MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Increased Use of Antidepressants in Canada: 1981–2000

2002· article· en· W4247560022 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michiel EH Hemels, Gideon Koren, Thomas R. Einarson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicElectroconvulsive Therapy Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical prescriptionMedicinePopulationFluoxetinePsychiatryInternal medicinePharmacologyEnvironmental healthSerotonin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AbstractOBJECTIVE:To provide a descriptive analysis of Canadian utilization (prescriptions, cost, cost per prescription) of antidepressants (ATC-code: N06A).METHODS:IMS Canada provided prescription volumes and costs from 1981 to 2000. We analyzed time trends for antidepressants in general and 4 subclasses (tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs], selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs], dual action antidepressants [DAAs], and monoamine oxidase inhibitors [MAOIs]). Costs were discounted using the consumer price index, adjusting for population growth using data from Statistics Canada.RESULTS:Between 1981 and 2000, total prescriptions increased from 3.2 to 14.5 million. Market share of TCAs (23.7%) and MAOIs (2.1%) remained constant, despite the introduction of the first SSRI, fluoxetine, in 1989. SSRI prescriptions increased to 6.7 million (market share 46.3%). DAA use increased gradually after 1994 to 3.5 million prescriptions (23.9% market share) in 2000. The number of prescriptions expanded (possibly due to SSRIs) by 238%, with an increased cost of $2.7 billion. Total expenditures for antidepressants increased exponentially, from $31.4 million in 1981 to $543.4 million in 2000 (y = 4E — 130e0.1556x [R2 = 0.99]). Cost per prescription increased linearly from $9.85 in 1981 to $37.44 in 2000 (y = 1.72x + 7.92 [R2 = 0.96]).CONCLUSIONS:Utilization and costs of pharmacotherapy for depression have increased above the inflation rate and are expected to exceed $1.2 billion ($50 per prescription) in 2005. Increased costs may be due to increased availability of new products with increased safety, efficacy, and acquisition cost; increased number of users; and increasing costs. ResumenTRASFONDO:En Canadá, se están utilizando nuevos medicamentos de más alto costo para tratar la depresión.OBJETIVO:Proveer un análisis descriptivo de la utilización canadiense (recetas, costo, costo por prescripción) de antidepresivos (ATC — Code: NO6A).MÉTODOS:IMS Canada proveyó los datos acerca del volumen de prescripciones y los costos de 1981–2000. Los autores analizaron las tendencias a través del tiempo de los antidepresivos en general y de 4 sub-clases de éstos (antidepresivos tricíclicos, inhibidores selectivos de la recaptación de serotonina, antidepresivos de acción dual, inhibidores de la monoaminooxidasa). Los costos fueron descontados utilizando el Indice de Precios al Consumidor, ajustando por el crecimiento poblacional usando datos de Statistics Canada.RESULTADOS:Entre los años 1981 y 2000, el número total de prescripciones aumentó de 3.2 a 14.5 millones. La distribución en el mercado de los antidepresivos tricíclicos (23.7%) e inhibidores de monoaminooxidasa (2.1%) se mantuvo constante, aún con la introducción del primer inhibidor selectivo de la recaptación de serotonina, el fluoxetine, en el 1989. Las recetas de inhibidores selectivos de la recaptación de serotonina aumentaron a 6.7 millones (distribución en el mercado = 46.3%). El uso de antidepresivos de acción dual aumentó gradualmente después del 1994 hasta llegar a 3.5 millones de recetas (distribución en el mercado = 23.9%) en el año 2000. El número de recetas aumentó (posiblemente debido al uso de los inhibidores selectivos de la recaptación de serotonina) un 238%. Esto conllevó un aumento en costo de $2.7 billones. El gasto total por antidepresivos aumentó exponencialmente de $31.4 millones en el 1981 a $543.4 millones en el año 2000 [y = 4E-130 e0.1556χ (R2 = 0.99)]. Los costos por receta aumentaron linearmente de $9.85 en el 1981 a $37.44 en el año 2000 [y = 1.72χ+ 7.92 (R2 = 0.96)].CONCLUSIONES:La utilización y los costos de la farmacoterapia para la depresión han aumentado sobre la tasa de inflación. Se espera que excedan $1.2 billones ($50 por receta) en el año 2005. El aumento en los costos puede ser debido a una mayor disponibilidad de productos nuevos con mayor seguridad, eficacia, y costo de adquisición así como a un mayor número de usuarios y a costos mayores. RésuméOBJECTIF:Procéder à une analyse descriptive de l'utilisation des antidépresseurs au Canada (ordonnances, coûts, coût par ordonnance).MÉTHODOLOGIE:IMS Canada a fourni les données concernant les volumes d'ordonnances et les coûts associés pour les années 1981 à 2000. Les auteurs ont analysé les tendances d'utilisation des antidépresseurs en général et selon 4 sous-classes (ADT, ISRS, AAD, IMAO). Les coûts ont été calculés en utilisant l'indice des prix à la consommation fourni par Statistiques Canada.RÉSULTATS:Entre 1981 et 2000, le nombre d'ordonnances pour des antidépresseurs est passé de 3.2 à 14.5 millions. La part de marché des ADT (23.7%) et des IMAO (2.1%) est demeurée constante malgré l'arrivée de la fluoxétine en 1989. Les ordonnances d'ISRS ont atteint 6.7 millions (part de marché = 46.3%) alors que le nombre d'ordonnances pour les AAD a augmenté graduellement après 1994 pour atteindre 3.5 millions en 2000 (part de marché = 23.9%). De 1981 à 2000, le nombre d'ordonnances a augmenté de 238%, possiblement dû aux ISRS, résultant en une augmentation des coûts reliés à ces médicaments (2.7 milliards $). Les coûts sont passés de 31.4 millions $ (1981) à 543.4 millions $ (2000). Le coût par ordonnance est passé de 9.85$ (1981) à 37.44$ (2000).CONCLUSIONS:Les coûts associés au traitement de la dépression ont augmenté au delà du taux d'inflation et devraient dépasser les 1.2 milliard $ (50$ par ordonnance) en 2005. L'augmentation des coûts peut être due à la plus grande disponibilité de nouveaux médicaments plus sécuritaires, efficaces, et chers ainsi qu'à un plus grand nombre d'utilisateurs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.431
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicElectroconvulsive Therapy StudiesFrench-language works237,207