Cost-effectiveness of Sertraline in primary care according to initial severity and duration of depressive symptoms: findings from the PANDA RCT

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are commonly prescribed for depression, but it is unclear whether treatment efficacy depends on severity and duration of symptoms and how prescribing might be targeted cost-effectively. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the cost-effectiveness of the antidepressant sertraline compared with placebo in subgroups defined by severity and duration of depressive symptoms. METHODS: We undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the NHS and Personal and Social Services (PSS) in the UK alongside the PANDA (What are the indications for Prescribing ANtiDepressants that will leAd to a clinical benefit?) randomised controlled trial (RCT), which compared sertraline with placebo over a 12-week period. Quality of life data were collected at baseline and at 2, 6, and 12 weeks post-randomisation using EQ-5D-5L, from which we calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs (in 2017/18£) were collected using patient records and from resource use questionnaires administered at each follow-up interval. Differences in mean costs and mean QALYs and net monetary benefits were estimated. Our primary analysis used net monetary benefit regressions to identify any interaction between the cost-effectiveness of sertraline and subgroups defined by baseline symptom severity (0-11; 12-19; 20+ on the Clinical Interview Schedule-Revised) and, separately, duration of symptoms (greater or less than 2 years duration). A secondary analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of sertraline versus placebo, irrespective of duration or severity. RESULTS: There was no evidence of an association between the baseline severity of depressive symptoms and the cost-effectiveness of sertraline. Compared to patients with low symptom severity, the expected net benefits in patients with moderate symptoms were £24 (95% CI - £280 to £328; p value 0.876) and the expected net benefits in patients with high symptom severity were £37 (95% CI - £221 to £296; p value 0.776). Patients who had a longer history of depressive symptoms at baseline had lower expected net benefits from sertraline than those with a shorter history; however, the difference was uncertain (- £27 [95% CI - £258 to £204]; p value 0.817). In the secondary analysis, patients treated with sertraline had higher expected net benefits (£122 [95% CI £18 to £226]; p value 0.101) than those in the placebo group. Sertraline had a high probability (> 95%) of being cost-effective if the health system was willing to pay at least £20,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence of a prespecified threshold based on severity or symptom duration that GPs could use to target prescribing to a subgroup of patients where sertraline is most cost-effective. Sertraline is probably a cost-effective treatment for depressive symptoms in UK primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled Trials ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN84544741

A cost-effectiveness analysis of shortened direct-acting antiviral treatment in genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis C virus

BACKGROUND:Direct-acting antivirals are successful in curing hepatitis C virus infection in more than 95% of patients treated for 12 weeks, but they are expensive. Shortened treatment durations, which may have lower cure rates, have been proposed to reduce costs. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of different shortened treatment durations for genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients. METHODS:Assuming a UK National Health Service perspective, we used a probabilistic decision tree and Markov model to compare 3 unstratified shortened treatment durations (8, 6, and 4 weeks) against a standard 12-week treatment duration. Patients failing shortened first-line treatment were re-treated with a 12-week treatment regimen. Parameter inputs were taken from published studies. RESULTS:The 8-week treatment duration had an expected incremental net monetary benefit of £7737 (95% confidence interval £3242-£11 819) versus the standard 12-week treatment, per 1000 patients. The 6-week treatment had a positive incremental net monetary benefit, although some uncertainty was observed. The probability that the 8- and 6-week treatments were the most cost-effective was 56% and 25%, respectively, whereas that for the 4-week treatment was 17%. Results were generally robust to sensitivity analyses, including a threshold analysis that showed that the 8-week treatment was the most cost-effective at all drug prices lower than £40 000 per 12-week course. CONCLUSIONS:Shortening treatments licensed for 12 weeks to 8 weeks is cost-effective in genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients. There was considerable uncertainty in the estimates for 6- and 4-week treatments, with some indication that the 6-week treatment may be cost-effective

A cost-effectiveness analysis of shortened direct-acting antiviral treatment in genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients with chronic hepatitis C virus

Background Direct-acting antivirals are successful in curing hepatitis C virus infection in more than 95% of patients treated for 12 weeks, but they are expensive. Shortened treatment durations, which may have lower cure rates, have been proposed to reduce costs. Objectives To evaluate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of different shortened treatment durations for genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients. Methods Assuming a UK National Health Service perspective, we used a probabilistic decision tree and Markov model to compare 3 unstratified shortened treatment durations (8, 6, and 4 weeks) against a standard 12-week treatment duration. Patients failing shortened first-line treatment were re-treated with a 12-week treatment regimen. Parameter inputs were taken from published studies. Results The 8-week treatment duration had an expected incremental net monetary benefit of £7737 (95% confidence interval £3242-£11 819) versus the standard 12-week treatment, per 1000 patients. The 6-week treatment had a positive incremental net monetary benefit, although some uncertainty was observed. The probability that the 8- and 6-week treatments were the most cost-effective was 56% and 25%, respectively, whereas that for the 4-week treatment was 17%. Results were generally robust to sensitivity analyses, including a threshold analysis that showed that the 8-week treatment was the most cost-effective at all drug prices lower than £40 000 per 12-week course. Conclusions Shortening treatments licensed for 12 weeks to 8 weeks is cost-effective in genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients. There was considerable uncertainty in the estimates for 6- and 4-week treatments, with some indication that the 6-week treatment may be cost-effective.<br/

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Baseline Testing for Resistance-Associated Polymorphisms to Optimize Treatment Outcome in Genotype 1 Noncirrhotic Treatment-Naive Patients With Chronic Hepatitis C Virus

Objectives: Direct-acting antivirals containing nonstructural protein 5A (NS5A) inhibitors administered over 8 to 12 weeks are effective in ∼95% of patients with hepatitis C virus. Nevertheless, patients resistant to NS5A inhibitors have lower cure rates over 8 weeks (<85%); for these patients, 12 weeks of treatment produces cure rates greater than 95%. We evaluated the lifetime cost-effectiveness of testing for NS5A resistance at baseline and optimizing treatment duration accordingly in genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naïve patients from the perspective of the UK National Health Service. Methods: A decision-analytic model compared (1) standard 12-week treatment (no testing), (2) shortened 8-week treatment (no testing), and (3) baseline testing with 12-/8-week treatment for those with/without NS5A polymorphisms. Patients who failed first-line therapy were retreated for 12 weeks. Model inputs were derived from published studies. Costs, quality-adjusted life-years, and the probability of cost-effectiveness were calculated. Results: Baseline testing had an incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of £11 838 versus standard 12 weeks of therapy (no testing) and low probability (31%) of being the most cost-effective, assuming £30 000 willingness to pay. Shortened 8 weeks of treatment (no testing) had an INMB of £12 294 and the highest probability (69%) of being most cost-effective. Scenario analyses showed baseline testing generally had the highest INMB and probability of being most cost-effective if first- and second-line drug prices were low (<£20k). Conclusions: Optimizing treatment duration based on NS5A polymorphisms for genotype 1 noncirrhotic treatment-naive patients in the United Kingdom is not cost-effective if the drug costs are high; the strategy is generally most cost-effective when drug prices are low (<£20k)