BackgroundMajor depressive disorder is a common condition that often includes cognitive dysfunction. A systematic literature review of studies and a network meta-analysis were carried out to assess the relative effect of antidepressants on cognitive dysfunction in major depressive disorder.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, CDSR, and PsychINFO databases; clinical trial registries; and relevant conference abstracts were searched for randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of antidepressants/placebo on cognition. A network meta-analysis comparing antidepressants was conducted using a random effects model.ResultsThe database search retrieved 11337 citations, of which 72 randomized controlled trials from 103 publications met the inclusion criteria. The review identified 86 cognitive tests assessing the effect of antidepressants on cognitive functioning. However, the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, which targets multiple domains of cognition and is recognized as being sensitive to change, was the only test that was used across 12 of the included randomized controlled trials and that allowed the construction of a stable network suitable for the network meta-analysis. The interventions assessed included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, and other non-selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors/serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors. The network meta-analysis using the Digit Symbol Substitution Test showed that vortioxetine was the only antidepressant that improved cognitive dysfunction on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test vs placebo {standardized mean difference: 0.325 (95% CI = 0.120; 0.529, P=.009}. Compared with other antidepressants, vortioxetine was statistically more efficacious on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test vs escitalopram, nortriptyline, and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor and tricyclic antidepressant classes.ConclusionsThis study highlighted the large variability in measures used to assess cognitive functioning. The findings on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test indicate differential effects of various antidepressants on improving cognitive function in patients with major depressive disorder.

This cost-utility analysis showed vortioxetine to be a good alternative for MDD patients switching therapy in Finland.

The current systematic literature review found a few high quality switch studies assessing monotherapies in patients with MDD with inadequate response to SSRI/SNRIs. ITCs indicated that switching to vortioxetine leads to numerically higher remission rates compared with other antidepressants. Vortioxetine is a well tolerated treatment, showing statistically lower withdrawal rates due to AEs compared with other antidepressants. Vortioxetine is a relevant therapeutic alternative in patients experiencing inadequate response to prior SSRI or SNRI therapy.

These meta-regression data show that vortioxetine offers a comparable or favorable combination of efficacy (measured by MADRS/HAM-D) and tolerability (measured by withdrawal rate due to adverse events) versus other antidepressants in registration studies in MDD. Alternative methods like mixed-treatment comparison and inclusion of all randomized studies and active reference arms may provide complementary information to this analysis (more evidence but also more heterogeneity). Key messages: Indirect comparisons based on registration studies allow a useful comparison between a recently approved antidepressant and an approved drug. Vortioxetine offers a comparable or favorable combination of efficacy (measured by MADRS/HAM-D assessments) and tolerability (measured by withdrawal rate due to adverse events) versus other antidepressants in registration studies in MDD.

ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of commonly used antidepressants as first-line treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in Belgium.MethodsThe model structure was based on a decision tree developed by the Swedish TLV (Tandvårds- och läkemedelsförmånsverket) and adapted to the Belgium healthcare setting, using primary local data on the patterns of treatment and following KCE [Federal Knowledge Center (Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg)] recommendations. Comparators were escitalopram, citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, duloxetine, venlafaxine, and mirtazapine. In the model, patients not achieving remission or relapsing after remission on the assessed treatment moved to a second therapeutic step (titration, switch, add-on, or transfer to a specialist). In case of failure in the second step or following a suicide attempt, patients were assumed to be referred to secondary care. The time horizon was 1 year and the analysis was conducted from the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI; national health insurance) and societal perspectives. Remission rates were obtained from the TLV network meta-analysis and risk of relapse, efficacy following therapeutic change, risk of suicide attempts and related death, utilities, costs (2012), and resources were derived from the published literature and expert opinion. The effect of uncertainty in model parameters was estimated through scenario analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA).ResultsIn the base-case analysis, escitalopram was identified as the optimal strategy: it dominated all other treatments except venlafaxine from the NIHDI perspective, against which it was cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €6,352 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Escitalopram also dominated all other treatments from the societal perspective. At a threshold of €30,000 per QALY and from the NIHDI perspective, the PSA showed that the probability of escitalopram being identified as the optimal strategy ranged from 61 % (vs. venlafaxine) to 100 % (vs. fluoxetine).ConclusionEscitalopram was associated with the highest probability of being the optimal treatment from the NIHDI and societal perspectives. This analysis, based on new Belgian clinical practice data and following KCE requirements, provides additional information that may be used to guide the choice of treatments in the management of MDD in Belgium.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0138-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.