Go to page
 

Bibliographic Metadata

Title
Comparative economic evaluation of quetiapine plus lamotrigine combination versus quetiapine monotherapy (and folic acid versus placebo) in patients with bipolar depression (CEQUEL)
AuthorSimon, Judith ; Geddes, John R. ; Gardiner, Alexandra ; Rendell, Jennifer ; Goodwin, Guy M. ; Mayer, Susanne
Published in
Bipolar Disorders, 2018, Vol. 20, Issue 8, page 733-745
PublishedWiley-Blackwell, 2018
LanguageEnglish
Document typeJournal Article
Keywords (EN)bipolar disorder / cost / costeffectiveness / costutility / depression / economic evaluation / quality of life
URNurn:nbn:at:at-ubmuw:3-409 Persistent Identifier (URN)
DOI10.1111/bdi.12713 
Restriction-Information
 The work is publicly available
Files
Comparative economic evaluation of quetiapine plus lamotrigine combination versus quetiapine monotherapy (and folic acid versus placebo) in patients with bipolar depression (CEQUEL) [0.65 mb]
Links
Reference
Classification
Abstract (English)

Objectives

Although not licensed for acute bipolar depression, lamotrigine has evidence for efficacy in trials and its use is recommended in guidelines. So far there had been no prospective health economic evaluation of its use.

Methods

Costutility analysis of the CEQUEL trial comparing quetiapine plus lamotrigine vs quetiapine monotherapy (and folic acid vs placebo in an addon factorial design) for patients with bipolar depression (n = 201) from the health and social care perspective. Differences in costs together with qualityadjusted life years (QALYs) between the groups were assessed over 52 weeks using a regressionbased approach.

Results

Healthrelated quality of life improved substantially for all randomization groups during followup with no significant difference in QALYs between any of the comparisons (mean adjusted QALY difference: lamotrigine vs placebo 0.001 (95% CI: 0.05 to 0.05), folic acid vs placebo 0.002 (95% CI: 0.05 to 0.05)). While medication costs in the lamotrigine group were higher than in the placebo group (£647, P < 0.001), mental health community/outpatient costs were significantly lower (£670, P < 0.001). Mean total costs were similar in the groups (£180, P = 0.913).

Conclusions

Lamotrigine improved clinical ratings in bipolar depression compared with placebo. This differential effect was not detected using the EQ5D3L. The additional cost of lamotrigine was balanced by significant savings in some other medical costs which made its use cost neutral to the health service. Compared to placebo, folic acid produced neither clinical nor significant health economic benefits. The study supports the use of lamotrigine in combination with other drugs to treat bipolar depression.

Stats
The PDF-Document has been downloaded 2 times.
License
CC-BY-License (4.0)Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License