Search

Aim: Pharmacotherapy is the primary treatment strategy in major depression. However, two‐thirds of patients remain depressed after the initial antidepressant treatment. Augmented cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for pharmacotherapy‐resistant depression in primary mental health care settings proved effective and cost‐effective. Although we reported the clinical effectiveness of augmented CBT in secondary mental health care, its cost‐effectiveness has not been evaluated. Therefore, we aimed to compare the cost‐effectiveness of augmented CBT adjunctive to treatment as usual (TAU) and TAU alone for pharmacotherapy‐resistant depression at secondary mental health care settings. Methods: We performed a cost‐effectiveness analysis at 64 weeks, alongside a randomized controlled trial involving 80 patients who sought depression treatment at a university hospital and psychiatric hospital (one each). The cost‐effectiveness was assessed by the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER) that compared the difference in costs and quality‐adjusted life years, and other clinical scales, between the groups. Results: The ICERs were JPY −15 278 322 and 2 026 865 for pharmacotherapy‐resistant depression for all samples and those with moderate/severe symptoms at baseline, respectively. The acceptability curve demonstrates a 0.221 and 0.701 probability of the augmented CBT being cost‐effective for all samples and moderate/severe depression, respectively, at the threshold of JPY 4.57 million (GBP 30 000). The sensitivity analysis supported the robustness of our results restricting for moderate/severe depression. Conclusion: Augmented CBT for pharmacotherapy‐resistant depression is not cost‐effective for all samples including mild depression. In contrast, it appeared to be cost‐effective for the patients currently manifesting moderate/severe symptoms under secondary mental health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Although the efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia has been confirmed, dissemination depends on the balance of benefits and costs. This study aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia consisting of four weekly individual sessions. Methods We conducted a 4-week randomized controlled trial with a 4-week follow up in outpatient clinics in Japan. Thirty-seven patients diagnosed as having major depressive disorder according to DSM-IV and suffering from chronic insomnia were randomized to receive either treatment as usual ( TAU) alone or TAU plus cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia. Effectiveness was evaluated as quality-adjusted life years ( QALY) over 8 weeks' time, estimated by bootstrapping of the observed total scores of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale. Direct medical costs for cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia and TAU were also evaluated. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Results Over the 8 weeks of the study, the group receiving cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia plus TAU had significantly higher QALY ( P = 0.002) than the TAU-alone group with an incremental value of 0.019 ( SD 0.006), and had non-significantly higher costs with an incremental value of 254 ( SD 203) USD in direct costs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 13 678 USD (95% confidence interval: −5691 to 71 316). Adding cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia demonstrated an approximately 95% chance of gaining one more QALY if a decision-maker was willing to pay 60 000 USD, and approximately 90% for 40 000 USD. Conclusion Adding cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia is highly likely to be cost-effective for patients with residual insomnia and concomitant depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Schizophrenia is a disorder that produces considerable burdens due to its often relapsing/remitting or chronic longitudinal course. This burden is felt not only by patients themselves, but also by their families and health care systems. Although the societal burden caused by this disorder has been evaluated in several countries, the magnitude of the societal cost of schizophrenia in Japan has never been estimated. The aim of this study is to clarify the societal burden of schizophrenia by estimating the cost of schizophrenia in Japan in 2008. Methods: A human capital approach was adopted to estimate the cost of schizophrenia. The total cost of schizophrenia was calculated as the sum of the direct, morbidity, and mortality costs. Schizophrenia was defined as disorders coded as F20.0-F20.9 according to the International Classification of Diseases-10. The data required to estimate the total cost was collected from publicly available statistics or previously reported studies. Results: The total cost of schizophrenia in Japan in 2008 was JPY 2.77 trillion (USD 23.8 billion). While the direct cost was JPY 0.770 trillion (USD 6.59 billion), the morbidity and mortality costs were JPY 1.85 trillion (USD 15.8 billion) and JPY 0.155 trillion (USD 1.33 billion), respectively. Conclusion: The societal burden caused by schizophrenia is tremendous in Japan, similar to that in other developed countries where published data exist. Compared with other disorders, such as depression or anxiety disorders, the direct cost accounted for a relatively high proportion of the total cost. Furthermore, absolute costs arising from unemployment were larger, while the prevalence rate was smaller, than the corresponding results for depression or anxiety in Japan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The societal burden caused by anxiety disorders has likely been underestimated, while those for schizophrenia and depression have received more attention. Anxiety disorders represent a significant illness category that occurs at a high prevalence and poses a considerable burden. However, the cost of anxiety disorders in Japan has not yet been well researched. The goal of the present study was to estimate the total cost of anxiety disorders in Japan and to clarify the characteristics of this burden. Method A prevalence-based approach was adopted to measure the total cost of anxiety disorders. Anxiety disorders were defined as diagnosis code F40.0-F41.9 according to the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision. The cost was comprised of the following components: medical treatment costs and social service costs as direct costs, and morbidity and mortality costs as indirect costs. Data were collected from publicly available statistics. Results The total cost of anxiety disorders in Japan in 2008 was JPY 2.4 trillion (US$ 29.2 billion at the current exchange rate of US$1 = \82). The direct cost was JPY 50 billion. The morbidity cost was JPY 2.1 trillion, while the mortality cost was JPY 0.24 trillion. Conclusions The social burden caused by anxiety disorders in Japan is tremendous and is similar to that of other mental disorders. Productivity loss in the workplace represents the largest portion of all the cost components. Because the medical examination rate is quite low, the improvement of healthcare access might contribute to cost mitigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Empirical support for cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for treating Japanese patients with major depression is lacking, therefore, a feasibility study of CBT for depression in Japanese clinical settings is urgently required. Findings: A culturally adapted, 16-week manualized individual CBT program for Japanese patients with major depressive disorder was developed. A total of 27 patients with major depression were enrolled in a single-group study with the purpose of testing the feasibility of the program. Twenty six patients (96%) completed the study. The mean total score on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) for all patients (Intention-to-treat sample) improved from 32.6 to 11.7, with a mean change of 20.8 (95% confidence interval: 17.0 to 24.8). Within-group effect size at the endpoint assessment was 2.64 (Cohen's d). Twenty-one patients (77.7%) showed treatment response and 17 patients (63.0%) achieved remission at the end of the program. Significant improvement was observed in measurement of subjective and objective depression severity (assessed by BDI-II, Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Self Rated, and Hamilton Depression Rating Scale), dysfunctional attitude (assessed by Dysfunctional Attitude Scale), global functioning (assessed by Global Assessment of Functioning of DSM-IV) and subjective well-being (assessed by WHO Subjective Well-being Inventory) (all p values < 0.001). Conclusions: Our manualized treatment comprised of a 16-week individual CBT program for major depression appears feasible and may achieve favorable treatment outcomes among Japanese patients with major depression. Further research involving a larger sample in a randomized, controlled trial design is warranted. Trial registration: UMIN-CTR UMIN000002542. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Major depression is expected to become the second leading contributor to disease burden worldwide by 2020. Only a few studies, however, have compared the cost-effectiveness of a combination of cognitive behavioural therapy and antidepressant therapy versus antidepressant therapy alone. The purpose of the present study was therefore to analyse cost-effectiveness, from the perspective of the health-care system and also from a social perspective, comparing combined cognitive behavioural therapy + antidepressant therapy and antidepressant therapy alone in the Japanese setting. Method: A formal decision analytical model was constructed. The analyses were performed from both the perspective of the health-care system and the societal perspective. The clinical outcomes were determined from published articles and reports of expert panels. Because no patient-level data were available, deterministic costing of the different treatment strategies was carried out. Cost-effectiveness was assessed first by determining the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per successfully treated patient, and then by the ICER per quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results: The combined therapy increased the rate of successfully treated patients, QALY of severe depression and QALY of moderate depression by 0.15, 0.08 and 0.04, respectively. The combined therapy proved to be more expensive from the health-care system perspective, but the incremental costs were completely offset by the considerable reduction of productivity loss from the social perspective. From the health-care perspective, the ICER per successfully treated patient, ICER per QALY of severe depression and ICER per QALY of moderate depression were JPY 140 418, JPY 268 550 and JPY 537 100, respectively. All the ICERs appeared to be negative from the social perspective. Conclusion: The combined therapy appeared to be cost-effective from the health-care system perspective and the dominant strategy from the social perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It is not clear which method is more cost-effective: To initially provide all depressed patients with combination therapy (COMB; i.e. cognitive behavioural therapy plus pharmacotherapy), followed by antidepressant treatment (AD) for those still in depression; or, to first provide AD for all patients, followed by COMB for non-remission patients. The aim is to investigate whether a COMB-first strategy would be more cost-effective than an AD-first strategy, in treating depression.Methods: A Markov model was developed to perform the analysis. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at 104 weeks. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis were performed, to investigate the uncertainty associated with the clinical parameters and the impact of CBT's cost on the results, respectively.Results: The ICER per QALY at 104 week, was JPY 591,822 (USD 5,725) for moderate depression and JPY 499,487 (USD 4,832) for severe one. The scenario analysis revealed the ICER became JPY 1,147,518 (USD 11,101) for moderate and JPY 968,484 (USD 9,369) for severe when the CBT cost was set as JPY 14,400 (USD 139)(i.e. GBP 96: the unit cost of CBT in UK), which is well below the threshold recommended by NICE (i.e. GBP 20,000-30,000).Limitations: This is a model-based analysis which was conducted from the health insurance perspective. Then, the analysis from the societal perspective would generate different results.Conclusions: The results suggest that a COMB-first strategy would be more cost effective than an AD-first strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on the mental health of people around the world. Anxiety related to infection, stress and stigma caused by the forced changes in daily life have reportedly increased the incidence and symptoms of depression, anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Under such circumstances, telepsychiatry is gaining importance and attracting a great deal of attention. However, few large pragmatic clinical trials on the use of telepsychiatry targeting multiple psychiatric disorders have been conducted to date. The targeted study cohort will consist of adults (>18 years) who meet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for either (1) depressive disorders, (2) anxiety disorders, or (3) obsessive-compulsive and related disorders. Patients will be assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a "telepsychiatry group" (at least 50% of treatments to be conducted using telemedicine, with at least one face-to-face treatment [FTF] within six months) or an "FTF group" (all treatments to be conducted FTF, with no telemedicine). Both groups will receive the usual treatment covered by public medical insurance. The study will utilize a master protocol design in that there will be primary and secondary outcomes for the entire group regardless of diagnosis, as well as the outcomes for each individual disorder group. This study will be a non-inferiority trial to test that the treatment effect of telepsychiatry is not inferior to that of FTF alone. This study will provide useful insights into the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the practice of psychiatry. jRCT1030210037, Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]