND: The management of healthcare programs by employers requires accurate information about the indirect and direct costs of important chronic diseases. OBJECTIVE: To determine the indirect costs of ischemic heart disease from the perspective of the employer in private industry in the United States. DESIGN: Indirect cost of illness analysis using the human capital approach, taking the perspective of the employer rather than that of society. METHODS: Ischemic heart disease was identified in a proprietary claims database of 3.1 million insured persons using an algorithm based on administrative codes. Economic data were derived from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Employment Management Association, and published sources. Work-loss data were taken from the National Center for Health Statistics' Health Interview Survey. The indirect cost was calculated as the sum of the costs due to morbidity and mortality. From the perspective of the employer, morbidity costs come from lost productivity, idle assets, and nonwage factors resulting from absenteeism and mortality costs are expenditures for replacing and retraining workers. This differs from calculations from the societal perspective, in which indirect costs are the value of an individual's lost income--both current and potential. RESULTS: The total indirect cost of ischemic heart disease to employers in private industry was $182.74 per enrollee. Ninety-five percent of the indirect cost was the consequence of work loss due to morbidity rather than of mortality costs. CONCLUSION: From the perspective of the employer, the indirect cost of ischemic heart disease is overwhelmingly due to morbidity costs.