Search

Background: The prevalence of depression is gradually increasing worldwide with an increasing utilization of antidepressants. Nevertheless, despite their lower costs, generic-brand antidepressants were reported to be less prescribed. We aimed to examine the costs of reference- versus generic-brand antidepressant prescriptions in primary care practice., Methods: This cross-sectional study included electronic prescriptions for adult patients that contained antidepressants (World Health Organization's Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) code: N06A), which were generated by a systematically selected sample of primary care doctors ( n = 1431) in Istanbul in 2016. We examined the drug groups preferred, the reference- versus generic-brand status, and pharmacotherapy costs., Findings: The majority of the prescriptions were prescribed for women (71.8%), and the average age of the patients was 53.6 ± 16.2 years. In prescriptions with a depression-related indication ( n = 40 497), the mean number and cost of drugs were 1.5 ± 1.0 and 22.7 ± 26.4 United States Dollar ($) per prescription, respectively. In these prescriptions, the mean number and cost of antidepressants per encounter were 1.1 ± 0.2 and $17.0 ± 13.2, respectively. Reference-brand antidepressants were preferred in 58.2% of depression-related prescriptions, where the mean cost per prescription was $18.3 ± 12.4. The mean cost per prescription of the generics, which constituted 41.8% of the antidepressants in prescriptions, was $15.1 ± 11.4. We found that if the generic version with the lowest cost was prescribed instead of the reference-brand, the mean cost per prescription would be $12.9 ± 11.2., Conclusions: Our study highlighted the substantial pharmacoeconomic impact of generic-brand antidepressant prescribing, whose preference over reference-brands could reduce the cost of antidepressant medication treatment by 17.5% in primary care, which could be approximately doubled if the cheapest generic antidepressant had been prescribed.

Background: Depressed patients often focus on negative life events. Effective antidepressant therapy reverses this negative emotional bias (NEB) within 1 week. Clinical therapeutic effect usually requires 4-6 weeks. The value of implementing NEB monitoring for the personalisation of antidepressant therapy is unknown., Objective: To estimate the likely outcome and cost consequences of adopting the P1vital Oxford Emotional Test Battery (ETB) for this purpose in routine primary care in England., Methods: A hybrid decision analytic model (decision tree plus Markov model) was developed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of ETB monitoring versus no ETB over 52 weeks using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Differences in depression severity, episode type and analytical perspectives were considered. Input data were derived from relevant guidelines, literature, national databases, expert opinion and the developers for the year 2013. Multiple sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty., Findings: The mean number of ETB tests is 2.162 per newly diagnosed patient and 2.166 per patient with recurrent depression. The incremental cost-effectiveness of ETB versus 'no ETB' is £4355/QALY from the healthcare perspective. From the broader societal perspective, ETB is more effective and cost saving., Conclusions: Monitoring negative emotional bias in primary care in England for personalised antidepressant treatment using ETB seems as an effective and cost-effective option under all considered scenarios (including worst case). Its main economic value seems to lie in reduced productivity loss as opposed to healthcare savings., Clinical Implications: The test supports accelerated application of evidence-based depression care. Further optimisation and implementation in the ongoing European PReDicT trial is ongoing., Competing Interests: Competing interests: GRD, JK and CTD own shares in P1vital Products Ltd. JK is an employee of P1vital Products Ltd. GRD, CTD, GMG and CJH own shares in P1vital Ltd. GRD and CTD are employees of P1vital Ltd., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of antidepressants vs active monitoring (AM) for patients with mild-moderate major depressive disorder., Methods: This was a 12-month observational prospective controlled trial. Adult patients with a new episode of major depression were invited to participate and assigned to AM or antidepressants according to General Practitioners' clinical judgment and experience. Patients were evaluated at baseline, and 6 and 12-month follow-up. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were estimated and used to calculate incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) from the healthcare and government perspective. To minimize the bias resulting from non-randomization, a propensity score-based method was used., Results: At 6 and 12-month follow-up, ICUR was 2549 €/QALY and 6,142 €/QALY, respectively, in favor of antidepressants. At 6 months, for a willingness to pay (WTP) of 25,000 €/QALY, antidepressants had a probability of 0.89 (healthcare perspective) and 0.81 (government perspective) of being more cost-effective than AM. At 12 months, this probability was 0.86 (healthcare perspective) and 0.73 (government perspective)., Conclusions: Incremental cost-utility ratios favor pharmacological treatment as a first-line approach for patients with mild-moderate major depressive disorder. While our results should be interpreted with caution and further real world research is needed, clinical practice guidelines should consider antidepressant therapy for mild-moderate major depressive patients as an alternative to active monitoring in PC.

Background: Depressive symptoms are common in older adults. The effectiveness of pharmacological treatments and the availability of psychological treatments in primary care are limited. A behavioural approach to depression treatment might be beneficial to many older adults but such care is still largely unavailable. Behavioural Activation (BA) protocols are less complicated and more easy to train than other psychological therapies, making them very suitable for delivery by less specialised therapists. The recent introduction of the mental health nurse in primary care centres in the Netherlands has created major opportunities for improving the accessibility of psychological treatments for late-life depression in primary care. BA may thus address the needs of older patients while improving treatment outcome and lowering costs.The primary objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BA in comparison with treatment as usual (TAU) for late-life depression in Dutch primary care. A secondary goal is to explore several potential mechanisms of change, as well as predictors and moderators of treatment outcome of BA for late-life depression., Methods/design: Cluster-randomised controlled multicentre trial with two parallel groups: a) behavioural activation, and b) treatment as usual, conducted in primary care centres with a follow-up of 52 weeks. The main inclusion criterion is a PHQ-9 score > 9. Patients are excluded from the trial in case of severe mental illness that requires specialized treatment, high suicide risk, drug and/or alcohol abuse, prior psychotherapy, change in dosage or type of prescribed antidepressants in the previous 12 weeks, or moderate to severe cognitive impairment. The intervention consists of 8 weekly 30-min BA sessions delivered by a trained mental health nurse., Discussion: We expect BA to be an effective and cost-effective treatment for late-life depression compared to TAU. BA delivered by mental health nurses could increase the availability and accessibility of non-pharmacological treatments for late-life depression in primary care., Trial Registration: This study is retrospectively registered in the Dutch Clinical Trial Register NTR6013 on August 25th 2016.

Background: Depression accounts for the greatest disease burden of all mental health disorders, contributes heavily to healthcare costs, and by 2020 is set to become the second largest cause of global disability. Although 10% to 16% of people aged 65 years and over are likely to experience depressive symptoms, the condition is under-diagnosed and often inadequately treated in primary care. Later-life depression is associated with chronic illness and disability, cognitive impairment and social isolation. With a progressively ageing population it becomes increasingly important to refine strategies to identity and manage depression in older people. Currently, management may be limited to the prescription of antidepressants where there may be poor concordance; older people may lack awareness of psychosocial interventions and general practitioners may neglect to offer this treatment option., Methods/design: CASPER Plus is a multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of a collaborative care intervention for individuals aged 65 years and over experiencing moderate to severe depression. Selected practices in the North of England identify potentially eligible patients and invite them to participate in the study. A diagnostic interview is carried out and participants with major depressive disorder are randomised to either collaborative care or usual care. The recruitment target is 450 participants. The intervention, behavioural activation and medication management in a collaborative care framework, has been adapted to meet the complex needs of older people. It is delivered over eight to 10 weekly sessions by a case manager liaising with general practitioners. The trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of collaborative care in addition to usual GP care versus usual GP care alone. The primary clinical outcome, depression severity, will be measured with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) at baseline, 4, 12 and 18 months. Cost effectiveness analysis will assess health-related quality of life using the SF-12 and EQ-5D and will examine cost-consequences of collaborative care. A qualitative process evaluation will be undertaken to explore acceptability, gauge the extent to which the intervention is implemented and to explore sustainability beyond the clinical trial., Discussion: Results will add to existing evidence and a positive outcome may lead to the commissioning of this model of service in primary care., Trial Registration: ISRCTN45842879 (24 July 2012).

Background: Antidepressant prescriptions have increased exponentially, burdening health care costs., Objective: To evaluate the costs and effects of an antidepressant cessation advice in case of inappropriate long-term use in primary care, i.e. long-term usage without a (current) indication., Methods: A economic evaluation during 1-year follow-up was performed, from a societal perspective, as part of a cluster-randomised controlled clinical trial (PANDA). Costs were assessed using the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for costs associated with psychiatric illness. Health-related quality of life was measured using the EuroQol 5D. Outcome was costs per quality adjusted life year (QALY). Missing values were estimated using multiple imputation, bootstrap simulations were performed to address the uncertainty surrounding the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs)., Results: There was no difference in average QALYs between the intervention (0.70) and control group (0.72) [difference -0.02 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.10)]. The intervention group, however, was less expensive than the control group (total costs €3636 versus €5267, respectively). Most cost-effectiveness pairs were located in the south-west quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane, implying the intervention was less effective but also less costly. The ICER of the pooled data was €70,180, meaning that for one QALY lost, €70,180 is saved., Conclusions: This study shows that an antidepressant cessation advice given to patients (and their FPs) with inappropriate long-term antidepressant usage, albeit not effective, does seem to result in a reduction of societal costs. This reduction in costs is mostly due to reduction of productivity losses, possibly due to patient empowerment and loss of stigma., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Depression is expensive to treat, but providing ineffective treatment is more expensive. Such is the case for many patients who do not respond to antidepressant medication., Aims: To assess the cost-effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) plus usual care for primary care patients with treatment-resistant depression compared with usual care alone., Method: Economic evaluation at 12 months alongside a randomised controlled trial. Cost-effectiveness assessed using a cost-consequences framework comparing cost to the health and social care provider, patients and society, with a range of outcomes. Cost-utility analysis comparing health and social care costs with quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)., Results: The mean cost of CBT per participant was £910. The difference in QALY gain between the groups was 0.057, equivalent to 21 days a year of good health. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £14 911 (representing a 74% probability of the intervention being cost-effective at the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20 000 per QALY). Loss of earnings and productivity costs were substantial but there was no evidence of a difference between intervention and control groups., Conclusions: The addition of CBT to usual care is cost-effective in patients who have not responded to antidepressants. Primary care physicians should therefore be encouraged to refer such individuals for CBT.

Objective: To compare the clinical effectiveness of collaborative care with usual care in the management of patients with moderate to severe depression., Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial., Setting: 51 primary care practices in three primary care districts in the United Kingdom., Participants: 581 adults aged 18 years and older who met ICD-10 (international classification of diseases, 10th revision) criteria for a depressive episode on the revised Clinical Interview Schedule. We excluded acutely suicidal patients and those with psychosis, or with type I or type II bipolar disorder; patients whose low mood was associated with bereavement or whose primary presenting problem was alcohol or drug abuse; and patients receiving psychological treatment for their depression by specialist mental health services. We identified potentially eligible participants by searching computerised case records in general practices for patients with depression., Interventions: Collaborative care, including depression education, drug management, behavioural activation, relapse prevention, and primary care liaison, was delivered by care managers. Collaborative care involved six to 12 contacts with participants over 14 weeks, supervised by mental health specialists. Usual care was family doctors' standard clinical practice., Main Outcome Measures: Depression symptoms (patient health questionnaire 9; PHQ-9), anxiety (generalised anxiety disorder 7; GAD-7), and quality of life (short form 36 questionnaire; SF-36) at four and 12 months; satisfaction with service quality (client satisfaction questionnaire; CSQ-8) at four months., Results: 276 participants were allocated to collaborative care and 305 allocated to usual care. At four months, mean depression score was 11.1 (standard deviation 7.3) for the collaborative care group and 12.7 (6.8) for the usual care group. After adjustment for baseline depression, mean depression score was 1.33 PHQ-9 points lower (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 2.31, P=0.009) in participants receiving collaborative care than in those receiving usual care at four months, and 1.36 points lower (0.07 to 2.64, P=0.04) at 12 months. Quality of mental health but not physical health was significantly better for collaborative care than for usual care at four months, but not 12 months. Anxiety did not differ between groups. Participants receiving collaborative care were significantly more satisfied with treatment than those receiving usual care. The number needed to treat for one patient to drop below the accepted diagnostic threshold for depression on the PHQ-9 was 8.4 immediately after treatment, and 6.5 at 12 months., Conclusions: Collaborative care has persistent positive effects up to 12 months after initiation of the intervention and is preferred by patients over usual care., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN32829227.

The bulk of mental health services for people with depression are provided in primary care settings. Primary care providers prescribe 79 percent of antidepressant medications and see 60 percent of people being treated for depression in the United States, and they do that with little support from specialist services. Depression is not effectively managed in the primary care setting. Collaborative care based on a team approach, a population health perspective, and measurement-based care has been proven to treat depression more effectively than care as usual in a variety of settings and for different populations, and it increases people's access to medications and behavioral therapies. Psychiatry has the responsibility of supporting the primary care sector in delivering mental health services by disseminating collaborative care approaches under recent initiatives and opportunities made possible by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Objective: To determine effectiveness and cost-effectiveness over a one-year time horizon of pharmacological first line treatment in primary care for patients with moderate to severe depression., Design: A multiple treatment comparison meta-analysis was employed to determine the relative efficacy in terms of remission of 10 antidepressants (citalopram, duloxetine escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine mirtazapine, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline and venlafaxine). The estimated remission rates were then applied in a decision-analytic model in order to estimate costs and quality of life with different treatments at one year., Data Sources: Meta-analyses of remission rates from randomised controlled trials, and cost and quality-of-life data from published sources., Results: The most favourable pharmacological treatment in terms of remission was escitalopram with an 8- to 12-week probability of remission of 0.47. Despite a high acquisition cost, this clinical effectiveness translated into escitalopram being both more effective and having a lower total cost than all other comparators from a societal perspective. From a healthcare perspective, the cost per QALY of escitalopram was €3732 compared with venlafaxine., Conclusion: Of the investigated antidepressants, escitalopram has the highest probability of remission and is the most effective and cost-effective pharmacological treatment in a primary care setting, when evaluated over a one year time-horizon. Small differences in remission rates may be important when assessing costs and cost-effectiveness of antidepressants.

Objectives: This study analyzed the role of patient and physician characteristics associated with the purchase of antidepressant or antianxiety medications in Israel, a country that has a universal health care system., Methods: A national sample of 30,000 primary care patients over the age of 22 was randomly drawn from the registry of the largest health care fund in Israel. Data concerning medication purchase between January and December 2006 were extracted. Physician and patient characteristics were merged with Israel's unique identification number. Multilevel analysis was conducted to identify patient- and physician-level predictors of medication purchase., Results: Overall, 19% (N = 4,762) of the sample purchased antidepressant or antianxiety medications. Individuals with greater general medical and psychiatric comorbidity were more likely to purchase antidepressant or antianxiety medications. Older adults, women, those of higher socioeconomic status, and immigrants (with the exception of Jews born in Asia or Africa) were also more likely to purchase medications. Arabs and Jews born in Asia and Africa were less likely to purchase medications even after all other variables were accounted for. Physician characteristics were minimally associated with the purchase of medications., Conclusions: The findings demonstrate that despite universal health care access, there were variations by population groups. Educational efforts should target patients as well as physicians.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to establish the relative safety and balance of risks for antidepressant treatment in older people. The study objectives were to (1) determine relative and absolute risks of predefined adverse events in older people with depression, comparing classes of antidepressant drugs [tricyclic and related antidepressants (TCAs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) and other antidepressants] and commonly prescribed individual drugs with non-use of antidepressant drugs; (2) directly compare the risk of adverse events for SSRIs with TCAs; (3) determine associations with dose and duration of antidepressant medication; (4) describe patterns of antidepressant use in older people with depression; and (5) estimate costs of antidepressant medication and primary care visits., Design: A cohort study of patients aged 65 years and over diagnosed with depression., Setting: The study was based in 570 general practices in the UK supplying data to the QResearch database., Participants: Patients diagnosed with a new episode of depression between the ages of 65 and 100 years, from 1 January 1996 to 31 December 2007. Participants were followed up until 31 December 2008., Interventions: The exposure of interest was treatment with antidepressant medication. Antidepressant drugs were grouped into the major classes and commonly prescribed individual drugs were identified., Main Outcome Measures: There were 13 predefined outcome measures: all-cause mortality, sudden cardiac death, suicide, attempted suicide/self-harm, myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischaemic attack (TIA), falls, fractures, upper gastrointestinal bleeding, epilepsy/seizures, road traffic accidents, adverse drug reactions and hyponatraemia., Results: In total, 60,746 patients were included in the study cohort. Of these, 54,038 (89.0%) received at least one prescription for an antidepressant during follow-up. The associations with the adverse outcomes were significantly different between the classes of antidepressant drugs for seven outcomes. SSRIs were associated with the highest adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for falls [1.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.58 to 1.73] and hyponatraemia (1.52, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.75), and the group of other antidepressants was associated with the highest HRs for all-cause mortality (1.66, 95% CI 1.56 to 1.77), attempted suicide/self-harm (5.16, 95% CI 3.90 to 6.83), stroke/TIA (1.37, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.55), fracture (1.63, 95% CI 1.45 to 1.83) and epilepsy/seizures (2.24, 95% CI 1.60 to 3.15) compared with when antidepressants were not being used. TCAs did not have the highest HR for any of the outcomes. There were also significantly different associations between the individual drugs for seven outcomes, with trazodone, mirtazapine and venlafaxine associated with the highest rates for several of these outcomes. The mean incremental cost (for all antidepressant prescriptions) ranged between £51.58 (amitriptyline) and £641.18 (venlafaxine) over the 5-year post-diagnosis period., Conclusions: This study found associations between use of antidepressant drugs and a number of adverse events in older people. There was no evidence that SSRIs or drugs in the group of other antidepressants were associated with a reduced risk of any of the adverse outcomes compared with TCAs; however, they may be associated with an increased risk for certain outcomes. Among individual drugs trazodone, mirtazapine and venlafaxine were associated with the highest rates for some outcomes. Indication bias and residual confounding may explain some of the study findings. The risks of prescribing antidepressants need to be weighed against the potential benefits of these drugs., Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background: Stress-related mental health problems negatively impact quality of life and productivity. Worldwide, treatment is often sought in primary care. Our objective was to determine whether a general practitioner-based minimal intervention for workers with stress-related sick leave (MISS) was cost-effective compared to usual care (UC)., Methods: We conducted an economic evaluation from a societal perspective. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and resource use were measured by the EuroQol and cost diaries, respectively. Uncertainty was estimated by 95% confidence intervals, cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves. Sensitivity analyses and ancillary analyses based on preplanned subgroups were performed., Results: No statistically significant differences in costs or QALYs were observed. The mean incremental cost per QALY was -euro 7356 and located in the southeast quadrant of the cost-effectiveness plane, whereby the intervention was slightly more effective and less costly. For willingness-to-pay (lambda) thresholds from euro 0 to euro 100,000, the probability of MISS being cost-effective was 0.58-0.90. For the preplanned subgroup of patients diagnosed with stress-related mental disorders, the incremental ratio was -euro 28,278, again in the southeast quadrant. Corresponding probabilities were 0.92 or greater., Limitations: Non-significant findings may be related to poor implementation of the MISS intervention and low power. Also, work-presenteeism and unpaid labor were not measured., Conclusions: The minimal intervention was not cost-effective compared to usual care for a heterogeneous patient population. Therefore, we do not recommend widespread implementation. However, the intervention may be cost-effective for the subgroup stress-related mental disorders. This finding should be confirmed before implementation for this subgroup is considered.

Background: Major depression is a prevalent mental disorder with a high risk of relapses and recurrences, which are associated with considerable burden for patients and high costs for society. Despite these negative consequences, only few studies have focused on interventions aimed at the prevention of recurrences in primary care patients with depression., Aims of the Study: To assess the cost-effectiveness of a psychoeducational prevention program (PEP) aimed at improving the long-term outcome of depression in primary care., Methods: Recruitment took place in the northern part of the Netherlands, patients were referred by general practitioners. In total 267 patients were included in the study and randomly assigned to usual care (UC) or UC with one of three forms of PEP; PEP alone, psychiatric consultation followed by PEP (psychiatrist-enhanced PEP), and cognitive behavioral therapy followed by PEP (CBT-enhanced PEP). Costs and health outcomes were registered at three month intervals during the 36 months follow-up of the study. Primary outcome measure was the proportion of depression-free time., Results: Mean total costs during the 36 months of the study were 8200 euros in the UC group, 9816 euros in the PEP group, 9844 euros in the psychiatrist-enhanced PEP group, and 9254 euros in the CBT-enhanced PEP group. Costs of productivity losses, hospital admissions, contacts with regional institutions for mental healthcare, and medication use contributed substantially to the total costs in each group. Results of the primary outcome measure were less positive for PEP than for UC, but slightly better in the enhanced PEP groups. If decision-makers are willing to pay up to 300 euros for an additional proportion of depression-free time, UC is most likely to be the optimal intervention. For higher willingness to pay, CBT-enhanced PEP seems most efficient., Discussion: The basic PEP intervention was not cost-effective in comparison with UC. The economic impact of productivity losses associated with depression, and the importance of including these costs in economic studies, was illustrated by the findings of this study. Due to the drop-out of patients during the 36 months follow-up period, economic analyses had to account for missing data, which may complicate the interpretation of the results. Although Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) could not be assessed for all the patients, the results of analyses focusing on QALYs supported the overall conclusion that PEP is not cost-effective. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH CARE PROVISION AND POLICIES: Results indicated that PEP should not be implemented in the Dutch healthcare system. Furthermore, is seems highly unlikely that PEP could be cost-effective in other (comparable) European healthcare systems., Implications for Further Research: The relatively positive economic results for CBT-enhanced PEP imply that UC enriched with CBT (but without PEP) might be cost-effective in preventing relapses in primary care patients with depression. The actual consequences of CBT for relapse prevention will have to be studied in further detail, both from a clinical and economic point of view.

Context: Effectiveness of organized depression care programs is well established, but dissemination will depend on the balance of benefits and costs., Objectives: To estimate the incremental benefit, incremental cost, and net benefit of 2 depression care programs., Design: Randomized trial comparing 2 interventions with continued usual care, conducted between November 2000 and June 2004., Setting: Seven primary care clinics of a prepaid health care plan in Washington., Participants: Consecutive primary care patients starting antidepressant treatment were invited to a telephone assessment 2 weeks later. Of 634 patients with significant depressive symptoms, 600 consented and were randomized., Interventions: The telephone care management intervention included up to 5 outreach calls for monitoring and support, feedback to treating physicians, and care coordination. The care management plus telephone psychotherapy intervention added an 8-session structured cognitive behavioral therapy program with up to 4 additional calls for reinforcement., Main Outcome Measures: Independent, blinded telephone assessments at 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 18 months included the Symptom Checklist 90 depression scale. Health services costs were measured using health care plan accounting records., Results: Over 24 months, telephone care management led to a gain of 29 depression-free days (95% confidence interval, -6 to +63) and a $676 increase in outpatient health care costs (95% confidence interval, $596 lower to $1974 higher). The incremental net benefit was negative even if a day free of depression was valued up to $20. Care management plus psychotherapy led to a gain of 46 depression-free days (95% confidence interval, +12 to +80) and a $397 increase in outpatient costs (95% confidence interval, $882 lower to $1725 higher). The incremental net benefit was positive if a day free of depression was valued at $9 or greater., Conclusion: Compared with current primary care practice, a structured telephone program including care management and cognitive behavioral psychotherapy has significant clinical benefit with only a modest increase in health services cost.

Epidemiologists have identified that depression will soon be the leading cause of disability throughout the world. To inform public health campaigns to reduce this problem, this paper summarizes current scientific knowledge about optimizing the potential of primary care settings to reduce disability by providing effective treatment for depression. To meet this challenge, primary care practices need to be re-engineered: 1) to conduct systematic screening programs to identify depressed patients, 2) to provide depressed patients initial evidence-based treatment, and 3) to monitor treatment adherence and symptom response in treated patients over 2 years. While additional research is needed in developing countries, preliminary evidence indicates that primary care practices re-engineered to improve depression management can make a substantial contribution to reducing depression-associated disability.

Background: Depression is a highly prevalent condition that is associated with high levels of work absenteeism and high health care costs. Most patients are treated in primary care. A large group of patients prefers psychological treatments to antidepressants., Aims of the Study: To systematically review the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of psychological treatments, psychotherapy and counselling, in comparison with usual care or antidepressant treatment in adult primary care patients with depression., Methods: A computer-assisted search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library was carried out. Two independent reviewers selected studies for the review, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the included studies., Results: Seven studies were included in the review. Forms of psychotherapy that were evaluated were cognitive behavioural therapy, interpersonal psychotherapy and couple therapy. Usual care generally consisted of care as usually provided by the general practitioner. No conclusion can be drawn on the cost-effectiveness of the above mentioned forms of psychotherapy in comparison with usual care or antidepressant treatment. The cost-effectiveness of counselling in comparison with usual care and antidepressant therapy is yet to be established. Meta-analyses showed that psychotherapy was significantly more expensive than usual care, but not significantly more expensive than antidepressant treatment. Counselling was associated with no statistically significant differences in costs and effects in comparison with usual care in the pooled analysis., Discussion: Based on this review, no firm conclusions on the cost-effectiveness of psychotherapy and counselling in primary care can be drawn. Most studies had methodological shortcomings, which limit the generalisibility of the results., Implications for Health Policies: Given the reluctance of patients to use antidepressants and the large economic impact of depression, policy makers have a need for well designed and sufficiently powered economic evaluations of psychological treatments. The available evidence seems to indicate that psychotherapy has more substantial clinical effects than counselling. Therefore, the emphasis should be on economic evaluations of forms of psychotherapy that have proved to be clinically effective., Implications for Further Research: There are indications that the cost-effectiveness of depression treatment on the whole may be improved by incorporating psychological treatments into enhanced care models, tailored to the needs of individual patients and/or by providing them by trained nurses instead of psychologists or psychotherapists. Further research should investigate these patient tailored, stepped care treatment modalities for depression treatment.

Background: Primary care clinical pharmacy specialists (PCCPSs) are positioned to promote effective, safe, and affordable medication use. Documentation of performed interventions is difficult because the diversity of performed interventions in a variety of disease states in some practice settings. Validation of cost-avoidance projections is also difficult because traditional projection methods have several limitations., Objective: To (1) compare projected medication cost avoidance (MCA) to actual MCA for medication conversions related to hyperlipidemia, hypertension, depression, and chronic pain initiated by PCCPS, and (2) estimate medication discontinuation that might be attributable to serious adverse drug events (ADEs) possibly associated with medication conversions., Methods: This was a retrospective, longitudinal study conducted in a not-for-profit, integrated health system comprising approximately 470,000 members. Using a portable documentation tool, PCCPSs recorded projected annual MCA for medication conversions in 4 disease conditions (i.e., hypertension, dyslipidemia, depression, and chronic pain) in the 6-month period from December 1, 2003, through May 31, 2004. Actual annual MCA for these interventions for a 1-year follow-up period was calculated using integrated, electronic data from an administrative pharmacy database. Comparisons were made between projected MCA and actual MCA. Cost was defined as actual drug acquisition cost. In addition, an assessment of serious ADEs potentially related to the conversions was undertaken by reviewing electronic medical records of converted, nonpersistent patients., Results: There were 704 medication conversions for 656 patients, of which 47 (6.7%) were for members who disenrolled in the health plan during the 12 months following the medication conversion date. The total projected MCA was $327,337 in 2004 dollars, or an average of $465 per conversion. For the 657 medication conversions in 609 patients that were evaluable (i.e., the member remained enrolled through 12 months follow-up), 466 (70.9%) persisted at 12 months, 138 (21.0%) discontinued the medication or converted to an alternative therapy, and 53 (8.1%) reverted to the original medication. Drug cost information was not available for some members, leaving approximately half (n = 331, 50.4%) of the 657 evaluable medication conversions with complete cost information available. For these 331 conversions, the overall projected MCA overestimated the actual MCA by 14.1% ($24,888 in aggregate or an average of $75 per conversion, P < 0.001). For persistent medication conversions with complete cost information (n = 278), the projected MCA ($160,225) was not significantly different compared with the actual MCA ($166,546, P = 0.477). For medication conversions that reverted to previous therapy (n = 53), the projected MCA ($41,644) overestimated by 4-fold the actual MCA ($10,435, P < 0.001). There were no emergency department visits or hospital admissions related to nonpersistent medication conversions. Compared with patients who were either nonpersistent or disenrolled at the 12-month follow-up, persistent patients did not significantly differ in chronic disease score but were slightly older (mean = 62.6 years, standard deviation = 13.1 for persistent patients vs. 59.2 [SD = 15.5] for nonpersistent or disenrolled patients)., Conclusions: Projected medication cost avoidance for pharmacistinitiated medication conversions is valid for the 66% of medication conversions that persist but not for nonpersistent conversions or for patients who leave the health care system. The projected medication cost avoidance overestimated the actual cost avoidance by approximately 14%, suggesting that there is opportunity for improvement in the tool used to document medication conversions to more accurately measure cost outcomes from clinical pharmacy interventions.

Background: Depression is a common disorder, associated with significant social and functional impairment, and whose natural course tends to chronicity. The majority of the patients suffering from this disorder are attended in primary health care settings. General practitioners represent the greatest part of the prescribers of antidepressants. Unfortunately, there are many barriers with detection and with the treatment of depression, thus only a minority of patients profits from a treatment with effective posology and with sufficient duration., Literature Findings: Several programs of interventions directed by mental health professionals aim at improving the management of depression in primary care. There are single interventions consisting of an educational program to physicians or a single intervention to the patient. The assessments of an educational strategy find some contradictory results. Single interventions are not sufficient by themselves. On the other hand, programs associating several interventions are effective. These associations consist of an educational intervention to the physicians and an intervention or more to the patient treated by antidepressant. Interventions are generally carried out by nurses and supervised by a psychiatrist. Mental health professionals share their informations with general practitioners. Interventions can be telephone or in <>. Telephone interventions have the advantage of a low cost and appear quite as relevant as interventions in <>., Results: But the effectiveness of these programs grows blurred in time, unless the program itself does continue. Moreover, this effectiveness is variable according to the severity of symptomatology. Indeed, the interest of this type of programs for the patients suffering from minor depression is limited. These various programs can be supplemented by the contribution of tools of detection or assessment of the depressive symptomatology to general practitioners, like by the contribution of oral and/or written informations to the patient concerning the disorder from which he suffers. The setting-up of such programs represents a considerable cost but depression is itself responsible for an important cost for our society. Several estimates concerning the setting-up of these programs find a good cost-effectiveness ratio; it should facilitate their installation taking into account their effectiveness., Conclusion: A close cooperation, based on the complementarity between general practitioners and mental health professionals is required to improve the management of depression.

Objective: This study sought to determine whether an intervention for patients with medically unexplained symptoms in primary care reduced total costs, components of cost, and longer-term costs and whether it led to decreased service use outside the health maintenance organization (HMO)., Methods: A randomized controlled trial involving 206 patients with medically unexplained symptoms was conducted in a staff-model HMO. The protocol emphasized the provider-patient relationship and included cognitive-behavioral therapy and pharmacological management. Cost data for medical treatments were derived from the HMO's electronic database. Patients were interviewed about work days lost and out-of-pocket expenses for medical care outside the HMO., Results: The difference in total costs ($1,071) for the 12-month intervention was not significant. The treatment group had significantly higher costs for antidepressants than the usual-care group ($192 higher) during the intervention, and a larger proportion received antidepressants. The intervention group used less medical care outside the HMO and missed one less work day per month on average (1.23 days), indicating a slight improvement in productivity, but the difference was not significant. The between-group difference in estimated total cost was smaller in the year after the intervention (difference of $341) but were not significant., Conclusions: The total costs for the intervention group were not significantly different, but the group had greater use of antidepressants. Coupled with findings of improved mental health outcomes for this group in a previous study, the results indicate that the intervention may be cost-effective. The longer-term impact needs to be further studied.

We investigated medical resource consumption, productivity loss and costs associated with patients treated with antidepressants for depression in primary care in Sweden. Patients on treatment for depression were followed naturalistically for six-months, and data on patients' characteristics, daily activity and resource-use were collected. The total cost per patient was estimated at euro 5,500 (95%CI euro 5,000-6,100) over six months in 2005 prices. Direct costs were estimated at euro 1,900 (euro 1,700-2,200), 35% of total costs, and indirect costs at euro 3,600 (euro 3,100-4,100), 65% of total costs. The cost for antidepressants represented only 4% of the total costs. We conclude that the burden of depression is high, both to the individual as well as to wider society, and there seems to be a particular need for therapies that have the potential to improve productivity in depressed patients.

Objective: To describe the evolution of antidepressant use in primary care in the Valencian region (Spain) from 2000 to 2004 and to analyze the effects of reference-based price and generic drugs introduction on drug utilization and cost saving., Methods: Retrospective observational study in primary care using sales data collected from antidepressant group (N06A), corresponding to the period 2000-2004. Defined daily dose (DDD)/1000 inhabitants per day were obtained as consumption data. Cost and cost/DDD rate evolution was related to reference price system implantation., Results: Antidepressant utilization progressively increased by 44.0% from 30.3 DDDs/1000 per day in 2000 to 43.5% in 2004. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) comprised 77% of the total consumption where paroxetine, sertraline and fluoxetine were the most used drugs in 2004. The proportion of relative use and cost of fluoxetine declined after a reference price and the introduction of generic competitors were put into effect in 1999; cost/DDD was reduced by 1.8. Third-generation antidepressants showed a fast rising rate i.e. venlafaxine utilization multiplied by 2.2; this drug with the higher cost/DDD was not subjected to the reference price system. Reduction in citalopram utilization was related to a replacement by its recently marketed enantiomer escitalopram., Conclusions: In 2004, reference price policy and the implementation of generic drugs reduced the antidepressant cost by DDD. However, antidepressant expenditure increased since 2000 due to a continued growth in consumption (SSRIs and novel agents) and a displacement of prescriptions to drugs that were not included in the reference price policy.

Objectives: The purpose of the present study has been to assess the societal cost of major depression and the distribution into different cost components. The impact of adherence and treatment response was also explored., Method: Data were collected from a randomized controlled trial of patients with major depressive disorder who were treated in a naturalistic primary care setting. Resource use and quality of life were followed during the two-year trial., Results: The mean total cost per patient during two years was KSEK 363 (EUR 38 953). Indirect costs were the most important component (87%), whereas the cost of drugs was minor (4.5%). No significant differences in costs or quality of life between treatment arms or between adherent and non-adherent patients were demonstrated. However, treatment responders had 39% lower total costs per patient and experienced a larger increase in quality of life compared to non-responders., Conclusions: Major depression has high costs for society, primarily due to indirect costs. Treatment responders have considerably lower costs per patient and higher quality of life than non-responders. This indicates that measures to increase response rates are also important from an economic perspective.

Background: Despite their impact on outcomes, the effect of patient treatment attitudes on the cost-effectiveness of health-care interventions is not widely studied. This study estimated the impact of patient receptivity to antidepressant medication on the cost-effectiveness of an evidence-based primary-care depression intervention., Method: Twelve community primary-care practices were stratified and then randomized to enhanced (intervention) or usual care. Subjects included 211 patients beginning a new treatment episode for major depression. At baseline, 111 (52.6%) and 145 (68.7%) reported receptivity to antidepressant medication and counseling respectively. The intervention trained the primary-care teams to assess, educate, and monitor depressed patients. Twelve-month incremental (enhanced minus usual care) total costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated., Results: Among patients receptive to antidepressants, the mean incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was dollar 5,864 per QALY (sensitivity analyses up to dollar 14,689 per QALY). For patients not receptive to antidepressants, the mean incremental QALY score was negative (for both main and sensitivity analyses), or the intervention was at least no more effective than usual care., Conclusions: These findings suggest a re-thinking of the 'one size fits all' depression intervention, given that half of depressed primary-care patients may be non-receptive to antidepressant medication treatment. A brief assessment of treatment receptivity should occur early in the treatment process to identify patients most likely to benefit from primary-care quality improvement efforts for depression treatment. Patient treatment preferences are also important for the development, design, and analysis of depression interventions.

Objective: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the prevalence and predictors of depression treatment in a diverse cross-national sample of primary care patients., Method: At primary care facilities in six countries (Spain, Israel, Australia, Brazil, Russia, and the United States), a two-stage screening process was used to identify 1,117 patients with current depressive disorder. At baseline, all patients completed a structured diagnostic interview as well as measures of anxiety symptoms, alcohol use, chronic comorbid physical conditions, and perceived barriers to treatment. Primary care physicians were advised if the research interview indicated a probable depressive disorder in their patients. Three and 9 months later, participants reported all health services (including specialty mental health care and antidepressant medication) used in the preceding 3 months., Results: Across the six sites, the proportion of patients receiving any antidepressant pharmacotherapy ranged from a high of 38% in Seattle to a low of 0% in St. Petersburg; the proportion receiving any specialty mental health care varied from a high of 29% in Melbourne to a low of 3% in St. Petersburg. Patient characteristics were not consistently associated with receipt of either pharmacotherapy or specialty mental health care. Out-of-pocket cost was the most commonly reported barrier to treatment for depression; the percentage of patients who reported this barrier ranged from 24% in Barcelona to 75% in St. Petersburg., Conclusions: Depression screening and physician notification are not sufficient to prompt adequate treatment for depression. The probability of treatment may be more influenced by characteristics of health care systems than by the clinical characteristics of individual patients. Financial barriers may be more important than stigma as impediments to appropriate care.

Currently, there are no data available comparing cost-effectiveness of two antidepressants in the primary care setting in the UK. Alongside a randomized, double-blind, 24-week study of mirtazapine and paroxetine, data were prospectively collected on patients' use of hospital and non-hospital services and days off work. Costs were estimated in each treatment arm from National Health Service (NHS) and societal perspectives, and were compared with selected outcome measures (numbers of 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (17-HAMD) responders and changes in Quality of Life in Depression Scale scores between baseline and 24-week endpoint) to explore and compare relative cost-effectiveness. Mirtazapine treatment resulted in a statistically significantly greater improvement in quality of life than paroxetine at endpoint (P=0.021). Although the 17-HAMD response rates were higher for the mirtazapine users at endpoint, the difference (7%) was not statistically significant (P=0.31). However, mean total societal costs per patient were 375 pounds less with mirtazapine (1850 pounds) compared to paroxetine (2225 pounds; P=0.32). Mean total NHS costs per patient were also lower (120 pounds) with mirtazapine (1408 pounds) compared to paroxetine (1528 pounds). The advantage for mirtazapine remained present on all variables analysed after performing sensitivity analyses. The results suggest that mirtazapine may be a cost-effective treatment choice compared to paroxetine for depression in a primary care setting.

Objective: To compare the cost-effectiveness of generic psychological therapy (counseling) with routinely prescribed antidepressant drugs in a naturalistic general practice setting for a follow-up period of 12 months., Methods: Economic analysis alongside a randomized clinical trial with patient preference arm. Comparison of depression-related health service costs at 12 months. Cost-effectiveness analysis of bootstrapped trial data using net monetary benefits and acceptability curves., Results: No significant difference between the mean observed costs of patients randomized to antidepressants or to counseling (342 pounds sterling vs 302 pounds sterling , p = .56 [t test]). If decision makers are not willing to pay more for additional benefits (value placed on extra patient with good outcome, denoted by K, is zero), then we find little difference between the treatment modalities in terms of cost-effectiveness. If decision makers do place value on additional benefit (K > 0 pounds sterling), then the antidepressant group becomes more likely to be cost-effective. This likelihood is in excess of 90% where decision makers are prepared to pay an additional 2,000 pounds sterling or more per additional patient with a good global outcome. The mean values for incremental net monetary benefits (INMB) from antidepressants are substantial for higher values of K (INMB = 406 pounds sterling when K = 2,500 pounds sterling)., Conclusion: For a small proportion of patients, the counseling intervention (as specified in this trial) is a dominant cost-effective strategy. For a larger proportion of patients, the antidepressant intervention (as specified in this trial) is the dominant cost-effective strategy. For the remaining group of patients, cost-effectiveness depends on the value of K. Since we cannot observe K, acceptability curves are a useful way to inform decision makers.

Objective: The authors analyzed data from 615 depressed primary care patients to determine their willingness to pay for depression treatment., Methods: A sample of 615 adult patients from four primary care clinics participated in a randomized controlled trial of a disease management program for depression in primary care. Participants were asked at baseline interviews and six-month follow-up interviews how much they would be willing to pay per month for a six-month treatment that would eliminate their symptoms of depression. Multiple regression analyses were used to estimate the association between demographic and clinical factors and willingness to pay for depression treatment and to examine changes., Results: The mean amount that participants were willing to pay for depression treatment at baseline was $270+/-187 per month, or about 9 percent of the participants' household income. Willingness to pay was significantly associated with household income and with the severity of depressive symptoms. Over six months, the amount that participants were willing to pay decreased along with their severity of depressive symptoms., Conclusions: The amount that participants were willing to pay was comparable to that reported for the treatment of other chronic medical disorders and higher than the actual cost of depression treatment. Measurements of willingness to pay may be a promising method for assessing the value of treatments for common mental disorders.

Objective: Evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of a depression relapse prevention program in primary care., Materials and Methods: Primary care patients initiating antidepressant treatment completed a standardized telephone assessment 6-8 weeks later. Those recovered from the current episode but at high risk for relapse (based on history of recurrent depression or dysthymia) were offered randomization to usual care or a relapse prevention intervention. The intervention included systematic patient education, two psychoeducational visits with a depression prevention specialist, shared decision-making regarding maintenance pharmacotherapy, and telephone and mail monitoring of medication adherence and depressive symptoms. Outcomes in both groups were assessed via blinded telephone assessments at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and health plan claims and accounting data., Results: Intervention patients experienced 13.9 additional depression-free days during a 12-month period (95% CI, -1.5 to 29.3). Incremental costs of the intervention were $273 (95% CI, $102 to $418) for depression treatment costs only and $160 (95% CI, -$173 to $512) for total outpatient costs. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $24 per depression-free day (95% CI, -$59 to $496) for depression treatment costs only and $14 per depression-free day (95% CI, -$35 to $248) for total outpatient costs., Conclusions: A program to prevent depression relapse in primary care yields modest increases in days free of depression and modest increases in treatment costs. These modest differences reflect high rates of treatment in usual care. Along with other recent studies, these findings suggest that improved care of depression in primary care is a prudent investment of health care resources.

This paper reviews the clinical and cost effectiveness of psychotherapy for treating major and minor depression in primary care practice. Conclusions drawn from psychotherapy studies completed prior to 1995 were constrained by methodological deficiencies such as ambiguity regarding patient diagnostic status, use of non-specific psychotherapies, and lack of treatment manuals. More recent studies have addressed these flaws by shifting from efficacy to effectiveness designs, using standard diagnostic assessment procedures and appropriate follow-up time periods, using empirically evaluated treatment manuals, and selecting appropriate comparison conditions. Twelve primary care studies meeting these design criteria were analyzed, and the following conclusions were drawn: When used to treat major depression, a depression-specific psychotherapy produces better clinical outcomes than a primary care physician's usual care and outcomes similar to those produced by pharmacotherapy. When used to treat minor depression or dysthymia, the effectiveness of psychotherapy in comparison to usual care remains more equivocal. A review of the sparse data on cost effectiveness suggests that while psychotherapy has a higher fiscal cost than a physician's usual care, psychotherapy's higher value in treating patients with major depression may justify its use.

This review considers evidence for the efficacy of pharmacotherapy among primary care patients with depressive disorders and reviews knowledge regarding the effectiveness of current practice. Strong evidence supports the efficacy of antidepressant pharmacotherapy for primary care patients with major depression and dysthymia with some evidence for pharmacotherapy of less severe depression. In general, available antidepressants appear equal in both efficacy and effectiveness. Treatment selection for any individual patient remains largely empirical, with few clinical characteristics predicting better or worse response to specific treatments. Strong evidence supports continuation treatment (i.e., at least six months of pharmacotherapy) for all patients and maintenance treatment (i.e., at least 24 months of pharmacotherapy) for those with chronic or recurrent depression. Unfortunately, few patients in primary care or specialty practice receive recommended levels of pharmacotherapy or recommended frequency of follow-up care. A number of recent studies have evaluated strategies to improve the quality of antidepressant treatment in primary care. Educational programs (including academic detailing and continuous quality improvement) have had little impact on patient outcomes. Key elements of effective care improvement programs include specific, evidence-based treatment protocols, organized patient education and active follow-up care.

This paper describes a study design that blends health services and clinical research approaches to examine the cost-effectiveness of treatments and of quality improvement for depression in primary care, managed care practices. Six managed care organizations in Los Angeles (Calif.), San Antonio (Tex.), San Luis Valley (Colo.), Twin Cities (Minn.), and Columbia (Md.) participated. Primary care clinics were randomized to one of two quality improvement interventions or care as usual. Interventions included patient and provider education, nurse-assisted patient assessment, and resources to support appropriate medication management or access to cognitive behavioral therapy. Practices implemented the interventions with study support. Providers and patients selected treatment. Patients with depressive symptoms regardless of comorbidities were eligible. Over 27,000 primary care patients visiting the practices of 181 primary care clinicians were screened for depression, 14% were potentially eligible, and 1356 enrolled into the 2-year longitudinal study. Enrollees were similar to eligibles, but usual care clinic patients tended to be less severely depressed than intervention clinic patients, partly due to clinic staff enthusiasm. The result of the study showed that studying treatment effects and quality improvement in nonacademic settings is feasible, but requires relaxation of design features of experiments that protect internal validity. The trade-off between certainty of causal inference and generalizability to usual care conditions is discussed. The strengths and limitations of this study design are compared to those of clinical trials and recent clinical effectiveness studies.

Objective: The report estimates the treatment costs, cost-offset effects, and cost-effectiveness of Collaborative Care of depressive illness in primary care., Study Design: Treatment costs, cost-offset effects, and cost-effectiveness were assessed in two randomized, controlled trials. In the first randomized trail (N = 217), consulting psychiatrists provide enhanced management of pharmacotherapy and brief psychoeducational interventions to enhance adherence. In the second randomized trial (N = 153). Collaborative Care was implemented through brief cognitive-behavioral therapy and enhanced patient education. Consulting psychologist provided brief psychotherapy supplemented by educational materials and enhanced pharmacotherapy management., Results: Collaborative Care increased the costs of treating depression largely because of the extra visits required to provide the interventions. There was a modest cost offset due to reduced use of specialty mental health services among Collaborative Care patients, but costs of ambulatory medical care services did not differ significantly between the intervention and control groups. Among patients with major depression there was a modest increase in cost-effectiveness. The cost per patient successfully treated was lower for Collaborative Care than for Usual Care patients. For patients with minor depression. Collaborative Care was more costly and not more cost-effective than Usual Care., Conclusions: Collaborative Care increased depression treatment costs and improved the cost-effectiveness of treatment for patients with major depression. A cost offset in specialty mental health costs, but not medical care costs, was observed. Collaborative Care may provide a means of increasing the value of treatment services for major depression.

Objective: Four groups of patients receiving different antidepressant drugs in a primary care setting were compared in terms of duration of antidepressant therapy and health and mental health care utilization and costs., Methods: A retrospective analysis of the medical and pharmacy claims of an employed population and their families was conducted. A total of 1,242 patients with a diagnosis of depression were included in the analyses. The four antidepressant cohorts were fluoxetine (N = 799), trazodone (N = 89), the tricyclics amitriptyline and imipramine (N = 104), and the secondary amine tricyclics desipramine and nortriptyline (N = 250). The primary outcome measures were total health care charges, total charges for mental health services, and the pattern of antidepressant use. Secondary measures included charges for outpatient care and pharmacy and the number of outpatient visits. Data analysis involved use of two-stage multivariate regression modeling known as sample selection models., Results: Patients taking fluoxetine achieved higher rates of continuous use for at least six months compared with those taking the other drugs. After selection bias due to observed and unobserved characteristics and other confounding variables was adjusted for, no significant differences were found between drug cohorts in total medical charges., Conclusions: Improvements in the process of care at no apparent increase in total charges appear possible through appropriate medication therapy.

The aim of this study was to estimate the cost effectiveness of nefazodone compared with imipramine or fluoxetine in treating women with major depressive disorder. Clinical decision analysis and a Markov state-transition model were used to estimate the lifetime health outcomes and medical costs of 3 antidepressant treatments. The model, which represents ideal primary care practice, compares treatment with nefazodone to treatment with either imipramine or fluoxetine. The economic analysis was based on the healthcare system of the Canadian province of Ontario, and considered only direct medical costs. Health outcomes were expressed as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were in 1993 Canadian dollars ($Can; $Can1 = $US0.75, September 1995). Incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated comparing the relative lifetime discounted medical costs and QALYs associated with nefazodone with those of imipramine or fluoxetine. Data for constructing the model and estimating necessary parameters were derived from the medical literature, clinical trial data, and physician judgement. Data included information on: Ontario primary care physicians' clinical management of major depression; medical resource use and costs; probabilities of recurrence of depression; suicide rates; compliance rates; and health utilities. Estimates of utilities for depression-related hypothetical health states were obtained from patients with major depression (n = 70). Medical costs and QALYs were discounted to present value using a 5% rate. Sensitivity analyses tested the assumptions of the model by varying the discount rate, depression recurrence rates, compliance rates, and the duration of the model. The base case analysis found that nefazodone treatment costs $Can1447 less per patient than imipramine treatment (discounted lifetime medical costs were $Can50,664 vs $Can52,111) and increases the number of QALYs by 0.72 (13.90 vs 13.18). Nefazodone treatment costs $Can14 less than fluoxetine treatment (estimated discounted lifetime medical costs were $Can50,664 vs $Can50,678) and produces slightly more QALYs (13.90 vs 13.79). In the sensitivity analyses, the cost-effectiveness ratios comparing nefazodone with imipramine ranged from cost saving to $Can17,326 per QALY gained. The cost-effectiveness ratios comparing nefazodone with fluoxetine ranged from cost saving to $Can7327 per QALY gained. The model was most sensitive to assumptions about treatment compliance rates and recurrence rates. The findings suggest that nefazodone may be a cost-effective treatment for major depression compared with imipramine or fluoxetine. The basic findings and conclusions do not change even after modifying model parameters within reasonable ranges.

Background: While an extensive literature documents the influence of depression on general medical services utilization, estimates of the economic burden of depression have focused on the direct costs of depression treatment. Higher use of general medical services may contribute significantly to the true cost of depressive illness., Methods: Computerized record systems of a large staff-model health maintenance organization (HMO) were used to identify consecutive primary care patients with visit diagnoses of depression (n = 6257) and a comparison sample of primary care patients with no depression diagnosis (n = 6257). The HMO accounting records were used to compare components of health care costs., Results: Patients diagnosed as depressed had higher annual health care costs ($4246 vs $2371, P < .001) and higher costs for every category of care (eg, primary care, medical specialty, medical inpatient, pharmacy, laboratory). Similar cost differences were observed for each of the subgroups examined (patients treated with antidepressants, those not treated with antidepressants, and those diagnosed at routine physical examination visits). Pharmacy records indicated greater chronic medical illness in the diagnosed depression group, but large cost differences remained after adjustment ($3971 vs $2644). Twofold cost differences persisted for at least 12 months after initiation of treatment., Conclusions: Diagnosis of depression is associated with a generalized increase in use of health services that is only partially explained by comorbid medical conditions. In the primary care sector, this greater medical utilization exceeds direct treatment costs for depression. The persistence of utilization differences suggests that recognition and initiation of treatment alone are not adequate to reduce utilization differences.