Search

Background: Depression and chronic musculoskeletal pain commonly occur as comorbid conditions, which increases their negative effects on health outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the DROP (DepRessiOn and Pain) programme designed for the management of major depression and chronic musculoskeletal pain in primary care., Methods: A cluster-randomised controlled trial was carried out between June 2015 and December 2017 with 328 patients with major depression and chronic musculoskeletal pain, randomly allocated to either intervention arm or usual care arm. The intervention included care management, optimised management of depression, and a psychoeducational programme. Outcomes were monitored using blinded interviews over a 12-month period., Trial Registration: NCT02605278 (ClinicalTrials.gov)., Results: After 12 months, 274 patients were evaluated (83.5% participation). The severity of depression (Hopkins Symptom Checklist score) was 0.23 points lower in the intervention arm [1.11 vs. 1.34; CI95% = -0.42 to -0.04]. Intervention arm's response rate to antidepressant treatment was 18.9% higher [39.6% vs. 20.7%; OR = 2.74; CI95% = 1.12-6.67] and its remission rate for depression was 9.0% higher [20.1% vs. 11.1%; OR = 2.13; CI95% = 0.94-4.85] compared to the usual care arm. There were no significant differences between the two arms in terms of pain severity (Brief Pain Inventory severity score) [6.23 vs. 6.66; difference = -0.39; CI95% = -1.13-0.35] or pain response rate [18.7% vs. 18.5%; OR = 1.02; CI95% = 0.46-2.26]., Limitations: This is a pragmatic study, and poor adherence to the programme by patients and physicians was a main limitation., Conclusion: The programme improves clinical outcomes for depression, although no clinical benefits were seen for pain., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: A collaborative care programme for depression in primary care has proven clinical effectiveness over a 12-months period. Because depression tends to relapse and to chronic course, our aim was to determine whether the effectiveness observed in the first year persists during 3 years of monitoring., Methods: Randomised controlled trial with twenty primary care centres were allocated to intervention group or usual care group. The intervention consisted of a collaborative care programme with clinical, educational and organisational procedures. Outcomes were monitored by a blinded interviewer at baseline, 12 and 36 months. Clinical outcomes were response to treatment and remission rates, depression severity and health-related quality of life., Trial Registration: ISRCTN16384353., Results: A total of 338 adult patients with major depression (DSM-IV) were assessed at baseline. At 36 months, 137 patients in the intervention group and 97 in the control group were assessed (attrition 31%). The severity of depression (mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score) was 0.95 points lower in the intervention group [6.31 versus 7.25; p=0.324]. The treatment response rate was 5.6% higher in the intervention group than in the control group [66.4% versus 60.8%; p=0.379] and the remission rate was 9.2% higher [57.7% versus 48.5%; p=0.164]. No difference reached statistical significance., Limitations: The number of patients lost (31%) before follow-up may have introduced a bias., Conclusions: Clinical benefits shown in the first year were not maintained beyond: at 36 months the differences between the control group and the intervention group reduced in all the analysed variables., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Collaborative care programmes lead to better outcomes in the management of depression. A programme of this nature has demonstrated its effectiveness in primary care in Spain. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of this programme compared to usual care., Methods: A bottom-up cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted within a randomized controlled trial (2007-2010). The intervention consisted of a collaborative care programme with clinical, educational and organizational procedures. Outcomes were monitored over a 12 months period. Primary outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER): mean differences in costs divided by quality-adjusted life years (QALY) and mean differences in costs divided by depression-free days (DFD). Analyses were performed from a healthcare system perspective (considering healthcare costs) and from a society perspective (including healthcare costs plus loss of productivity costs)., Results: Three hundred and thirty-eight adult patients with major depression were assessed at baseline. Only patients with complete data were included in the primary analysis (166 in the intervention group and 126 in the control group). From a healthcare perspective, the average incremental cost of the programme compared to usual care was €182.53 (p<0.001). Incremental effectiveness was 0.045 QALY (p=0.017) and 40.09 DFD (p=0.011). ICERs were €4,056/QALY and €4.55/DFD. These estimates and their uncertainty are graphically represented in the cost-effectiveness plane., Limitations: The amount of 13.6% of patients with incomplete data may have introduced a bias. Available data about non-healthcare costs were limited, although they may represent most of the total cost of depression., Conclusions: The intervention yields better outcomes than usual care with a modest increase in costs, resulting in favourable ICERs. This supports the recommendation for its implementation., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: There are significant shortcomings in the management and clinical outcomes of depressed patients. The objective is to assess the effectiveness of a multi-component programme to improve the management of depression in primary care., Methods: This is a cluster-randomized controlled trial, conducted between June 2007 and June 2010. Twenty primary care centres were allocated to intervention group or usual care group. The intervention consisted of a multi-component programme with clinical, educational and organizational procedures including primary care nurses working as case-managers. Outcomes were monitored by a blinded interviewer at 0, 3, 6 and 12 months., Trial Registration: ISRCTN16384353, at http://isrctn.org., Results: In total, 338 adult patients with major depression (DSM-IV) were assessed at baseline. At 12 months, 302 patients were assessed, 172 in the intervention group and 130 in the control group. The severity of depression (mean Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score) was 1.76 points lower in the intervention group [7.15 vs. 8.78, 95% CI=-3.53 to 0.02, p=0.053]. The treatment response rate was 15.4% higher in the intervention group than in the controls [66.9% vs. 51.5%, odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI=1.2 to 3.1, p=0.011)], and the remission rate was 13.4% higher [48.8% vs. 35.4%, odds ratio 1.8, 95% CI=1.1 to 2.9, p=0.026)]., Limitations: Unblinded physicians diagnosed depression in their patients and decided whether to include them in the study, so we cannot discount a hidden selection bias., Conclusions: The programme for managing depression leads to better clinical outcomes in patients with major depression in primary care settings., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)