Clinical trials have shown better efficacy of
escitalopram over
citalopram, and review-based economic models the cost-effectiveness of
escitalopram vs.
citalopram (brand and generic). No head-to-head clinical trial has, however, evaluated the cost-effectiveness of both drugs so far. The aim of this study was to assess the relative cost-effectiveness of
escitalopram compared with
citalopram in patients with
major depressive disorder. An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a double-blind randomized clinical trial conducted by general practitioners and psychiatrists comparing fixed doses of
escitalopram (20 mg/day) or
citalopram (40 mg/day) over 8 weeks in
ambulatory care patients with
major depressive disorder (baseline Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale score > or =30). Resources use was recorded using a standardized form recording use of healthcare services and days of sick leave for the 2-month prestudy period and for the 8-week study period. Statistically significant improvements were observed in patients treated with
escitalopram. Mean per-patient costs for the
escitalopram group, compared with the
citalopram group, were 41% lower (96 euro vs. 163 euro; P<0.05) from a healthcare perspective. Differences were mostly related to lower hospitalization costs for
escitalopram compared with
citalopram recipients, assuming a parity price between
escitalopram and
citalopram. Bootstrapped distributions of the cost-effectiveness ratios also showed better effectiveness and lower costs for
escitalopram compared with
citalopram.
Escitalopram is significantly more effective than
citalopram, and is associated with lower healthcare costs. This prospective economic analysis demonstrated that
escitalopram is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for
major depressive disorder.