Pharmacotherapeutic advances in the treatment of depression have included t
he development of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), ther
eby providing alternatives to tricyclic antidepressants. Concurrent with th
ese events have been significant structural (e.g. pharmaceutical formularie
s) and regulatory (e.g. required pharmacoeconomic evaluations) changes in t
he delivery, financing, and oversight of healthcare programmes throughout t
he world. International cost-containment initiatives are increasingly manda
ting a demonstration of value for money, defined in terms of a measurable h
ealth and/or financial outcome, and, in the case of medicines, attributable
to a given expenditure, for a given pharmacotherapeutic option. We examine
the inherent strengths and weaknesses of 5 study designs used to discern a
nd contrast financial outcomes stemming from the use of antidepressant phar
macotherapy for the treatment of depressive illness [randomised controlled
trials (RCTs); meta-analyses; decision-analytical models (DAMs); retrospect
ive database investigations; randomised naturalistic inquiry]. We argue tha
t the economic appraisal of pharmacotherapy requires an iterative process e
xtending from the developmental (RCTs; meta-analyses; DAMs) through to the
postmarketing phase (database reviews; naturalistic inquiry), thereby resul
ting in a porfolio of evidence as to the safety, efficacy and effectiveness
of a given pharmacotherapeutic category (e.g. SSRIs) and/or a specific med
ication. Database reviews, while nonrandomised, and prospective naturalisti
c inquiry afford greater insight into the patterns of use and financial mer
its of prescribing specific pharmacotherapeutic options for the treatment o
f depression within the context of clinical practice as compared with RCTs,
meta-analyses and DAMs. The port folio of evidence to date indicates that
the first-line use of SSRIs in the treatment of depression is clinically wa
rranted, and represents value for money.