Cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine versus venlafaxine (extended release) in the treatment of major depressive disorder in South Korea

ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of vortioxetine versus venlafaxine XR (extended-release) in major depressive disorder (MDD) patients in South Korea.

Methods: A 1-year cost-effectiveness analysis from a limited societal perspective was performed using a combined model consisting of a decision-tree and a Markov model. Patients entered the model when initiating or switching antidepressant treatment following inadequate response to previous treatment. Remission, relapse and recovery were the main health states.

Results: Vortioxetine dominated venlafaxine XR, with quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gains of 0.0131 and cost savings of KRW 623,229/year [US$530/year] from a limited societal perspective. Safety contributed more than efficacy to the incremental QALY gains. More patients were in recovery after initial treatment and after 1 year with vortioxetine (31%, 40%) compared to venlafaxine XR (23%, 36%). Vortioxetine remained dominant in 98% of probabilistic simulations.

Conclusion: Vortioxetine dominated venlafaxine XR in South Korea and is a relevant treatment option for MDD patients initiating or switching therapy.

KEYWORDS:

• Depression
• antidepressant
• cost-effectiveness
• economic
• model

Financial & competing interests disclosure

This study was funded by H. Lundbeck A/S. SE Choi has previously received consultancy fees from Lundbeck Korea; R Jung is an employee of HyeRang, Seoul, South Korea; R Campbell is an employee of Mapi Group, Uxbridge, UK; C Francois is an employee of Lundbeck Inc, Deerfield, USA; D Milea is an employee of Lundbeck Singapore Pte Ltd, Singapore. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Craig Brooks-Rooney and Gengshi Chen at Costello Medical Singapore Pte Ltd for writing, editorial, and administrative assistance.

Supplemental Meterial

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

Notes

1. Remission in the model was defined as Montgomery–Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) score ⩽10, or Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD) score ⩽7, as suggested by general consensus.[34]