IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Effectiveness of Sertraline in Primary Care According to Initial Severity and Duration of Depressive Symptoms: Findings from the PANDA RCT


  • William Hollingworth

    (University of Bristol)

  • Christopher G. Fawsitt

    (Health Information and Quality Authority)

  • Padraig Dixon

    (University of Bristol)

  • Larisa Duffy

    (University College London)

  • Ricardo Araya

    (Kings’ College London)

  • Tim J. Peters

    (University of Bristol)

  • Howard Thom

    (University of Bristol)

  • Nicky J. Welton

    (University of Bristol)

  • Nicola Wiles

    (University of Bristol)

  • Glyn Lewis

    (University College London)


Background Antidepressants are commonly prescribed for depression, but it is unclear whether treatment efficacy depends on severity and duration of symptoms and how prescribing might be targeted cost-effectively. Objectives We investigated the cost-effectiveness of the antidepressant sertraline compared with placebo in subgroups defined by severity and duration of depressive symptoms. Methods We undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the NHS and Personal and Social Services (PSS) in the UK alongside the PANDA (What are the indications for Prescribing ANtiDepressants that will leAd to a clinical benefit?) randomised controlled trial (RCT), which compared sertraline with placebo over a 12-week period. Quality of life data were collected at baseline and at 2, 6, and 12 weeks post-randomisation using EQ-5D-5L, from which we calculated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs (in 2017/18£) were collected using patient records and from resource use questionnaires administered at each follow-up interval. Differences in mean costs and mean QALYs and net monetary benefits were estimated. Our primary analysis used net monetary benefit regressions to identify any interaction between the cost-effectiveness of sertraline and subgroups defined by baseline symptom severity (0–11; 12–19; 20+ on the Clinical Interview Schedule—Revised) and, separately, duration of symptoms (greater or less than 2 years duration). A secondary analysis estimated the cost-effectiveness of sertraline versus placebo, irrespective of duration or severity. Results There was no evidence of an association between the baseline severity of depressive symptoms and the cost-effectiveness of sertraline. Compared to patients with low symptom severity, the expected net benefits in patients with moderate symptoms were £24 (95% CI − £280 to £328; p value 0.876) and the expected net benefits in patients with high symptom severity were £37 (95% CI − £221 to £296; p value 0.776). Patients who had a longer history of depressive symptoms at baseline had lower expected net benefits from sertraline than those with a shorter history; however, the difference was uncertain (− £27 [95% CI − £258 to £204]; p value 0.817). In the secondary analysis, patients treated with sertraline had higher expected net benefits (£122 [95% CI £18 to £226]; p value 0.101) than those in the placebo group. Sertraline had a high probability (> 95%) of being cost-effective if the health system was willing to pay at least £20,000 per QALY gained. Conclusions We found insufficient evidence of a prespecified threshold based on severity or symptom duration that GPs could use to target prescribing to a subgroup of patients where sertraline is most cost-effective. Sertraline is probably a cost-effective treatment for depressive symptoms in UK primary care. Trial Registration Controlled Trials ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN84544741.

Suggested Citation

  • William Hollingworth & Christopher G. Fawsitt & Padraig Dixon & Larisa Duffy & Ricardo Araya & Tim J. Peters & Howard Thom & Nicky J. Welton & Nicola Wiles & Glyn Lewis, 2020. "Cost-Effectiveness of Sertraline in Primary Care According to Initial Severity and Duration of Depressive Symptoms: Findings from the PANDA RCT," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 427-438, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:4:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-019-00188-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s41669-019-00188-5

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL:
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Jeffrey S. Hoch & Andrew H. Briggs & Andrew R. Willan, 2002. "Something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue: a framework for the marriage of health econometrics and cost‐effectiveness analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 415-430, July.
    2. Irving Kirsch & Brett J Deacon & Tania B Huedo-Medina & Alan Scoboria & Thomas J Moore & Blair T Johnson, 2008. "Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(2), pages 1-9, February.
    3. Elisabeth Fenwick & Bernie J. O'Brien & Andrew Briggs, 2004. "Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves – facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 405-415, May.
    4. Rita Faria & Manuel Gomes & David Epstein & Ian White, 2014. "A Guide to Handling Missing Data in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conducted Within Randomised Controlled Trials," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(12), pages 1157-1170, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Blog mentions

    As found by, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Rita Faria’s journal round-up for 14th September 2020
      by Rita Faria in The Academic Health Economists' Blog on 2020-09-14 11:00:07

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Abualbishr Alshreef & Allan J. Wailoo & Steven R. Brown & James P. Tiernan & Angus J. M. Watson & Katie Biggs & Mike Bradburn & Daniel Hind, 2017. "Cost-Effectiveness of Haemorrhoidal Artery Ligation versus Rubber Band Ligation for the Treatment of Grade II–III Haemorrhoids: Analysis Using Evidence from the HubBLe Trial," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 1(3), pages 175-184, September.
    2. Rissanen, Elisa & Karjalainen, Piia & Kiviruusu, Olli & Kankaanpää, Eila & Aronen, Eeva T. & Haula, Taru & Sääksvuori, Lauri & Vornanen, Riitta & Linnosmaa, Ismo, 2024. "Cost-effectiveness of a parenting program to reduce children’s behavioral problems among families receiving child protection services and other family support services – A randomized controlled trial," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    3. Richard M. Nixon & David Wonderling & Richard D. Grieve, 2010. "Non‐parametric methods for cost‐effectiveness analysis: the central limit theorem and the bootstrap compared," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 316-333, March.
    4. Nicholas Graves & Mary Courtney & Helen Edwards & Anne Chang & Anthony Parker & Kathleen Finlayson, 2009. "Cost-Effectiveness of an Intervention to Reduce Emergency Re-Admissions to Hospital among Older Patients," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(10), pages 1-9, October.
    5. Victoria K. Brennan & Georgina Jones & Stephen Radley & Simon Dixon, 2021. "Incorporating Process Utility into Cost-Effectiveness Analysis via a Bolt-On Domain to the SF-6D: An Exploratory Study," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 747-756, September.
    6. Hoch, Jeffrey S. & Blume, Jeffrey D., 2008. "Measuring and illustrating statistical evidence in a cost-effectiveness analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 476-495, March.
    7. Padraig Dixon & William Hollingworth & Jonathan Benger & James Calvert & Melanie Chalder & Anna King & Stephanie MacNeill & Katherine Morton & Emily Sanderson & Sarah Purdy, 2020. "Observational Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Using Routine Data: Admission and Discharge Care Bundles for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease," PharmacoEconomics - Open, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 657-667, December.
    8. Baptiste Leurent & Manuel Gomes & Rita Faria & Stephen Morris & Richard Grieve & James R. Carpenter, 2018. "Sensitivity Analysis for Not-at-Random Missing Data in Trial-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: A Tutorial," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 36(8), pages 889-901, August.
    9. Mohamed El Alili & Johanna M. van Dongen & Jonas L. Esser & Martijn W. Heymans & Maurits W. van Tulder & Judith E. Bosmans, 2022. "A scoping review of statistical methods for trial‐based economic evaluations: The current state of play," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(12), pages 2680-2699, December.
    10. Ifigeneia Mavranezouli & Joran Lokkerbol, 2017. "A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Economic Evaluations of Pharmacological Interventions for People with Bipolar Disorder," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 271-296, March.
    11. Peter Makai & Willemijn Looman & Eddy Adang & René Melis & Elly Stolk & Isabelle Fabbricotti, 2015. "Cost-effectiveness of integrated care in frail elderly using the ICECAP-O and EQ-5D: does choice of instrument matter?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(4), pages 437-450, May.
    12. Noemi Kreif & Richard Grieve & Rosalba Radice & Zia Sadique & Roland Ramsahai & Jasjeet S. Sekhon, 2012. "Methods for Estimating Subgroup Effects in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(6), pages 750-763, November.
    13. Saha, Sanjib & Gerdtham, Ulf-G. & Toresson, Håkan & Minthon, Lennart & Jarl, Johan, 2018. "Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Screening of Dementia," Working Papers 2018:20, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    14. Andrea Gabrio & Catrin Plumpton & Sube Banerjee & Baptiste Leurent, 2022. "Linear mixed models to handle missing at random data in trial‐based economic evaluations," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(6), pages 1276-1287, June.
    15. Noémi Kreif & Richard Grieve & M. Zia Sadique, 2013. "Statistical Methods For Cost‐Effectiveness Analyses That Use Observational Data: A Critical Appraisal Tool And Review Of Current Practice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(4), pages 486-500, April.
    16. Janus Christian Jakobsen & Jane Lindschou Hansen & Erik Simonsen & Christian Gluud, 2011. "The Effect of Interpersonal Psychotherapy and other Psychodynamic Therapies versus ‘Treatment as Usual’ in Patients with Major Depressive Disorder," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(4), pages 1-9, April.
    17. Qi Cao & Erik Buskens & Hans L. Hillege & Tiny Jaarsma & Maarten Postma & Douwe Postmus, 2019. "Stratified treatment recommendation or one-size-fits-all? A health economic insight based on graphical exploration," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(3), pages 475-482, April.
    18. Lakdawalla, Darius N. & Seabury, Seth A., 2012. "The welfare effects of medical malpractice liability," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 356-369.
    19. Michael A Sugarman & Amy M Loree & Boris B Baltes & Emily R Grekin & Irving Kirsch, 2014. "The Efficacy of Paroxetine and Placebo in Treating Anxiety and Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Change on the Hamilton Rating Scales," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(8), pages 1-15, August.
    20. Karl Claxton & Elisabeth Fenwick & Mark J. Sculpher, 2012. "Decision-making with Uncertainty: The Value of Information," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 51, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharmo:v:4:y:2020:i:3:d:10.1007_s41669-019-00188-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.