Real-world evidence from a European cohort study of patients with treatment resistant depression: Healthcare resource utilization.

BACKGROUND: Treatment resistant depression (TRD) is diagnosed when patients experiencing a major depressive episode fail to respond to ≥2 treatments. Along with substantial indirect costs, patients with TRD have higher healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) than other patients with depression. However, research on the economic impact of this HCRU, and differences according to response to treatment, is lacking. METHODS: This multicenter, observational study documented HCRU among patients with TRD in European clinical practice initiating new antidepressant treatments. Data regarding access to outpatient consultations and other healthcare resources for the first 6 months, collected using a questionnaire, were analyzed qualitatively according to response and remission status. The economic impact of HCRU, estimated using European costing data, was analyzed quantitatively. RESULTS: Among 411 patients, average HCRU was higher in non-responders, attending five times more general practitioner (GP) consultations and spending longer in hospital (1.7 versus 1.1 days) than responders. Greater differences were observed according to remission status, with non-remitters attending seven times more GP consultations and spending approximately three times longer in hospital (1.7 versus 0.6 days) than remitters. Consequently, the estimated economic impacts of non-responders and non-remitters were significantly greater than those of responders and remitters, respectively. LIMITATIONS: Key limitations are small cohort size, absence of control groups and generalizability to different healthcare systems. CONCLUSION: Patients with TRD, particularly those not achieving remission, have considerable HCRU, with associated economic impact. The costs of unmet TRD treatment needs are thus substantial, and treatment success is fundamental to reduce individual needs and societal costs.

A new detector for the beam energy measurement in proton therapy: a feasibility study.

The proof of concept of a new device, capable of determining in a few seconds the energy of clinical proton beams by measuring the time of flight (ToF) of protons, is presented. The prototype consists of two thin ultra fast silicon detector (UFSD) pads, aligned along the beam direction in a telescope configuration and readout by a digitizer. The method developed for extracting the energy at the isocenter from the measured ToF, validated by Monte Carlo simulations, and the procedure used to calibrate the system are also presented and discussed in detail. The prototype was tested at the Centro Nazionale di Adroterapia Oncologica (CNAO, Pavia, Italy), at several beam energies, covering the entire clinical range, and using different distances between the sensors. The measured beam energies were benchmarked against the nominal CNAO energy values, obtained during the commissioning of the centre from the measured ranges in water. Deviations of few hundreds of keV have been achieved for all considered proton beam energies for distances between the two sensors larger than 60 cm, indicating a sensitivity to the corresponding beam range in water smaller than the clinical tolerance of 1 mm. Moreover, few seconds of irradiation were necessary to collect the required statistics. These preliminary results indicate that a telescope of UFSDs could achieve in a short time the accuracy required for the clinical application and therefore encourage further investigations towards the improvement and the optimization of the present prototype.

Cost-effectiveness of fluoxetine plus pindolol in patients with major depressive disorder: results from a randomized, double-blind clinical trial.

Some preliminary studies have suggested that the beta-adrenoceptor 5-HT1A antagonist pindolol (PIN) could increase the effect of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). We prospectively estimated the cost-effectiveness of fluoxetine and pindolol versus fluoxetine plus placebo, using results from the first double-blind randomized clinical trial comparing both treatments. Efficacy and medical care resource utilization were collected prospectively in a parallel, randomized, double-blind clinical trial conducted in a single centre in Spain. Average cost-effectiveness (cost/% response and cost/% remission) as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness were calculated for both treatments. A 'bootstrap' method was used to calculate confidence limits around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. A significantly greater percentage of patients (one-tailed P < 0.05) in the fluoxetine FLX + PIN group than in the FLX + PLA group had experienced a therapeutic response (74.5% versus 58.97%) at 6 weeks. Direct medical costs were lower in the FLX + PIN group (mean 2508 pesetas per patient) than in the FLX + PLA group (mean 31870 pesetas per patient). Hospital admissions due to worsening of depressive symptoms were significantly lower (P < 0.05) in the FLX + PIN group (0/55) than in the FLX + PLA group (4/56). The observed differences in average costs and percentage response in the study were -29362 pesetas (< 0) and 15.6% (> 0), respectively, and the resulting cost-effectiveness ratio was negative. These outcomes indicate that the FLX + PIN option completely dominates FLX + PLA. These results suggest that, over a course of 6 weeks of treatment, the combination of fluoxetine and pindolol incurs lower direct medical costs than treatment with fluoxetine placebo. Despite their limitations, economic assessments in addition to clinical trials allow a 'dynamic assessment' on the potential success of the drug, both from a clinical and an economic point of view, allowing decisions on priorities to be made earlier.