Background: Patients frequently require several lines of therapy for treatment of major depressive episodes. This economic analysis details the management of patients who responded inadequately due to lack of efficacy or intolerability to two previous antidepressants in the UK.
Methods: The model included a decision tree and a Markov component. Health states considered in the decision tree were remission, response, no response, withdrawal due to adverse events, relapse, recovery, and recurrence. The time horizon was 24 months. Patients were on third-line treatment for up to a 3-month acute phase and a 6-month maintenance phase. As third-line efficacy data were not available, inputs were calculated by adjusting original second-line data to third-line based on proportionate reductions observed in STAR*D. Equivalent efficacy was assumed for all comparators. Healthcare resource use and utilities were based on UK estimates.
Results: Vortioxetine was a cost-effective treatment option at a threshold of £20,000/QALY vs. escitalopram, citalopram, sertraline, and was associated with more health benefits, less costs (was dominant) versus relevant third-line comparators venlafaxine and duloxetine. Agomelatine was found not to be a cost-effective option. The 22-month maintenance phase treatment scenario results were similar to the 6-month base case.
Limitations: Third-line efficacy data were not available. This highlights the need for studies in patients receiving third-line treatment.
Conclusion: This model provides an overview for the management of patients receiving third-line treatment where limited evidence currently exists. Vortioxetine, with its novel mechanism of action, is expected to be a dominant treatment option versus relevant comparators in the UK.
Keywords: Cost-utility analysis; Depression; Inadequate response; Major depressive disorder; Vortioxetine.
Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier B.V.