MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146307286 · doi:10.1345/aph.1e010

Cost-Effectiveness of Escitalopram versus Citalopram in the Treatment of Severe Depression

2004· article· en· W2146307286 on OpenAlexaff
M. Hemels, Siegfried Kasper, E. Walter, Thomas R. Einarson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTreatment of Major Depression
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityThomson Reuters (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEscitalopramCitalopramMedicineDiscontinuationPsychiatryDepression (economics)Randomized controlled trialEmergency medicineInternal medicineAntidepressantAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Severe depression is associated with an extensive economic burden on both the patient and society. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the cost-effectiveness in Austria of escitalopram compared with citalopram in the management of severe depression (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score > or =30). METHODS: A decision model incorporated treatment paths and associated direct resource use (psychiatric hospitalization, medications, general practitioner and psychiatrist visits, treatment discontinuation, suicide attempts) associated with managing severe depression and the indirect cost of work absenteeism over a 6-month period. Main outcomes were clinical success (remission at 6 mo) and cost (2002 Euros equals approximately 1.25 US) of treatment. The analysis was performed from the Austrian societal and Social Healthcare Insurance System (SHIS) perspectives. Clinical input data were derived from a meta-analysis of 8-week randomized clinical trials. Costs were derived from standard Austrian price lists or from the literature. RESULTS: Six months after the start of treatment, the overall clinical success remission rate was higher for escitalopram (53.7%) than for citalopram (48.7%). From the SHIS perspective, the total expected cost per successfully treated severely depressed patient was 924 (32.1%) lower for escitalopram (2879) compared with citalopram (3803). From the societal perspective, the total expected cost per successfully treated severely depressed patient was 1369 (24.4%) lower for escitalopram (5610) than for citalopram (6979). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that the model was robust and that, even if citalopram had no acquisition cost, escitalopram remained the dominant strategy for both perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with escitalopram was the dominant strategy. These data suggest that escitalopram is a cost-effective antidepressant compared with citalopram in the management of severe depression in Austria.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.174
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicTreatment of Major DepressionFrench-language works237,207