Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of a community pharmacist intervention in patients with depression: a randomized controlled trial (PRODEFAR Study).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Non-adherence to antidepressants generates higher costs for the treatment of depression. Little is known about the cost-effectiveness of pharmacist's interventions aimed at improving adherence to antidepressants. The study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a community pharmacist intervention in comparison with usual care in depressed patients initiating treatment with antidepressants in primary care.

Methods

Patients were recruited by general practitioners and randomized to community pharmacist intervention (87) that received an educational intervention and usual care (92). Adherence to antidepressants, clinical symptoms, Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs), use of healthcare services and productivity losses were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months.

Results

There were no significant differences between groups in costs or effects. From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the community pharmacist intervention compared with usual care was €1,866 for extra adherent patient and €9,872 per extra QALY. In terms of remission of depressive symptoms, the usual care dominated the community pharmacist intervention. If willingness to pay (WTP) is €30,000 per extra adherent patient, remission of symptoms or QALYs, the probability of the community pharmacist intervention being cost-effective was 0.71, 0.46 and 0.75, respectively (societal perspective). From a healthcare perspective, the probability of the community pharmacist intervention being cost-effective in terms of adherence, QALYs and remission was of 0.71, 0.76 and 0.46, respectively, if WTP is €30,000.

Conclusion

A brief community pharmacist intervention addressed to depressed patients initiating antidepressant treatment showed a probability of being cost-effective of 0.71 and 0.75 in terms of improvement of adherence and QALYs, respectively, when compared to usual care. Regular implementation of the community pharmacist intervention is not recommended.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00794196.

SUBMITTER: Rubio-Valera M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3741197 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of a community pharmacist intervention in patients with depression: a randomized controlled trial (PRODEFAR Study).

Rubio-Valera Maria M Bosmans Judith J Fernández Ana A Peñarrubia-María Maite M March Marian M Travé Pere P Bellón Juan A JA Serrano-Blanco Antoni A

PloS one 20130812 8

<h4>Background</h4>Non-adherence to antidepressants generates higher costs for the treatment of depression. Little is known about the cost-effectiveness of pharmacist's interventions aimed at improving adherence to antidepressants. The study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a community pharmacist intervention in comparison with usual care in depressed patients initiating treatment with antidepressants in primary care.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients were recruited by general practitioners and ...[more]

PMID: 23950967

Similar Datasets

Project description:Medication errors are common in primary care and are associated with considerable risk of patient harm. We tested whether a pharmacist-led, information technology-based intervention was more effective than simple feedback in reducing the number of patients at risk of measures related to hazardous prescribing and inadequate blood-test monitoring of medicines 6 months after the intervention.In this pragmatic, cluster randomised trial general practices in the UK were stratified by research site and list size, and randomly assigned by a web-based randomisation service in block sizes of two or four to one of two groups. The practices were allocated to either computer-generated simple feedback for at-risk patients (control) or a pharmacist-led information technology intervention (PINCER), composed of feedback, educational outreach, and dedicated support. The allocation was masked to researchers and statisticians involved in processing and analysing the data. The allocation was not masked to general practices, pharmacists, patients, or researchers who visited practices to extract data. [corrected]. Primary outcomes were the proportions of patients at 6 months after the intervention who had had any of three clinically important errors: non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) prescribed to those with a history of peptic ulcer without co-prescription of a proton-pump inhibitor; ? blockers prescribed to those with a history of asthma; long-term prescription of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or loop diuretics to those 75 years or older without assessment of urea and electrolytes in the preceding 15 months. The cost per error avoided was estimated by incremental cost-effectiveness analysis. This study is registered with Controlled-Trials.com, number ISRCTN21785299.72 general practices with a combined list size of 480,942 patients were randomised. At 6 months' follow-up, patients in the PINCER group were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID if they had a history of peptic ulcer without gastroprotection (OR 0·58, 95% CI 0·38-0·89); a ? blocker if they had asthma (0·73, 0·58-0·91); or an ACE inhibitor or loop diuretic without appropriate monitoring (0·51, 0·34-0·78). PINCER has a 95% probability of being cost effective if the decision-maker's ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 per error avoided at 6 months.The PINCER intervention is an effective method for reducing a range of medication errors in general practices with computerised clinical records.Patient Safety Research Portfolio, Department of Health, England.

Project description:Patients with depression and poorly controlled diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease (CHD), or both have higher medical complication rates and higher health care costs, suggesting that more effective care management of psychiatric and medical disease control might also reduce medical service use and enhance quality of life.To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a multicondition collaborative treatment program (TEAMcare) compared with usual primary care (UC) in outpatients with depression and poorly controlled diabetes or CHD.Randomized controlled trial of a systematic care management program aimed at improving depression scores and hemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)), systolic blood pressure (SBP), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels.Fourteen primary care clinics of an integrated health care system.Population-based screening identified 214 adults with depressive disorder and poorly controlled diabetes or CHD.Physician-supervised nurses collaborated with primary care physicians to provide treatment of multiple disease risk factors.Blinded assessments evaluated depressive symptoms, SBP, and HbA(1c) at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Fasting LDL-C concentration was assessed at baseline and at 12 and 24 months. Health plan accounting records were used to assess medical service costs. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were assessed using a previously developed regression model based on intervention vs UC differences in HbA(1c), LDL-C, and SBP levels over 24 months.Over 24 months, compared with UC controls, intervention patients had a mean of 114 (95% CI, 79 to 149) additional depression-free days and an estimated 0.335 (95% CI, -0.18 to 0.85) additional QALYs. Intervention patients also had lower mean outpatient health costs of $594 per patient (95% CI, -$3241 to $2053) relative to UC patients.For adults with depression and poorly controlled diabetes, CHD, or both, a systematic intervention program aimed at improving depression scores and HbA(1c), SBP, and LDL-C levels seemed to be a high-value program that for no or modest additional cost markedly improved QALYs.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00468676

Project description:BACKGROUND: Intensive lifestyle intervention significantly reduces the progression to diabetes in high-risk individuals. OBJECTIVE: It is not known whether a program of moderate intervention might effectively reduce metabolic abnormalities in the general population. DESIGN: Two-arm randomized controlled 1-year trial. PATIENTS: Three hundred and thirty-five patients participated from a dysmetabolic population-based cohort of 375 adults aged 45-64 years in northwestern Italy. MEASUREMENTS: We compared the effectiveness of a general recommendation-based program of lifestyle intervention carried out by trained professionals versus standard unstructured information given by family physicians at reducing the prevalence of multiple metabolic and inflammatory abnormalities. RESULTS: At baseline, clinical/anthropometric/laboratory and lifestyle characteristics of the intervention (n = 169) and control (n = 166) groups were not significantly different. The former significantly reduced total/saturated fat intake and increased polyunsaturated fat/fiber intake and exercise level compared to the controls. Weight, waist circumference, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and most of the metabolic syndrome components decreased in the intervention group and increased in the controls after 12 months. Lifestyle intervention significantly reduced metabolic syndrome (odds ratio [OR] = 0.28; 95% CI 0.18-0.44), with a 31% (21-41) absolute risk reduction, corresponding to 3.2 (2-5) patients needing to be treated to prevent 1 case after 12 months. The intervention significantly reduced the prevalence of central obesity (OR = 0.33; 0.20-0.56), and hypertriglyceridemia (OR = 0.48; 0.31-0.75) and the incidence of diabetes (OR = 0.23; 0.06-0.85). CONCLUSION: A lifestyle intervention based on general recommendations was effective in reducing multiple metabolic/inflammatory abnormalities. The usual care by family physicians was ineffective at modifying progressive metabolic deterioration in high-risk individuals.

Project description:UnlabelledHip fracture patients can benefit from nutritional supplementation during their recovery. Up to now, cost-effectiveness evaluation of nutritional intervention in these patients has not been performed. Costs of nutritional intervention are relatively low as compared with medical costs. Cost-effectiveness evaluation shows that nutritional intervention is likely to be cost-effective.IntroductionPrevious research on the effect of nutritional intervention on clinical outcome in hip fracture patients yielded contradictory results. Cost-effectiveness of nutritional intervention in these patients remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate cost-effectiveness of nutritional intervention in elderly subjects after hip fracture from a societal perspective.MethodsOpen-label, multi-centre randomized controlled trial investigating cost-effectiveness of intensive nutritional intervention comprising regular dietetic counseling and oral nutritional supplementation for 3 months postoperatively. Patients allocated to the control group received care as usual. Costs, weight and quality of life were measured at baseline and at 3 and 6 months postoperatively. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were calculated for weight at 3 months and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at 6 months postoperatively.ResultsOf 152 patients enrolled, 73 were randomized to the intervention group and 79 to the control group. Mean costs of the nutritional intervention was 613 Euro. Total costs and subcategories of costs were not significantly different between both groups. Based on bootstrapping of ICERs, the nutritional intervention was likely to be cost-effective for weight as outcome over the 3-month intervention period, regardless of nutritional status at baseline. With QALYs as outcome, the probability for the nutritional intervention being cost-effective was relatively low, except in subjects aged below 75 years.ConclusionIntensive nutritional intervention in elderly hip fracture patients is likely to be cost-effective for weight but not for QALYs. Future cost-effectiveness studies should incorporate outcome measures appropriate for elderly patients, such as functional limitations and other relevant outcome parameters for elderly.

Project description:BackgroundDepression is highly prevalent in the working population and is associated with significant loss of workdays; however, access to evidence-based treatment is limited.ObjectiveThis study evaluated the effectiveness of a Web-based intervention in reducing mild to moderate depression and sickness absence.MethodsIn an open-label randomized controlled trial, participants were recruited from a large-scale statutory health insurance and were assigned to two groups. The intervention group had access to a 12 week Web-based program consisting of structured interactive sessions and therapist support upon request. The wait-list control group had access to unguided Web-based psycho-education. Depressive symptoms were self-assessed at baseline, post-treatment, and follow-up (12 weeks after treatment) using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) as primary outcome measures. Data on sickness absence was retrieved from health insurance records. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis and per-protocol (PP) analysis were performed.ResultsOf the 180 participants who were randomized, 88 completed the post-assessment (retention rate: 48.8%, 88/180). ITT analysis showed a significant between-group difference in depressive symptoms during post-treatment in favor of the intervention group, corresponding to a moderate effect size (PHQ-9: d=0.55, 95% CI 0.25-0.85, P<.001, and BDI-II: d=0.41, CI 0.11-0.70, P=.004). PP analysis partially supported this result, but showed a non-significant effect on one primary outcome (PHQ-9: d=0.61, 95% CI 0.15-1.07, P=.04, and BDI-II: d=0.25 95% CI -0.18 to 0.65, P=.37). Analysis of clinical significance using reliable change index revealed that significantly more participants who used the Web-based intervention (63%, 63/100) responded to the treatment versus the control group (33%, 27/80; P<.001). The number needed to treat (NNT) was 4.08. Within both groups, there was a reduction in work absence frequency (IG: -67.23%, P<.001, CG: -82.61%, P<.001), but no statistical difference in sickness absence between groups was found (P=.07).ConclusionsThe Web-based intervention was effective in reducing depressive symptoms among adults with sickness absence. As this trial achieved a lower power than calculated, its results should be replicated in a larger sample. Further validation of health insurance records as an outcome measure for eHealth trials is needed.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 02446836; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN02446836 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6jx4SObnw).

Project description:BackgroundDepression is viewed as a major and increasing public health issue, as it causes high distress in the people experiencing it and considerable financial costs to society. Efforts are being made to reduce this burden by preventing depression. A critical component of this strategy is the ability to assess the individual level and profile of risk for the development of major depression. This paper presents the cost-effectiveness of a personalized intervention based on the risk of developing depression carried out in primary care, compared with usual care.MethodsCost-effectiveness analyses are nested within a multicentre, clustered, randomized controlled trial of a personalized intervention to prevent depression. The study was carried out in 70 primary care centres from seven cities in Spain. Two general practitioners (GPs) were randomly sampled from those prepared to participate in each centre (i.e. 140 GPs), and 3326 participants consented and were eligible to participate. The intervention included the GP communicating to the patient his/her individual risk for depression and personal risk factors and the construction by both GPs and patients of a psychosocial programme tailored to prevent depression. In addition, GPs carried out measures to activate and empower the patients, who also received a leaflet about preventing depression. GPs were trained in a 10- to 15-h workshop. Costs were measured from a societal and National Health care perspective. Qualityadjustedlife years were assessed using the EuroQOL five dimensions questionnaire. The time horizon was 18 months.ResultsWith a willingness-to-pay threshold of €10,000 (£8568) the probability of cost-effectiveness oscillated from 83% (societal perspective) to 89% (health perspective). If the threshold was increased to €30,000 (£25,704), the probability of being considered cost-effective was 94% (societal perspective) and 96%, respectively (health perspective). The sensitivity analysis confirmed these results.ConclusionsCompared with usual care, an intervention based on personal predictors of risk of depression implemented by GPs is a cost-effective strategy to prevent depression. This type of personalized intervention in primary care should be further developed and evaluated.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01151982. Registered on June 29, 2010.

Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of a community pharmacist intervention in patients with depression: a randomized controlled trial (PRODEFAR Study).

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Cost-effectiveness of a community pharmacist intervention in patients with depression: a randomized controlled trial (PRODEFAR Study).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets