Dataset Information

Cost-effectiveness of a care manager collaborative care programme for patients with depression in primary care: 12-month economic evaluation of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To study the cost-effectiveness of a care manager organization for patients with mild to moderate depression in Swedish primary care in a 12-month perspective.

Methods

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the care manager organization compared to care as usual (CAU) in a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial including 192 individuals in the care manager group and 184 in the CAU group. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a health care and societal perspectives. Costs were assessed in relation to two different health outcome measures: depression free days (DFDs) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs).

Results

At the 12-month follow-up, patients treated at the intervention Primary Care Centres (PCCs) with a care manager organization had larger health benefits than the group receiving usual care only at control PCCs. Mean QALY per patient was 0.73 (95% CI 0.7; 0.75) in the care manager group compared to 0.70 (95% CI 0.66; 0.73) in the CAU group. Mean DFDs was 203 (95% CI 178; 229) in the care manager group and 155 (95% CI 131; 179) in the CAU group. Further, from a societal perspective, care manager care was associated with a lower cost than care as usual, resulting in a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for both QALYs and DFDs. From a health care perspective care manager care was related to a low cost per QALY (36,500 SEK / €3,379) and DFD (31 SEK/€3).

Limitations

A limitation is the fact that QALY data was impaired by insufficient EQ-5D data for some patients.

Conclusions

A care manager organization at the PCC to increase quality of care for patients with mild-moderate depression shows high health benefits, with no decay over time, and high cost-effectiveness both from a health care and a societal perspective. Trial registration details: The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.com ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02378272 ) in 02/02/2015 with the registration number NCT02378272. The first patient was enrolled in 11/20/2014.

SUBMITTER: Holst A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8369323 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Depression collaborative care implementation using community engagement and planning (CEP) across programs improves 6-month client outcomes in minority communities, compared with technical assistance to individual programs (resources for services [RS]). However, 12-month outcomes are unknown.To compare effects of CEP and RS on mental health-related quality of life (MHRQL) and use of services among depressed clients at 12 months.Matched health and community programs (n = 93) in 2 communities randomly assigned to receive CEP or RS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01699789).Self-reported MHRQL and services use at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months.Los Angeles, California.1018 adults with depressive symptoms (8-item Patient Health Questionnaire score ?10), 88% of whom were an ethnic minority.CEP and RS to implement depression collaborative care.The primary outcome was poor MHRQL (12-item mental health composite score ?40) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months; the secondary outcome was use of services at 12 months.At 6 months, the finding that CEP outperformed RS to reduce poor MHRQL was significant but sensitive to underlying statistical assumptions. At 12 months, some analyses suggested that CEP was advantageous to MHRQL, whereas others did not confirm a significant difference favoring CEP. The finding that CEP reduced behavioral health hospitalizations at 6 months was less evident at 12 months and was sensitive to underlying statistical assumptions. Other services use did not significantly differ between interventions at 12 months.Data are self-reported, and findings are sensitive to modeling assumptions.In contrast to 6-month results, no consistent effects of CEP on reducing the likelihood of poor MHRQL and behavioral health hospitalizations were found at 12 months. Still, given the needs of underresourced communities, the favorable profile of CEP, and the lack of evidence-based alternatives, CEP remains a viable strategy for policymakers and communities to consider.National Institute of Mental Health, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, California Community Foundation, National Library of Medicine, and National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Science for the UCLA Clinical and Translational Science Institute.

Project description:BackgroundThe Healthy Activity Programme (HAP), a brief behavioural intervention delivered by lay counsellors, enhanced remission over 3 months among primary care attendees with depression in peri-urban and rural settings in India. We evaluated the sustainability of the effects after treatment termination, the cost-effectiveness of HAP over 12 months, and the effects of the hypothesized mediator of activation on clinical outcomes.Methods and findingsPrimary care attendees aged 18-65 years screened with moderately severe to severe depression on the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) were randomised to either HAP plus enhanced usual care (EUC) (n = 247) or EUC alone (n = 248), of whom 95% completed assessments at 3 months, and 91% at 12 months. Primary outcomes were severity on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) and remission on the PHQ-9. HAP participants maintained the gains they showed at the end of treatment through the 12-month follow-up (difference in mean BDI-II score between 3 and 12 months = -0.34; 95% CI -2.37, 1.69; p = 0.74), with lower symptom severity scores than participants who received EUC alone (adjusted mean difference in BDI-II score = -4.45; 95% CI -7.26, -1.63; p = 0.002) and higher rates of remission (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 1.36; 95% CI 1.15, 1.61; p < 0.009). They also fared better on most secondary outcomes, including recovery (aPR = 1.98; 95% CI 1.29, 3.03; p = 0.002), any response over time (aPR = 1.45; 95% CI 1.27, 1.66; p < 0.001), higher likelihood of reporting a minimal clinically important difference (aPR = 1.42; 95% CI 1.17, 1.71; p < 0.001), and lower likelihood of reporting suicidal behaviour (aPR = 0.71; 95% CI 0.51, 1.01; p = 0.06). HAP plus EUC also had a marginal effect on WHO Disability Assessment Schedule score at 12 months (aPR = -1.58; 95% CI -3.33, 0.17; p = 0.08); other outcomes (days unable to work, intimate partner violence toward females) did not statistically significantly differ between the two arms. Economic analyses indicated that HAP plus EUC was dominant over EUC alone, with lower costs and better outcomes; uncertainty analysis showed that from this health system perspective there was a 95% chance of HAP being cost-effective, given a willingness to pay threshold of Intl$16,060-equivalent to GDP per capita in Goa-per quality-adjusted life year gained. Patient-reported behavioural activation level at 3 months mediated the effect of the HAP intervention on the 12-month depression score (β = -2.62; 95% CI -3.28, -1.97; p < 0.001). Serious adverse events were infrequent, and prevalence was similar by arm. We were unable to assess possible episodes of remission and relapse that may have occurred between our outcome assessment time points of 3 and 12 months after randomisation. We did not account for or evaluate the effect of mediators other than behavioural activation.ConclusionsHAP's superiority over EUC at the end of treatment was largely stable over time and was mediated by patient activation. HAP provides better outcomes at lower costs from a perspective covering publicly funded healthcare services and productivity impacts on patients and their families.Trial registrationISRCTN registry ISRCTN95149997.

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) recommend antidepressants for patients with moderate-severe depression and active monitoring for patients with mild-moderate symptoms. The feasibility and efficiency of active monitoring has not been proven conclusively. The aim of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of active monitoring in comparison to antidepressants for primary care patients with mild-moderate MDD.Methods/designThis is a 12-month follow-up multicenter observational prospective controlled trial. Patients are enrolled in 12 primary care centers in Barcelona (Spain). Eligible patients are adults (≥18 years-old) with a new episode of MDD that sign a written consent to participate. This is a naturalistic study in which general practitioners (GPs) use their professional judgment to allocate patients into active monitoring or antidepressants groups. GPs treat the patients following their clinical criteria. At baseline, GPs complete a questionnaire (sociodemographic/job characteristics, training, attitude towards depression, interest on mental health and participation in communication groups). Patients' measurements take place at baseline and after six and 12 months. Main outcome measures include severity of depression (PHQ-9), health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5D) and use of healthcare and social care services (Client Service Receipt Inventory). Secondary outcomes include diagnosis of MDD according to DSM-IV diagnostic criteria (SCID-I), disability (WHO-DAS), anxiety (BAI), comorbidities, medication side-effects and beliefs about medicines (BMQ). The analysis will be done according to the intention to treat analysis. Missing data will be imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations. To minimize the bias resulting from the lack of randomization, a propensity score will be used. Incremental effects and costs between groups will be modelled in each of the imputed databases using multivariate generalized linear models and then combined as per Rubin's rules. Propensity scores will be used to adjust the models. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios will be calculated by dividing the difference in costs between groups by the difference in effects. To deal with the uncertainty, resampling techniques with bootstrapping will be used and cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be constructed. A series of sensitivity analyses will be performed.DiscussionGiven the high burden and costs generated by depressive disorder, it is important that general practitioners treat major depression efficiently. Recent evidence has suggested that antidepressants have low benefits for patients with mild to moderate major depression. For such cases of depression, active monitoring exists as a treatment option, but it is not without difficulties for implementation and its effectiveness and efficiency have not been demonstrated conclusively. The results of the study will provide information on which is the most efficient approach to treat patients with mild to moderate major depression in primary care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02245373.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Depression is one of the leading causes of disability and affects 10-15% of the population. The majority of people with depressive symptoms seek care and are treated in primary care. Evidence internationally for high quality care supports collaborative care with a care manager. Our aim was to study clinical effectiveness of a care manager intervention in management of primary care patients with depression in Sweden. METHODS:In a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial 23 primary care centers (PCCs), urban and rural, included patients aged ??18 years with a new (<?1 month) depression diagnosis. Intervention consisted of Care management including continuous contact between care manager and patient, a structured management plan, and behavioral activation, altogether around 6-7 contacts over 12 weeks. Control condition was care as usual (CAU). OUTCOME MEASURES:Depression symptoms (measured by Mongomery-Asberg depression score-self (MADRS-S) and BDI-II), quality of life (QoL) (EQ-5D), return to work and sick leave, service satisfaction, and antidepressant medication. Data were analyzed with the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS:One hundred ninety two patients with depression at PCCs with care managers were allocated to the intervention group, and 184 patients at control PCCs were allocated to the control group. Mean depression score measured by MADRS-S was 2.17 lower in the intervention vs. the control group (95% CI [0.56; 3.79], p?=?0.009) at 3 months and 2.27 lower (95% CI [0.59; 3.95], p?=?0.008) at 6 months; corresponding BDI-II scores were 1.96 lower (95% CI [-?0.19; 4.11], p?=?0.07) in the intervention vs. control group at 6 months. Remission was significantly higher in the intervention group at 6 months (61% vs. 47%, p?=?0.006). QoL showed a steeper increase in the intervention group at 3 months (p?=?0.01). During the first 3 months, return to work was significantly higher in the intervention vs. the control group. Patients in the intervention group were more consistently on antidepressant medication than patients in the control group. CONCLUSIONS:Care managers for depression treatment have positive effects on depression course, return to work, remission frequency, antidepressant frequency, and quality of life compared to usual care and is valued by the patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Identifier: NCT02378272 . February 2, 2015. Retrospectively registered.