Understanding the Relationship Between Depression Symptom Severity and Health Care Costs for Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression.

Objective: To examine whether measures of depression symptom severity could improve understanding of health care costs for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) or treatment-resistant depression (TRD) from the health plan perspective.Methods: In this retrospective cohort study within an integrated health system, cohorts consisted of 2 mutually exclusive groups: (1) adults with TRD based on a standard treatment algorithm and (2) adults with MDD, but no TRD, identified through ICD-9/10-CM codes. Depression severity was measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Patterns of health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs were compared between the TRD and MDD groups overall and within the groups at different symptom levels. A general linear model with a γ distribution and log link for cost outcomes, logistic regression for binary outcomes, and negative binomial regression for count outcomes were used.Results: Patients with TRD (n = 24,534) had greater comorbidity than those in the MDD group (n = 17,628). Mean age in the TRD group was 52.8 years versus 48.2 for MDD (P < .001). Both groups were predominantly female (TRD: 72.8% vs MDD: 66.9%; P < .001). Overall, the TRD group had greater costs than the MDD group, with 1.23 times (95% CI, 1.21-1.26; P < .001) greater total cost on average over 1 year following index date. Within both groups, those with severe symptoms had greater total mean (SD) costs (TRD: moderate: $12,429 [$23,900] vs severe: $13,344 [$22,895], P < .001; low: $12,220 [$31,864] vs severe: $13,344 [$22,895], P < .001; MDD: moderate: $8,899 [$20,755] vs severe: $10,098 [$22,853]; P < .001; low: $8,752 [$25,800] vs severe: $10,098 [$22,853], P < .001).Conclusions: MDD and TRD impose high costs for health systems, with increasing costs as PHQ-9 symptom severity rises. Better understanding of subgroups with different symptom levels could improve clinical care by helping target interventions.

Cost-effectiveness of antidepressants versus active monitoring for mild-to-moderate major depressive disorder: a multisite non-randomized-controlled trial in primary care (INFAP study).

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antidepressants vs active monitoring (AM) for patients with mild-moderate major depressive disorder. METHODS: This was a 12-month observational prospective controlled trial. Adult patients with a new episode of major depression were invited to participate and assigned to AM or antidepressants according to General Practitioners' clinical judgment and experience. Patients were evaluated at baseline, and 6 and 12-month follow-up. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were estimated and used to calculate incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) from the healthcare and government perspective. To minimize the bias resulting from non-randomization, a propensity score-based method was used. RESULTS: At 6 and 12-month follow-up, ICUR was 2549 €/QALY and 6,142 €/QALY, respectively, in favor of antidepressants. At 6 months, for a willingness to pay (WTP) of 25,000 €/QALY, antidepressants had a probability of 0.89 (healthcare perspective) and 0.81 (government perspective) of being more cost-effective than AM. At 12 months, this probability was 0.86 (healthcare perspective) and 0.73 (government perspective). CONCLUSIONS: Incremental cost-utility ratios favor pharmacological treatment as a first-line approach for patients with mild-moderate major depressive disorder. While our results should be interpreted with caution and further real world research is needed, clinical practice guidelines should consider antidepressant therapy for mild-moderate major depressive patients as an alternative to active monitoring in PC.

Investigating the (cost-) effectiveness of attention bias modification (ABM) for outpatients with major depressive disorder (MDD): a randomized controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Despite the range of available, evidence-based treatment options for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), the rather low response and remission rates suggest that treatment is not optimal, yet. Computerized attention bias modification (ABM) trainings may have the potential to be provided as cost-effective intervention as adjunct to usual care (UC), by speeding up recovery and bringing more patients into remission. Research suggests, that a selective attention for negative information contributes to development and maintenance of depression and that reducing this negative bias might be of therapeutic value. Previous ABM studies in depression, however, have been limited by small sample sizes, lack of long-term follow-up measures or focus on sub-clinical samples. This study aims at evaluating the long-term (cost-) effectiveness of internet-based ABM, as add-on treatment to UC in adult outpatients with MDD, in a specialized mental health care setting. METHODS/DESIGN: This study presents a double-blind randomized controlled trial in two parallel groups with follow-ups at 1, 6, and 12 months, combined with an economic evaluation. One hundred twenty six patients, diagnosed with MDD, who are registered for specialized outpatient services at a mental health care organization in the Netherlands, are randomized into either a positive training (towards positive and away from negative stimuli) or a sham training, as control condition (continuous attentional bias assessment). Patients complete eight training sessions (seven at home) during a period of two weeks (four weekly sessions). Primary outcome measures are change in attentional bias (pre- to post-test), mood response to stress (at post-test) and long-term effects on depressive symptoms (up to 1-year follow-up). Secondary outcome measures include rumination, resilience, positive and negative affect, and transfer to other cognitive measures (i.e., attentional bias for verbal stimuli, cognitive control, positive mental imagery), as well as quality of life and costs. DISCUSSION: This is the first study investigating the long-term effects of ABM in adult outpatients with MDD, alongside an economic evaluation. Next to exploring the mechanism underlying ABM effects, this study provides first insight into the effects of combining ABM and UC and the potential implementation of ABM in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trialregister.nl, NTR5285 . Registered 20 July 2015.

Biomarkers for Major Depressive Disorder: Economic Considerations.

Preclinical Research Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a major psychiatric illness and it is predicted to be the second leading cause of disability by 2020 with a lifetime prevalence of about 13%. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are the most commonly used therapeutic class for MDD. However, response to SSRI treatment varies considerably between patients. Biomarkers of treatment response may enable clinicians to target the appropriate drug for each patient. Biomarkers need to have accuracy in real life, sensitivity, specificity, and relevance to depression. Introduction of MDD biomarkers into the health care system can increase the overall cost of clinical diagnosis of patients. Because of that, decisions to allocate health research funding must be based on drug effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. The assessment of MDD biomarkers should include reliable evidence of associated drug effectiveness, adverse events and consequences (reduced productivity and quality of life, disability) and effectiveness of alternative approaches, other drug classes or behavioral or alternative therapies. In addition, all the variables included in an economic model (probabilities, outcomes, and costs) should be based on reliable evidence gained from the literature-ideally meta-analyses-and the evidence should also be determined by informed and specific expert opinion. Early assessment can guide decisions about whether or not to continue test development, and ideally to optimize the process. Drug Dev Res 77 : 374-378, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy for recurrent major depression: A 'best buy' for health care?

OBJECTIVE: While mindfulness-based cognitive therapy is effective in reducing depressive relapse/recurrence, relatively little is known about its health economic properties. We describe the health economic properties of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy in relation to its impact on depressive relapse/recurrence over 2 years of follow-up. METHOD: Non-depressed adults with a history of three or more major depressive episodes were randomised to mindfulness-based cognitive therapy + depressive relapse active monitoring (n = 101) or control (depressive relapse active monitoring alone) (n = 102) and followed up for 2 years. Structured self-report instruments for service use and absenteeism provided cost data items for health economic analyses. Treatment utility, expressed as disability-adjusted life years, was calculated by adjusting the number of days an individual was depressed by the relevant International Classification of Diseases 12-month severity of depression disability weight from the Global Burden of Disease 2010. Intention-to-treat analysis assessed the incremental cost-utility ratios of the interventions across mental health care, all of health-care and whole-of-society perspectives. Per protocol and site of usual care subgroup analyses were also conducted. Probabilistic uncertainty analysis was completed using cost-utility acceptability curves. RESULTS: Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy participants had significantly less major depressive episode days compared to controls, as supported by the differential distributions of major depressive episode days (modelled as Poisson, p < 0.001). Average major depressive episode days were consistently less in the mindfulness-based cognitive therapy group compared to controls, e.g., 31 and 55 days, respectively. From a whole-of-society perspective, analyses of patients receiving usual care from all sectors of the health-care system demonstrated dominance (reduced costs, demonstrable health gains). From a mental health-care perspective, the incremental gain per disability-adjusted life year for mindfulness-based cognitive therapy was AUD83,744 net benefit, with an overall annual cost saving of AUD143,511 for people in specialist care. CONCLUSION: Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy demonstrated very good health economic properties lending weight to the consideration of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy provision as a good buy within health-care delivery.

Cost-effectiveness of integrated collaborative care for comorbid major depression in patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Comorbid major depression is associated with reduced quality of life and greater use of healthcare resources. A recent randomised trial (SMaRT, Symptom Management Research Trials, Oncology-2) found that a collaborative care treatment programme (Depression Care for People with Cancer, DCPC) was highly effective in treating depression in patients with cancer. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of DCPC compared with usual care from a health service perspective. METHODS: Costs were estimated using UK national unit cost estimates and health outcomes measured using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness of DCPC compared with usual care was calculated and scenario analyses performed to test alternative assumptions on costs and missing data. Uncertainty was characterised using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The probability of DCPC being cost-effective was determined using the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold range of £ 20,000 to £ 30,000 per QALY gained. RESULTS: DCPC cost on average £ 631 more than usual care per patient, and resulted in a mean gain of 0.066 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £ 9549 per QALY. The probability of DCPC being cost-effective was 0.9 or greater at cost-effectiveness thresholds above £ 20,000 per QALY for the base case and scenario analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with usual care, DCPC is likely to be cost-effective at the current thresholds used by NICE. This study adds to the weight of evidence that collaborative care treatment models are cost-effective for depression, and provides new evidence regarding their use in specialist medical settings.

Cost-Effectiveness of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation versus Antidepressant Therapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression.

BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) therapy is a clinically safe, noninvasive, nonsystemic treatment for major depressive disorder. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of rTMS versus pharmacotherapy for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder who have failed at least two adequate courses of antidepressant medications. METHODS: A 3-year Markov microsimulation model with 2-monthly cycles was used to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of rTMS and a mix of antidepressant medications (including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclics, noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants, and monoamine oxidase inhibitors). The model synthesized data sourced from published literature, national cost reports, and expert opinions. Incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated, and uncertainty of the results was assessed using univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Compared with pharmacotherapy, rTMS is a dominant/cost-effective alternative for patients with treatment-resistant depressive disorder. The model predicted that QALYs gained with rTMS were higher than those gained with antidepressant medications (1.25 vs. 1.18 QALYs) while costs were slightly less (AU $31,003 vs. AU $31,190). In the Australian context, at the willingness-to-pay threshold of AU $50,000 per QALY gain, the probability that rTMS was cost-effective was 73%. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the superiority of rTMS in terms of value for money compared with antidepressant medications. CONCLUSIONS: Although both pharmacotherapy and rTMS are clinically effective treatments for major depressive disorder, rTMS is shown to outperform antidepressants in terms of cost-effectiveness for patients who have failed at least two adequate courses of antidepressant medications.

Integrating mental health into primary care in Nigeria: report of a demonstration project using the mental health gap action programme intervention guide.

BACKGROUND: The World Mental Health Surveys conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) have shown that huge treatment gaps for severe mental disorders exist in both developed and developing countries. This gap is greatest in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Efforts to scale up mental health services in LMICs have to contend with the paucity of mental health professionals and health facilities providing specialist services for mental, neurological and substance use (MNS) disorders. A pragmatic solution is to improve access to care through the facilities that exist closest to the community, via a task-shifting strategy. This study describes a pilot implementation program to integrate mental health services into primary health care in Nigeria. METHODS: The program was implemented over 18 months in 8 selected local government areas (LGAs) in Osun state of Nigeria, using the WHO Mental Health Gap Action Programme Intervention Guide (mhGAP-IG), which had been contextualized for the local setting. A well supervised cascade training model was utilized, with Master Trainers providing training for the Facilitators, who in turn conducted several rounds of training for front-line primary health care workers. The first set of trainings by the Facilitators was supervised and mentored by the Master Trainers and refresher trainings were provided after 9 months. RESULTS: A total of 198 primary care workers, from 68 primary care clinics, drawn from 8 LGAs with a combined population of 966,714 were trained in the detection and management of four MNS conditions: moderate to severe major depression, psychosis, epilepsy, and alcohol use disorders, using the mhGAP-IG. Following training, there was a marked improvement in the knowledge and skills of the health workers and there was also a significant increase in the numbers of persons identified and treated for MNS disorders, and in the number of referrals. Even though substantial retention of gained knowledge was observed nine months after the initial training, some level of decay had occurred supporting the need for a refresher training. CONCLUSION: It is feasible to scale up mental health services in primary care settings in Nigeria, using the mhGAP-IG and a well-supervised cascade-training model. This format of training is pragmatic, cost-effective and holds promise, especially in settings where there are few specialists.

CASPER plus (CollAborative care in Screen-Positive EldeRs with major depressive disorder): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression accounts for the greatest disease burden of all mental health disorders, contributes heavily to healthcare costs, and by 2020 is set to become the second largest cause of global disability. Although 10% to 16% of people aged 65 years and over are likely to experience depressive symptoms, the condition is under-diagnosed and often inadequately treated in primary care. Later-life depression is associated with chronic illness and disability, cognitive impairment and social isolation. With a progressively ageing population it becomes increasingly important to refine strategies to identity and manage depression in older people. Currently, management may be limited to the prescription of antidepressants where there may be poor concordance; older people may lack awareness of psychosocial interventions and general practitioners may neglect to offer this treatment option. METHODS/DESIGN: CASPER Plus is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of a collaborative care intervention for individuals aged 65 years and over experiencing moderate to severe depression. Selected practices in the North of England identify potentially eligible patients and invite them to participate in the study. A diagnostic interview is carried out and participants with major depressive disorder are randomised to either collaborative care or usual care. The recruitment target is 450 participants. The intervention, behavioural activation and medication management in a collaborative care framework, has been adapted to meet the complex needs of older people. It is delivered over eight to 10 weekly sessions by a case manager liaising with general practitioners. The trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of collaborative care in addition to usual GP care versus usual GP care alone. The primary clinical outcome, depression severity, will be measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at baseline, 4, 12 and 18 months. Cost effectiveness analysis will assess health-related quality of life using the SF-12 and EQ-5D and will examine cost-consequences of collaborative care. A qualitative process evaluation will be undertaken to explore acceptability, gauge the extent to which the intervention is implemented and to explore sustainability beyond the clinical trial. DISCUSSION: Results will add to existing evidence and a positive outcome may lead to the commissioning of this model of service in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN45842879 (24 July 2012).

Cost and outcome of behavioural activation versus cognitive behaviour therapy for depression (COBRA): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment for depression. However, CBT is a complex therapy that requires highly trained and qualified practitioners, and its scalability is therefore limited by the costs of training and employing sufficient therapists to meet demand. Behavioural activation (BA) is a psychological treatment for depression that may be an effective alternative to CBT and, because it is simpler, might also be delivered by less highly trained and specialised mental health workers. METHODS/DESIGN: COBRA is a two-arm, non-inferiority, patient-level randomised controlled trial, including clinical, economic, and process evaluations comparing CBT delivered by highly trained professional therapists to BA delivered by junior professional or para-professional mental health workers to establish whether the clinical effectiveness of BA is non-inferior to CBT and if BA is cost effective compared to CBT. Four hundred and forty patients with major depressive disorder will be recruited through screening in primary care. We will analyse for non-inferiority in per-protocol and intention-to-treat populations. Our primary outcome will be severity of depression symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) at 12 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be clinically significant change and severity of depression at 18 months, and anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7 questionnaire) and health-related quality of life (Short-Form Health Survey-36) at 12 and 18 months. Our economic evaluation will take the United Kingdom National Health Service/Personal Social Services perspective to include costs of the interventions, health and social care services used, plus productivity losses. Cost-effectiveness will explored in terms of quality-adjusted life years using the EuroQol-5D measure of health-related quality of life. DISCUSSION: The clinical and economic outcomes of this trial will provide the evidence to help policy makers, clinicians and guideline developers decide on the merits of including BA as a first-line treatment of depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN27473954.

Cost-effectiveness of combining systematic identification and treatment of co-morbid major depression for people with chronic diseases: the example of cancer.

BACKGROUND: Co-morbid major depression occurs in approximately 10% of people suffering from a chronic medical condition such as cancer. Systematic integrated management that includes both identification and treatment has been advocated. However, we lack information on the cost-effectiveness of this combined approach, as published evaluations have focused solely on the systematic (collaborative care) treatment stage. We therefore aimed to use the best available evidence to estimate the cost-effectiveness of systematic integrated management (both identification and treatment) compared with usual practice, for patients attending specialist cancer clinics. METHOD: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision analytic model structured to reflect both the identification and treatment processes. Evidence was taken from reviews of relevant clinical trials and from observational studies, together with data from a large depression screening service. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were undertaken to determine the effects of variations in depression incidence rates, time horizons and patient characteristics. RESULTS: Systematic integrated depression management generated more costs than usual practice, but also more quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £11,765 per QALY. This finding was robust to tests of uncertainty and variation in key model parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic integrated management of co-morbid major depression in cancer patients is likely to be cost-effective at widely accepted threshold values and may be a better way of generating QALYs for cancer patients than some existing medical and surgical treatments. It could usefully be applied to other chronic medical conditions.

The costs associated with antidepressant use in depression and anxiety in community-living older adults.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the costs associated with antidepressant (AD) use by depression and anxiety status in a public-managed health care system. METHODS: Data were obtained from a population-based health survey of 1869 older adults. Depression and anxiety were based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, criteria and measured at 2 time points 1 year apart. AD and health service use and costs were identified from provincial administrative databases and included hospitalizations, physician fees, outpatient medications, and ambulatory visits. Patient costs considered were related to drug copayments, transportation, and time spent seeking medical care. Annual costs associated with AD use were studied as a function of mental health status at baseline and follow-up interviews (persistence, incidence, remission, or no illness). Generalized linear models with a gamma distribution were used to control for individual factors. RESULTS: The costs incurred by participants using ADs as a whole (17.8%) reached $6678 (95% CI $5449 to $8182), significantly more than in participants not using ADs ($4698; 95% CI $3710 to $5949). AD use was associated with greater total adjusted costs among respondents with no depression (adjusted difference = $1769; 95% CI $236 to $3702) and no anxiety (adjusted difference = $1845; 95% CI $203 to $3486). CONCLUSION: The results showed that AD use was not associated with cost savings in any group, and indeed with greater costs among participants who were neither depressed nor anxious at any time point. Future cost studies may consider the analyses of different AD classes regarding the different clinical mental health profiles in older adults.

[Satisfaction with an integrated care program for outpatients with schizophrenia or depression]. / Patientenzufriedenheit mit einem Programm der Integrierten Versorgung für die Indikationen Schizophrenie und Depression.

OBJECTIVE: To study out-patients' perception of an Integrated Care compliance program. METHODS: Survey of patients enrolled in the Integrated Care program "Münchner Modell" in Munich, Germany. RESULTS: N = 121 patients participated in the survey. Overall patients were very satisfied with the Integrated Care program. They reported improvements in several areas of life. CONCLUSION: The study highlights the aspects of routine patient care that still need to be improved and shows how these deficits can be addressed by Integrated Care programs.

Economic evaluation of St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) for the treatment of mild to moderate depression.

BACKGROUND: The burden of rising health care expenditures has created a demand for information regarding the clinical and economic outcomes associated with Complementary and Alternative Medicines. Clinical controlled trials have found St. John's wort to be as effective as antidepressants in the treatment of mild to moderate depression. The objective of this study was to develop a model to assess the cost-effectiveness of St. John's wort based on this evidence. METHODS: A Markov model was constructed to estimate health and economic impacts of St. John's wort versus antidepressants. Outcomes were treatment costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and Net Monetary Benefits (NMB). Probabilistic analyses were conducted on key model parameters. RESULTS: The average NMB across 5000 simulations identified St. John's wort as the strategy with the highest net benefit. The total cost savings for SJW were $359.66 and $202.56 per individual for venlafaxine and sertraline respectively, with a gain of 0.08 to 0.12 QALYs over the 72 weeks of the model. LIMITATIONS: A lack of direct comparative clinical trial data comparing SJW to venlafaxine and limited data with sertraline as a comparator was a major limitation. CONCLUSIONS: In this model, St. John's wort was shown to be a cost-effective alternative to generic antidepressants. Patients are more likely to receive treatment for a duration consistent with professional guidelines for treatment of major depression due to reduced incidence of adverse effects, improving outcomes. This represents an important option in the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder.

Economic burden of depression in South Korea.

BACKGROUND: A recent national survey in South Korea indicated that the 12-month prevalence rate of major depressive disorder was 2.5%. Depressive disorders may lead to disability, premature death, and severe suffering of patients and their families. This study estimates the economic burden of depression in Korea from a societal perspective. METHODS: Annual direct healthcare costs associated with depression were calculated based on the National Health Insurance database. Annual direct non-healthcare costs were estimated for transport. Annual indirect costs were estimated for the following components of productivity loss due to illness such as morbidity (absenteeism and presenteeism) and premature mortality. Indirect costs were estimated using the large national psychiatric epidemiological surveys in Korea. The human capital approach was used to estimate indirect costs. RESULT: The total cost of depression was estimated to be $4,049 million, of which $152.6 million represents a direct healthcare cost. Total direct non-healthcare costs were estimated to be $15.9 million. Indirect costs were estimated at $3,880.5 million. The morbidity cost was $2,958.9 million and the mortality cost was $921.6 million. The morbidity cost was identified as the largest component of overall cost. CONCLUSION: Depression is a considerable burden on both society and the individual, especially in terms of incapacity to work. The Korean society should increase the public health effort to prevent and detect depression in order to ensure that appropriate treatment is provided. Such actions will lead to a significant reduction in the total burden resulting from depression.

Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial comparing mindfulness-based cognitive therapy with maintenance anti-depressant treatment in the prevention of depressive relapse/recurrence: the PREVENT trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a common and distressing mental health problem that is responsible for significant individual disability and cost to society. Medication and psychological therapies are effective for treating depression and maintenance anti-depressants (m-ADM) can prevent relapse. However, individuals with depression often express a wish for psychological help that can help them recover from depression in the long-term. We need to develop psychological therapies that prevent depressive relapse/recurrence. A recently developed treatment, Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT, see http://www.mbct.co.uk) shows potential as a brief group programme for people with recurring depression. In two studies it has been shown to halve the rates of depression recurring compared to usual care.This trial asks the policy research question, is MBCT superior to m-ADM in terms of: a primary outcome of preventing depressive relapse/recurrence over 24 months; and, secondary outcomes of (a) depression free days, (b) residual depressive symptoms, (c) antidepressant (ADM) usage, (d) psychiatric and medical co-morbidity, (e) quality of life, and (f) cost effectiveness? An explanatory research question asks is an increase in mindfulness skills the key mechanism of change? METHODS/DESIGN: The design is a single blind, parallel RCT examining MBCT vs. m-ADM with an embedded process study. To answer the main policy research question the proposed trial compares MBCT plus ADM-tapering with m-ADM for patients with recurrent depression. Four hundred and twenty patients with recurrent major depressive disorder in full or partial remission will be recruited through primary care. Depressive relapse/recurrence over two years is the primary outcome variable. The explanatory question will be addressed in two mutually informative ways: quantitative measurement of potential mediating variables pre/post-treatment and a qualitative study of service users' views and experiences. DISCUSSION: If the results of our exploratory trial are extended to this definitive trial, MBCT will be established as an alternative approach to maintenance anti-depressants for people with a history of recurrent depression. The process studies will provide evidence about the effective components which can be used to improve MBCT and inform theory as well as other therapeutic approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN26666654.

Developing thai economic model to study cost-effectiveness of switching to bupropion compared to combination with bupropion after the failure of an SSRI for major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To present an economic model and cost-effectiveness estimates of switching to bupropion compared to combination with bupropion after failure of an SSRI for major depressive disorder (MDD). MATERIAL AND METHOD: An economic model was developed to simulate the transitions of Thai outpatients with nonpsychotic MDD who had no remission or could not tolerate the SSRI citalopram and received either sustained-release bupropion monotherapy as switching strategy or sustained-release bupropion plus citalopram as combination strategy. Clinical data were obtained form 2 trials of the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D) study. The four event probabilities: remission rates, rates of non-remission, discontinuation rates due to intolerance, and incidence of serious adverse events were estimated. Direct costs included drug cost, hospitalizations, and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). The primary outcome considered in the model was a remission of symptoms. Outputs were measured in terms of costs per remission and costs per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). RESULTS: In the base-case analysis, the total direct costs with a bupropion switch were 22,937 THB per remission and 29,346 THB per remission with a bupropion combination. Compared with combination option, switching to bupropion also had lower total cost per QALY (28,672 THB vs. 36,682 THB) and had cost saving of 21.8%. The incremental cost-effectiveness of the combination regimen compared with the switching regimen was 6,409 THB per remission gained and 8,011 THB per QALY gained. In a sensitivity analysis, combination strategy dominated switching strategy if the value of the transitional probability of remission changed to a value of greater than 0.547. CONCLUSION: The economic model indicated that treatment of MDD patients who fail to achieve remission from an SSRI with a switch to bupropion is a cost-effectiveness treatment option compared with a combination of SSRI with bupropion.

Escitalopram in the treatment of major depressive disorder: clinical efficacy, tolerability and cost-effectiveness vs. venlafaxine extended-release formulation.

Major depressive disorder (MDD), a prevalent and serious mental illness, is associated with a substantial disease and economic burden. Long-term pharmacotherapy is often necessary; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or the serotonin-noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor venlafaxine are the most frequently prescribed medications in patients with moderate-to-severe depressive symptoms. This article reviews head-to-head clinical studies and health economic models comparing the efficacy, tolerability and cost-effectiveness of escitalopram, a dual-action selective inhibitor of serotonin reuptake, and the extended-release (XR) formulation of venlafaxine. While there has been some evidence that conventional SSRIs are inferior to venlafaxine in terms of efficacy, escitalopram was at least as effective as venlafaxine XR in reducing Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale scores from baseline in two short-term (8-week) comparative studies. Furthermore, escitalopram had potentially important advantages over venlafaxine XR in terms of time to remission, tolerability and discontinuation (withdrawal) symptoms. The results of economic evaluations, including a 'gold standard' prospective study conducted alongside one of the studies are consistent in suggesting that escitalopram offers a more cost-effective alternative to venlafaxine XR for the treatment of MDD, both from a healthcare and societal perspective. Based on this evidence, it is concluded that escitalopram is at least as effective as venlafaxine XR in the treatment of MDD, but is better tolerated and may also have cost advantages.

A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of escitalopram versus citalopram in the treatment of severe depression in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Severe depression can increase the risk of psychiatric hospitalization, as well as inpatient and outpatient care; it may also lead to long-term absenteeism from work. However, the cost-effectiveness of antidepressant therapy for severe depression has been little studied. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of escitalopram compared with citalopram in patients with severe depression (Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale [MADRS] total score > or = 30) in the United Kingdom. METHODS: A probabilistic decision tree with a 6-month time horizon was adapted to the UK setting. The model incorporated clinical data, resource use directly related with care of severe depression, and lost productivity costs due to absenteeism. Primary results were remission (MADRS < or = 12) and costs (in year-2003 British pounds [1.00 British pound = 0.62 US dollars in January 2003]) of treatment calculated from the perspectives of UK society and the National Health Service (NHS). Secondary outcome was first-line success of treatment (ie, remission [MADRS < or = 12] without switch of drug). Remission, discontinuation, and response rates were derived from a meta-analysis of 506 patients with severe depression and extrapolated to 6 months. Standard UK price lists and literature were used to identify costs of resources. Societal costs of lost productivity were calculated using the human capital approach. RESULTS: Treatment of patients with escitalopram instead of citalopram rendered a higher overall remission rate (relative difference, 10.3%) and first-line success rate (relative difference, 35.4%). The mean cost per successfully treated patient was 15.7% (146 British pounds) lower for escitalopram (786 British pounds [range, 702-876 British pounds]) compared with citalopram (932 British pounds [range, 843-1028 British pounds]) from the NHS perspective and 15.6% (238 British pounds) lower for escitalopram (1283 British pounds [range, 1157-1419 British pounds]) than for citalopram (1521 British pounds [range, 1383-1675 British pounds]) from the societal perspective. The mean cost per severely depressed patient treated (overall study group) was 32 British pounds lower for escitalopram (422 British pounds [range, 404-441 British pounds]) than citalopram (454 British pounds [range, 436-471 British pounds]) from an NHS perspective and 50 British pounds lower for escitalopram (690 British pounds [range, 665-714 British pounds]) than citalopram (740 British pounds [range, 715-767 British pounds]) from the societal perspective. Using multivariate sensitivity analyses, we found that, in 99.8% of the cases, escitalopram was dominant from both perspectives at all ranges of probabilities tested. A sensitivity analysis on the acquisition cost of citalopram verified that, from the societal perspective, escitalopram remained the dominant strategy, even at a cost of 0.00 British pounds for citalopram. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that escitalopram is a cost-saving alternative to citalopram for the treatment of severe depression in the United Kingdom from the perspectives of both the NHS and society. Therefore, a possible advantage may exist at the population level in the treatment of severe depression with escitalopram in the United Kingdom.