Search

Although research shows that more depressed patients respond to combined antidepressants (ADM) and psychotherapy than either alone, many patients do not respond even to combined treatment. A reliable prediction model for this could help treatment decision-making. We attempted to create such a model using machine learning methods among patients in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA). A 2018–2020 national sample of VHA patients beginning combined depression treatment completed self-report assessments at baseline and 3 months (n = 658). A learning model was developed using baseline self-report, administrative, and geospatial data to predict 3-month treatment response defined by reductions in the Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology Self-Report and/or in the Sheehan Disability Scale. The model was developed in a 70 % training sample and tested in the remaining 30 % test sample. 30.0 % of patients responded to treatment. The prediction model had a test sample AUC-ROC of 0.657. A strong gradient was found in probability of treatment response from 52.7 % in the highest predicted quintile to 14.4 % in the lowest predicted quintile. The most important predictors were episode characteristics (symptoms, comorbidities, history), personality/psychological resilience, recent stressors, and treatment characteristics. Restrictions in sample definition, a low recruitment rate, and reliance on patient self-report rather than clinician assessments to determine treatment response limited the generalizability of results. A machine learning model could help depressed patients and providers predict likely response to combined ADM-psychotherapy. Parallel information about potential harms and costs of alternative treatments would be needed, though, to inform optimal treatment selection. • 30 % of depressed Veterans Health Administration patients responded to combined antidepressant-psychotherapy treatment. • A machine learning model was developed to predict differential response. • The model was significantly predictive. • Parallel modeling across alternative treatments could help optimize treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most guidelines for major depressive disorder recommend initial treatment with either a second-generation antidepressant (SGA) or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Although most trials suggest that these treatments have similar efficacy, their health economic implications are uncertain.Objective: To quantify the cost-effectiveness of CBT versus SGA for initial treatment of depression.Design: Decision analytic model.Data Sources: Relative effectiveness data from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials; additional clinical and economic data from other publications.Target Population: Adults with newly diagnosed major depressive disorder in the United States.Time Horizon: 1 to 5 years.Perspectives: Health care sector and societal.Intervention: Initial treatment with either an SGA or group and individual CBT.Outcome Measures: Costs in 2014 U.S. dollars, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios.Results of Base-case Analysis: In model projections, CBT produced higher QALYs (3 days more at 1 year and 20 days more at 5 years) with higher costs at 1 year (health care sector, $900; societal, $1500) but lower costs at 5 years (health care sector, -$1800; societal, -$2500).Results of Sensitivity Analysis: In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, SGA had a 64% to 77% likelihood of having an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $100 000 or less per QALY at 1 year; CBT had a 73% to 77% likelihood at 5 years. Uncertainty in the relative risk for relapse of depression contributed the most to overall uncertainty in the optimal treatment.Limitation: Long-term trials comparing CBT and SGA are lacking.Conclusion: Neither SGAs nor CBT provides consistently superior cost-effectiveness relative to the other. Given many patients' preference for psychotherapy over pharmacotherapy, increasing patient access to CBT may be warranted.Primary Funding Source: Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institute of Mental Health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preexposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is effective at preventing HIV infection among men who have sex with men (MSM), but there is uncertainty about how to identify high-risk MSM who should receive PrEP. Methods: We used a mathematical model to assess the cost-effectiveness of using the HIV Incidence Risk Index for MSM (HIRI-MSM) questionnaire to target PrEP to high-risk MSM. We simulated strategies of no PrEP, PrEP available to all MSM, and eligibility thresholds set to HIRI-MSM scores between 5 and 45, in increments of 5 (where a higher score predicts greater HIV risk). Based on the iPrEx, IPERGAY, and PROUD trials, we evaluated PrEP efficacies from 44% to 86% and annual costs from $5900 to 8700. We designate strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ≤$100,000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) as "cost-effective." Results: Over 20 years, making PrEP available to all MSM is projected to prevent 33.5% of new HIV infections, with an ICER of $1,474,000/QALY. Increasing the HIRI-MSM score threshold reduces the prevented infections, but improves cost-effectiveness. A threshold score of 25 is projected to be optimal (most QALYs gained while still being cost-effective) over a wide range of realistic PrEP efficacies and costs. At low cost and high efficacy (IPERGAY), thresholds of 15 or 20 are optimal across a range of other input assumptions; at high cost and low efficacy (iPrEx), 25 or 30 are generally optimal. Conclusions: The HIRI-MSM provides a clinically actionable means of guiding PrEP use. Using a score of 25 to determine PrEP eligibility could facilitate cost-effective use of PrEP among high-risk MSM who will benefit from it most. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Long-acting antiretroviral therapy (LA-ART) is currently under development and could improve outcomes for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals with poor daily ART adherence. Methods. We used a computer simulation model to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 3 LA-ART strategies vs daily oral ART for all: (1) LA-ART for patients with multiple ART failures; (2) second-line LA-ART for those failing first-line therapy; and (3) first-line LA-ART for ART-naive patients. We calculated the maximum annual cost of LAART at which each strategy would be cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. We assumed HIV RNA suppression on daily ART ranged from 0% to 91% depending on adherence, vs 91% suppression on LA-ART regardless of daily ART adherence. In sensitivity analyses, we varied adherence, efficacy of LAART and daily ART, and loss to follow-up. Results. Relative to daily ART, LA-ART increased overall life expectancy by 0.15-0.24 years, and by 0.51-0.89 years among poorly adherent patients, depending on the LA-ART strategy. LA-ART after multiple failures became cost-effective at an annual drug cost of $48 000; in sensitivity analysis, this threshold varied from $40 000-$70 000. Second-line LA-ART and first-line LA-ART became cost-effective at an annual drug cost of $26 000-$31 000 and $24 000-$27 000, vs $28 000 and $25 000 for current second-line and first-line regimens. Conclusions. LA-ART could improve survival of HIV patients, especially those with poor daily ART adherence. At an annual cost of $40 000-$70 000, LA-ART will offer good value for patients with multiple prior failures. To be a viable option for first-or second-line therapy, however, its cost must approach that of currently available regimens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Only a limited number of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) respond to a first course of antidepressant medication (ADM). We investigated the feasibility of creating a baseline model to determine which of these would be among patients beginning ADM treatment in the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Methods: A 2018–2020 national sample of n = 660 VHA patients receiving ADM treatment for MDD completed an extensive baseline self-report assessment near the beginning of treatment and a 3-month self-report follow-up assessment. Using baseline self-report data along with administrative and geospatial data, an ensemble machine learning method was used to develop a model for 3-month treatment response defined by the Quick Inventory of Depression Symptomatology Self-Report and a modified Sheehan Disability Scale. The model was developed in a 70% training sample and tested in the remaining 30% test sample. Results: In total, 35.7% of patients responded to treatment. The prediction model had an area under the ROC curve (s.e.) of 0.66 (0.04) in the test sample. A strong gradient in probability (s.e.) of treatment response was found across three subsamples of the test sample using training sample thresholds for high [45.6% (5.5)], intermediate [34.5% (7.6)], and low [11.1% (4.9)] probabilities of response. Baseline symptom severity, comorbidity, treatment characteristics (expectations, history, and aspects of current treatment), and protective/resilience factors were the most important predictors. Conclusions: Although these results are promising, parallel models to predict response to alternative treatments based on data collected before initiating treatment would be needed for such models to help guide treatment selection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fewer than half of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) respond to psychotherapy. Pre-emptively informing patients of their likelihood of responding could be useful as part of a patient-centered treatment decision-support plan. Methods: This prospective observational study examined a national sample of 807 patients beginning psychotherapy for MDD at the Veterans Health Administration. Patients completed a self-report survey at baseline and 3-months follow-up (data collected 2018–2020). We developed a machine learning (ML) model to predict psychotherapy response at 3 months using baseline survey, administrative, and geospatial variables in a 70% training sample. Model performance was then evaluated in the 30% test sample. Results: 32.0% of patients responded to treatment after 3 months. The best ML model had an AUC (SE) of 0.652 (0.038) in the test sample. Among the one-third of patients ranked by the model as most likely to respond, 50.0% in the test sample responded to psychotherapy. In comparison, among the remaining two-thirds of patients, <25% responded to psychotherapy. The model selected 43 predictors, of which nearly all were self-report variables. Conclusions: Patients with MDD could pre-emptively be informed of their likelihood of responding to psychotherapy using a prediction tool based on self-report data. This tool could meaningfully help patients and providers in shared decision-making, although parallel information about the likelihood of responding to alternative treatments would be needed to inform decision-making across multiple treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In sub-Saharan Africa, HIV-infected adults who fail second-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) often do not have access to third-line ART. We examined the clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of making third-line ART available in Côte d'Ivoire.We used a simulation model to compare 4 strategies after second-line ART failure: continue second-line ART (C-ART2), continue second-line ART with an adherence reinforcement intervention (AR-ART2), immediate switch to third-line ART (IS-ART3), and continue second-line ART with adherence reinforcement, switching patients with persistent failure to third-line ART (AR-ART3). Third-line ART consisted of a boosted-darunavir plus raltegravir-based regimen. Primary outcomes were 10-year survival and lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), in $/year of life saved (YLS). ICERs below $3585 (3 times the country per capita gross domestic product) were considered cost-effective.Ten-year survival was 6.0% with C-ART2, 17.0% with AR-ART2, 35.4% with IS-ART3, and 37.2% with AR-ART3. AR-ART2 was cost-effective ($1100/YLS). AR-ART3 had an ICER of $3600/YLS and became cost-effective if the cost of third-line ART decreased by <1%. IS-ART3 was less effective and more costly than AR-ART3. Results were robust to wide variations in the efficacy of third-line ART and of the adherence reinforcement, as well as in the cost of second-line ART.Access to third-line ART combined with an intense adherence reinforcement phase, used as a tool to distinguish between patients who can still benefit from their current second-line regimen and those who truly need third-line ART would provide substantial survival benefits. With minor decreases in drug costs, this strategy would be cost-effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study conducted by the authors related to antiretroviral therapy's (ART) cost effectiveness for serodiscordant HIV positive couple. It states that ART was cost effective over a period of five years in both South Africa and India. It highlights that it was very cost effective if the cost-effectiveness ratio was less than the gross domestic product (GDP).

Objective:To compare the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of routine HIV screening in Portugal to the current practice of targeted and on-demand screening. Design:We used Portuguese national clinical and economic data to conduct a model-based assessment. Methods:We compared current HIV detection practices to strategies of increasingly frequent routine HIV screening in Portuguese adults aged 18-69. We considered several subpopulations and geographic regions with varying levels of undetected HIV prevalence and incidence. Baseline inputs for the national case included undiagnosed HIV prevalence 0.16%, annual incidence 0.03%, mean population age 43 years, mean CD4 count at care initiation 292 cells/μL, 63% HIV test acceptance, 78% linkage to care, and HIV rapid test cost €6 under the proposed routine screening program. Outcomes included quality-adjusted survival, secondary HIV transmission, cost, and incremental cost-effectiveness. Results:One-time national HIV screening increased HIV-infected survival from 164.09 quality-adjusted life months (QALMs) to 166.83 QALMs compared to current practice and had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €28,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Screening more frequently in higher-risk groups was cost-effective: for example screening annually in men who have sex with men or screening every three years in regions with higher incidence and prevalence produced ICERs of €21,000/QALY and €34,000/QALY, respectively. Conclusions:One-time HIV screening in the Portuguese national population will increase survival and is cost-effective by international standards. More frequent screening in higher-risk regions and subpopulations is also justified. Given Portugal’s challenging economic priorities, we recommend prioritizing screening in higher-risk populations and geographic settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]