Search

Background: Selection of the optimal initial treatment in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in need of highly specialized care has the potential to benefit treatment outcomes and cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies. However, to date, there is a paucity of measures that could guide the selection of the initial treatment, in particular to indicate which patients with MDD are in need of highly specialized care. Recognizing this gap, this paper reports on the development and psychometric evaluation of the Decision Tool Unipolar Depression (DTUD), aimed to facilitate the early identification of patients with MDD in need of highly specialized care. Methods: The DTUD was developed using a mixed-methods approach, consisting of a systematic review and a concept mapping study. To evaluate the psychometric features of the DTUD, a cross-sectional multicenter study was conducted. A total of 243 patients with MDD were evaluated with the DTUD. Feasibility was operationalized as the time required to complete the DTUD and the content clarity of the DTUD. Inter-rater reliability was evaluated using Krippendorf's alpha. The Maudsley Staging Method (MSM) and the Dutch Measure for quantification of Treatment Resistance in Depression (DM-TRD) were administered to assess the convergent validity. A receiver operator characteristic curve was generated to evaluate the criterion validity and establish the optimal cut-off value. Results: The mean administration time was 4.49 min (SD = 2.71), and the content of the total DTUD was judged as clear in 94.7% of the evaluations. Inter-rater reliability values ranged from 0.69 to 0.91. Higher scores on the DTUD were associated with higher scores on the MSM (rs = 0.47) and DM-TRD (rs = 0.53). Based on the maximum Youden index (0.494), maximum discrimination was reached at a cut-off score of ≥5 (sensitivity 67%, specificity 83%). Conclusion: The DTUD demonstrated to be a tool with solid psychometric properties and, therefore, is a promising measure for the early identification of patients with MDD in need of highly specialized care. Use of the DTUD has the potential to facilitate the selection and initiation of the optimal initial treatment in patients with MDD, which in turn may improve the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Major depression is associated with high levels of absence and reduced productivity. Therefore the costs to society are high. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of collaborative care for major depressive disorder (MDD) compared to care as usual in an occupational healthcare setting. A societal perspective was taken. Methods In this randomised controlled trial, 126 sick-listed workers with MDD were included (65 collaborative care, 61 care as usual). Baseline measurements and follow up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) were assessed by questionnaire. We applied the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for costs associated with psychiatric illness, the SF-HQL and the EQ-5D respectively measuring the health care utilization, production losses and general health related quality of life. Results The average annual healthcare costs in the collaborative care group were €3,874 (95 % CI €2,778-€5,718) compared to €4,583 (95 % CI €3,108-€6,794) in the care as usual group. The average quality of life years (QALY's) gained were lower in the collaborative care group, 0.05 QALY. The majority of the ICERS (69 %) indicate that collaborative care is less costly but also less effective than care as usual. Including the productivity costs did not change this result. Conclusions The cost-utility analysis showed that collaborative care generated reduced costs and a reduction in effects compared to care as usual and was therefore not a cost-effective intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Studies of interventions for dyslexia have focused entirely on outcomes related to literacy. In this study, we considered a broader picture assessing improved quality of life compared with costs. A model served as a tool to compare costs and effects of treatment according to a new protocol and care as usual. Quality of life was measured and valued by proxies using a general quality-of-life instrument (EQ-5D). We considered medical cost and non-medical cost (e.g. remedial teaching). The model computed cost per successful treatment and cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) in time. About 75% of the total costs was related to diagnostic tests to distinguish between children with severe dyslexia and children who have reading difficulties for other reasons. The costs per successful treatment of severe dyslexia were €36 366. Successful treatment showed a quality-of-life gain of about 11%. At primary school, the average cost per QALY for severe dyslexia amounted to €58 647. In the long term, the cost per QALY decreased to €26 386 at secondary school and €17 663 thereafter. The results of this study provide evidence that treatment of severe dyslexia is cost-effective when the investigated protocol is followed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) has major consequences for both patients and society, particularly in terms of needlessly long sick leave and reduced functioning. Although evidence-based treatments for MDD are available, they show disappointing results when implemented in daily practice. A focus on work is also lacking in the treatment of depressive disorder as well as communication of general practitioners (GPs) and other health care professionals with occupational physicians (OPs). The OP may play a more important role in the recovery of patients with MDD. Purpose of the present study is to tackle these obstacles by applying a collaborative care model, which has proven to be effective in the USA, with a focus on return to work (RTW). From a societal perspective, the (cost)effectiveness of this collaborative care treatment, as a way of transmural care, will be evaluated in depressed patients on sick leave in the occupational health setting. Methods/Design: A randomised controlled trial in which the treatment of MDD in the occupational health setting will be evaluated in the Netherlands. A transmural collaborative care model, including Problem Solving Treatment (PST), a workplace intervention, antidepressant medication and manual guided self-help will be compared with care as usual (CAU). 126 Patients with MDD on sick leave between 4 and 12 weeks will be included in the study. Care in the intervention group will be provided by a multidisciplinary team of a trained OP-care manager and a consultant psychiatrist. The treatment is separated from the sickness certification. Data will be collected by means of questionnaires at baseline and at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after baseline. Primary outcome measure is reduction of depressive symptoms, secondary outcome measure is time to RTW, tertiary outcome measure is the cost effectiveness. Discussion: The high burden of MDD and the high level of sickness absence among people with MDD contribute to the relevance of this study. The intervention is an innovative approach, with trained OPs in a new role as care managers in the treatment of MDD. If this intervention proves to be cost-effective, implementation will be very relevant for individual patients as well as for society. Trial registration: ISRCTN78462860 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The cost-utility of brief therapy compared with cognitive - behavioural therapy (CBT) and care as usual in the treatment of depression and anxiety has not yet been determined. Aims To assess the cost-utility of brief therapy compared with CBT and care as usual. Method A pragmatic randomised controlled trial involving 702 patients was conducted at 7 Dutch mental healthcare centres (MHCs). Patients were interviewed at baseline and then every 3 months over a period of 1.5 years, during which time data were collected on direct costs, indirect costs and quality of life. Results The mean direct costs of treatment at the MHCs were significantly lower for brief therapy than for CBT and care as usual. However, after factoring in other healthcare costs and indirect costs, no significant differences between the treatment groups could be detected. We found no significant differences in quality-adjusted life-years between the groups. Conclusions Cost-utility did not differ significantly between the three treatment groups. Declaration of interest None. Funding detailed in Acknowledgements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome (CAPS) is a rare disease. Knowledge on the quality of life (QoL) and the disease's societal impact is limited. Canakinumab is used in increasing frequency for the treatment of CAPS.Methods: Observational study in Dutch CAPS patients. Patients completed questionnaires regarding treatment with canakinumab at baseline and retrospectively. Quality of life was assessed using the EQ-5D-5L in adults and CHQ-PF50 in children. Impact on work and school was assessed. Caregivers' quality of life was assessed using the CarerQol.Results: Mean quality of life scores during treatment with canakinumab were 0.769 (EQ-5D-5L), 51.1 (CHQ-P) and 57-1 (CHQ-M). Most patients experienced problems on the pain/discomfort dimension. Higher disease activity and the presence of complications negatively influenced QoL. Half of the patients with a paid job reported absenteeism from work due to CAPS, for an average of 8.7 days in a 4-week period. All schoolgoing patients (N = 5) reported absence from school due to CAPS, for an average of 2.9 days. Caregivers reported gaining a lot fulfillment from providing care for their family members.Conclusion: QoL during treatment is lower than in the general Dutch population. CAPS leads to productivity loss and absenteeism from school, and impacts the quality of life in informal caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Major depression is a great burden on society, as it is associated with high disability/costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of Collaborative Care (CC) for major depressive disorder compared to Care As Usual (CAU) in a primary health care setting from a societal perspective.Methods: A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted, including 93 patients that were identified by screening (45-CC, 48-CAU). Another 57 patients were identified by the GP (56-CC, 1-CAU). The outcome measures were TiC-P, SF-HQL and EQ-5D, respectively measuring health care utilization, production losses and general health related quality of life at baseline three, six, nine and twelve months. A cost-utility analysis was performed for patients included by screening and a sensitivity analysis was done by also including patients identified by the GP.Results: The average annual total costs was €1131 (95% C.I., €-3158 to €750) lower for CC compared to CAU. The average quality of life years (QALYs) gained was 0.02 (95% C.I., -0.004 to 0.04) higher for CC, so CC was dominant from a societal perspective. Taking a health care perspective, CC was less cost-effective due to higher costs, €1173 (95% C.I., €-216 to €2726), of CC compared to CAU which led to an ICER of 53,717 Euro/QALY. The sensitivity analysis showed dominance of CC.Conclusion: The cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective showed that CC was dominant to CAU. CC may be a promising treatment for depression in the primary care setting. Further research should explore the cost-effectiveness of long-term CC.Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register ISRCTN15266438. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Practice variation in the primary care treatment of depression may be considerable in the Netherlands, due to relatively small and unregulated practices. We adapted the collaborative care model for the treatment of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) to accommodate existing practice variation and tested whether this had added value over Care as Usual (CAU). Methods: A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare an adapted target driven collaborative care model with Care as Usual (CAU). Randomization was at the level of 18 (sub)urban primary care centers. The care manager and GP were supported by a web-based tracking and decision aid system that advised targeted treatment actions to achieve rapid response and if possible remission, and that warned the consultant psychiatrist if such treatment advice was not followed up. Eligible patients had a score of 10 or higher on the PHQ9, and met diagnostic criteria for major depression at the subsequent MINI Neuropsychiatric interview. A total of 93 patients were identified by screening. They received either collaborative care (CC) or CAU. Another 56 patients received collaborative care after identification by the GP. The outcome measures were response to treatment (50% or greater reduction of the PHQ9-total score from baseline) at three, six, nine and twelve months, and remission (a score of 0–4 on the PHQ9 at follow-up). Results: Treatment response and remission in CAU were low. Collaborative care was more effective on achieving treatment response than CAU at three months for the total group of patients who received collaborative care [OR 5.2 ((1.41–16.09), NNT 2] and at nine months [OR 5.6 ((1.40–22.58)), NNT 3]. The effect was not statistically significant at 6 and 12 months. Limitations: A relatively high percentage of patients (36.5%) did not return one or more follow-up questionnaires. There was no evidence for selective non response. Conclusions: Our adapted target driven CC was considerably more effective than CAU for MDD in primary care in the Netherlands. The Numbers Needed To Treat (NNT) to achieve response in one additional patient were low (2–3), which suggest that introducing CC at a larger scale may be beneficial. The relatively large effects may be due to our focus on reducing practice variation through the introduction of easy to use web based tracking and decision aids. The findings are highly relevant for the application of the model in areas where practices tend to be small and for mixed healthcare systems such as in many countries in Europe. Trial registration: Dutch trial register ISRCTN15266438 (http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=820). [Copyright &y& Elsevier]