Time-release versus immediate-release formulations of venlafaxine, paroxetine and bupropion: a comparative study of a nationally representative sample of the US working population. Issue 2 (12th February 2014)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Al-Ruthia, Yazed; Hong, Song Hee
• Is Part Of: Journal of pharmaceutical health services research. Volume 5:Issue 2(2014:Jun.)
• Page Start: 119
• Page End: 126
• Publication Date: 2014-02-12
• Subjects: health-related quality of life -- immediate-release -- mental component summary score of SF-12v2 -- Patient Health Questionnaire-2 -- physical component summary score of SF-12v2 -- time-release; Pharmacy -- Research -- Periodicals; Drugs -- Research -- Periodicals; Medical care -- Research -- Periodicals; Public health -- Research -- Periodicals; Pharmaceutical industry -- Periodicals; Health Services Research -- Periodicals; Economics, Pharmaceutical -- Periodicals; 615.1072
• DOI: 10.1111/jphs.12049
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1759-8885

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as health-related quality of life, mental disorder and psychological distress among users of time-release (TR) versus immediate-release formulations of three commonly prescribed antidepressants in a sample of the US working population. Methods: Adjusted multiple linear and logistic regression analyses using data from 2004 to 2010 Medical Expenditures Panel Surveys were conducted. The health-related quality of life was measured based on the Physical Component Summary (PCS-12) and the Mental Component Summary (MCS-12) of the SF-12v2. The mental disorder and the psychological distress were measured by the Patient Health Questionniare-2 and the Kessler 6 respectively. Key findings: The utilization of TR formulations was not associated with higher scores in the SF12-v2, (β = −0.546, P = 0.442) and (β = −0.806, P = 0.346) for both PCS-12 and MCS-12 respectively. The users of TR formulations did not significantly differ in their likelihood of having a score of ≥3 in the Patient Health Questionniare-2 (OR = 1.048, P = 0.677). Furthermore, the utilization of TR formulations was not associated with lower scores in the Kessler 6 Scale (β = 0.073, P = 0.846). Conclusions: Although controlled clinical trials report favourable tolerability profiles for TR formulations, it still remains unclear whether these formulations lead to better PROs in real-world patient-care settings.