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

AbstractAn 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: 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

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

The authors would like to acknowledge Julie von Ziegenweidt and Annie Burden (Research in Real Life, UK) for assistance with processing and interpretation of CPRD data, and Gillian Gummer and Caroline Spencer (Rx Communications, Mold, UK) for medical writing assistance with the preparation of this article, funded by Eli Lilly and Company. Authors’ disclosures available online (http://j-alz. com/manuscript-disclosures/15-0685r2).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

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

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 Lstg 1285 for venlafaxine, Lstg 1348 for SSRIs and Lstg 1385 for amitriptyline. Cost effectiveness as measured by cost per symptom-free day was Lstg 21 for venlafaxine, Lstg 26 for SSRIs and Lstg 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.Amitriptyline, Cost-effectiveness, Depression, Serotonin-reuptake-inhibitors, Tricyclic-antidepressants, Venlafaxine

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

Abstract 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

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

Abstract 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

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 (≤ 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