Publication | Closed Access
[Treatment of depression and cost efficiency. The cost of a tablet is a poor indicator seen from a socioeconomic perspective].
12
Citations
0
References
2000
Year
Indirect CostsPharmacotherapyMental HealthDirect CostsPoor IndicatorPublic HealthHealth Services ResearchPsychiatryHealth PolicyDepressionOutcomes ResearchPharmacoeconomicsCost EffectivenessDrug CostsHealthcare ValueEconomic EvaluationHealth EconomicsCost EfficiencyHealth Care CostMedicinePharmacoepidemiology
Direct costs for treating depression, i.e. the cost of out-patient and in-patient care together with drug costs, have increased by 55 per cent during the period 1987-1997 in Sweden. Drugs incurred the greatest increase, whereas the cost of in-patient care has decreased. Indirect costs, i.e. sick leave, morbidity and premature mortality due to depression, have also increased during this period. Cost-effectiveness calculations comparing mirtazapine with amitriptyline show that it is less expensive to initiate treatment with mirtazapine, both when direct costs are compared and when indirect costs are included. In a comparison between mirtazapine and fluoxetine, initial treatment with fluoxetine is less expensive with respect to direct cost, but these two alternatives are equivalent when indirect costs are taken into consideration. The price of drug is a poor criterion of resource expenditures and of rational pharmacological therapy in the treatment of depression.