Cost-utility of collaborative care for major depressive disorder in primary care in the Netherlands

Collaborative care approaches for people with severe mental illness

BACKGROUND

Collaborative care for severe mental illness (SMI) is a community-based intervention that promotes interdisciplinary working across primary and secondary care. Collaborative care interventions aim to improve the physical and/or mental health care of individuals with SMI. This is an update of a 2013 Cochrane review, based on new searches of the literature, which includes an additional seven studies.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of collaborative care approaches in comparison with standard care (or other non-collaborative care interventions) for people with diagnoses of SMI who are living in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Study-Based Register of Trials (10 February 2021). We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders (CCMD) controlled trials register (all available years to 6 June 2016). Subsequent searches on Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO together with the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (with an overlap) were run on 17 December 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where interventions described as 'collaborative care' were compared with 'standard care' for adults (18+ years) living in the community with a diagnosis of SMI. SMI was defined as schizophrenia, other types of schizophrenia-like psychosis or bipolar affective disorder. The primary outcomes of interest were: quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions at 12 months follow-up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of authors independently extracted data. We assessed the quality and certainty of the evidence using RoB 2 (for the primary outcomes) and GRADE. We compared treatment effects between collaborative care and standard care. We divided outcomes into short-term (up to six months), medium-term (seven to 12 months) and long-term (over 12 months). For dichotomous data we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used random-effects meta-analyses due to substantial levels of heterogeneity across trials. We created a summary of findings table using GRADEpro.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight RCTs (1165 participants) are included in this review. Two met the criteria for type A collaborative care (intervention comprised of the four core components). The remaining six met the criteria for type B (described as collaborative care by the trialists, but not comprised of the four core components). The composition and purpose of the interventions varied across studies. For most outcomes there was low- or very low-certainty evidence. We found three studies that assessed the quality of life of participants at 12 months. Quality of life was measured using the SF-12 and the WHOQOL-BREF and the mean endpoint mental health component scores were reported at 12 months. Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (mental health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.32; 3 RCTs, 227 participants). Very low-certainty evidence did not show a difference in quality of life (physical health domain) between collaborative care and standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.33; 3 RCTs, 237 participants). Furthermore, in the medium term (at 12 months) low-certainty evidence did not show a difference between collaborative care and standard care in mental state (binary) (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.28; 1 RCT, 253 participants) or in the risk of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital at 12 months (RR 5.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 39.57; 1 RCT, 253 participants). One study indicated an improvement in disability (proxy for social functioning) at 12 months in the collaborative care arm compared to usual care (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 253 participants); we deemed this low-certainty evidence. Personal recovery and satisfaction/experience of care outcomes were not reported in any of the included studies. The data from one study indicated that the collaborative care treatment was more expensive than standard care (mean difference (MD) international dollars (Int$) 493.00, 95% CI 345.41 to 640.59) in the short term. Another study found the collaborative care intervention to be slightly less expensive at three years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review does not provide evidence to indicate that collaborative care is more effective than standard care in the medium term (at 12 months) in relation to our primary outcomes (quality of life, mental state and psychiatric admissions). The evidence would be improved by better reporting, higher-quality RCTs and the assessment of underlying mechanisms of collaborative care. We advise caution in utilising the information in this review to assess the effectiveness of collaborative care.

Measuring, Analyzing, and Presenting Work Productivity Loss in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to conduct a scoping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and investigate which work productivity loss outcomes were measured in these RCTs, how each outcome was measured and analyzed, and how the results for each outcome were presented.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted from January 2010 to April 2020 from 2 databases: PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data on country, study population, disease focus, sample size, work productivity loss outcomes measured (absenteeism, presenteeism, employment status changes), and methods used to measure, report, and analyze each work productivity loss outcome were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

We found 435 studies measuring absenteeism or presenteeism, of which 155 studies (35.6%) measured both absenteeism and presenteeism and were included in our final review. Only 9 studies also measured employment status changes. The most used questionnaire was the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire. The analysis of absenteeism and presenteeism data was mostly done using regression models (n = 98, n = 98, respectively) for which a normal distribution was assumed (n = 77, n = 89, respectively). Absenteeism results were most often presented in time whereas presenteeism was commonly presented using a percent scale or score.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of consensus on how to measure, analyze, and present work productivity loss outcomes in RCTs published in the past 10 years. The diversity of measurement, analysis, and presentation methods used in RCTs may make comparability challenging. There is a need for guidelines providing recommendations to standardize the comprehensiveness and the appropriateness of methods used to measure, analyze, and report work productivity loss in RCTs.

Cost-effectiveness of a care manager collaborative care programme for patients with depression in primary care: 12-month economic evaluation of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Objectives

To study the cost-effectiveness of a care manager organization for patients with mild to moderate depression in Swedish primary care in a 12-month perspective.

Methods

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the care manager organization compared to care as usual (CAU) in a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial including 192 individuals in the care manager group and 184 in the CAU group. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a health care and societal perspectives. Costs were assessed in relation to two different health outcome measures: depression free days (DFDs) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs).

Results

At the 12-month follow-up, patients treated at the intervention Primary Care Centres (PCCs) with a care manager organization had larger health benefits than the group receiving usual care only at control PCCs. Mean QALY per patient was 0.73 (95% CI 0.7; 0.75) in the care manager group compared to 0.70 (95% CI 0.66; 0.73) in the CAU group. Mean DFDs was 203 (95% CI 178; 229) in the care manager group and 155 (95% CI 131; 179) in the CAU group. Further, from a societal perspective, care manager care was associated with a lower cost than care as usual, resulting in a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for both QALYs and DFDs. From a health care perspective care manager care was related to a low cost per QALY (36,500 SEK / €3,379) and DFD (31 SEK/€3).

Limitations

A limitation is the fact that QALY data was impaired by insufficient EQ-5D data for some patients.

Conclusions

A care manager organization at the PCC to increase quality of care for patients with mild-moderate depression shows high health benefits, with no decay over time, and high cost-effectiveness both from a health care and a societal perspective.

Trial registration details: The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.com (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02378272) in 02/02/2015 with the registration number NCT02378272. The first patient was enrolled in 11/20/2014.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12962-021-00304-5.

How to analyze work productivity loss due to health problems in randomized controlled trials? A simulation study

Background

An increasing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have measured the impact of interventions on work productivity loss. Productivity loss outcome is inflated at zero and max loss values. Our study was to compare the performance of five commonly used methods in analysis of productivity loss outcomes in RCTs.

Methods

We conducted a simulation study to compare Ordinary Least Squares (OLS), Negative Binominal (NB), two-part models (the non-zero part following truncated NB distribution or gamma distribution) and three-part model (the middle part between zero and max values following Beta distribution). The main number of observations each arm, N_obs, that we considered were 50, 100 and 200. Baseline productivity loss was included as a covariate.

Results

All models performed similarly well when baseline productivity loss was set at the mean value. When baseline productivity loss was set at other values and N_obs = 50 with ≤5 subjects having max loss, two-part models performed best if the proportion of zero loss> 50% in at least one arm and otherwise, OLS performed best. When N_obs = 100 or 200, the three-part model performed best if the two arms had equal scale parameters for their productivity loss outcome distributions between zero and max values.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that when treatment effect at any given values of one single covariate is of interest, the model selection depends on the sample size, the proportions of zero loss and max loss, and the scale parameter for the productivity loss outcome distribution between zero and max loss in each arm of RCTs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01330-w.

Considering the societal perspective in economic evaluations: a systematic review in the case of depression

BACKGROUND

Depressive disorders are associated with a high burden of disease. However, due to the burden posed by the disease on not only the sufferers, but also on their relatives, there is an ongoing debate about which costs to include and, hence, which perspective should be applied. Therefore, the aim of this paper was to examine whether the change between healthcare payer and societal perspective leads to different conclusions of cost-utility analyses in the case of depression.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted to identify economic evaluations of interventions in depression, launched on Medline and the Cost-Effectiveness Registry of the Tufts University using a ten-year time horizon (2008-2018). In a two-stepped screening process, cost-utility studies were selected by means of specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Subsequently, relevant findings was extracted and, if not fully stated, calculated by the authors of this work.

RESULTS

Overall, 53 articles with 92 complete economic evaluations, reporting costs from healthcare payer/provider and societal perspective, were identified. More precisely, 22 estimations (24%) changed their results regarding the cost-effectiveness quadrant when the societal perspective was included. Furthermore, 5% of the ICURs resulted in cost-effectiveness regarding the chosen threshold (2% of them became dominant) when societal costs were included. However, another four estimations (4%) showed the opposite result: these interventions were no longer cost-effective after the inclusion of societal costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Summarising the disparities in results and applied methods, the results show that societal costs might alter the conclusions in cost-utility analyses. Hence, the relevance of the perspectives chosen should be taken into account when carrying out an economic evaluation. This systematic review demonstrates that the results of economic evaluations can be affected by different methods available for estimating non-healthcare costs.

The Effectiveness of Patient-Centred Medical Home-Based Models of Care versus Standard Primary Care in Chronic Disease Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised and Non-Randomised Controlled Trials

Patient-centred care by a coordinated primary care team may be more effective than standard care in chronic disease management. We synthesised evidence to determine whether patient-centred medical home (PCMH)-based care models are more effective than standard general practitioner (GP) care in improving biomedical, hospital, and economic outcomes. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched to identify randomised (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials that evaluated two or more principles of PCMH among primary care patients with chronic diseases. Study selection, data extraction, quality assessment using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) appraisal tools, and grading of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach were conducted independently. A quantitative synthesis, where possible, was pooled using random effects models and the effect size estimates of standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals were reported. Of the 13,820 citations, we identified 78 eligible RCTs and 7 quasi trials which included 60,617 patients. The findings suggested that PCMH-based care was associated with significant improvements in depression episodes (SMD -0.24; 95% CI -0.35, -0.14; I2 = 76%) and increased odds of remission (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.46, 2.21; I2 = 0%). There were significant improvements in the health-related quality of life (SMD 0.10; 95% CI 0.04, 0.15; I2 = 51%), self-management outcomes (SMD 0.24; 95% CI 0.03, 0.44; I2 = 83%), and hospital admissions (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.70, 0.98; I2 = 0%). In terms of biomedical outcomes, with exception to total cholesterol, PCMH-based care led to significant improvements in blood pressure, glycated haemoglobin, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol outcomes. The incremental cost of PCMH care was identified to be small and significantly higher than standard care (SMD 0.17; 95% CI 0.08, 0.26; I2 = 82%). The quality of individual studies ranged from "fair" to "good" by meeting at least 60% of items on the quality appraisal checklist. Additionally, moderate to high heterogeneity across studies in outcomes resulted in downgrading the included studies as moderate or low grade of evidence. PCMH-based care has been found to be superior to standard GP care in chronic disease management. Results of the review have important implications that may inform patient, practice, and policy-level changes.

Development and psychometric evaluation of the Transdiagnostic Decision Tool: matched care for patients with a mental disorder in need of highly specialised care

BACKGROUND

Early identification of patients with mental health problems in need of highly specialised care could enhance the timely provision of appropriate care and improve the clinical and cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies. Recent research on the development and psychometric evaluation of diagnosis-specific decision-support algorithms suggested that the treatment allocation of patients to highly specialised mental healthcare settings may be guided by a core set of transdiagnostic patient factors.

AIMS

To develop and psychometrically evaluate a transdiagnostic decision tool to facilitate the uniform assessment of highly specialised mental healthcare need in heterogeneous patient groups.

METHOD

The Transdiagnostic Decision Tool was developed based on an analysis of transdiagnostic items of earlier developed diagnosis-specific decision tools. The Transdiagnostic Decision Tool was psychometrically evaluated in 505 patients with a somatic symptom disorder or post-traumatic stress disorder. Feasibility, interrater reliability, convergent validity and criterion validity were assessed. In order to evaluate convergent validity, the five-level EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and the ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults (ICECAP-A) were administered.

RESULTS

The six-item clinician-administered Transdiagnostic Decision Tool demonstrated excellent feasibility and acceptable interrater reliability. Spearman's rank correlations between the Transdiagnostic Decision Tool and ICECAP-A (-0.335), EQ-5D-5L index (-0.386) and EQ-5D-visual analogue scale (-0.348) supported convergent validity. The area under the curve was 0.81 and a cut-off value of ≥3 was found to represent the optimal cut-off value.

CONCLUSIONS

The Transdiagnostic Decision Tool demonstrated solid psychometric properties and showed promise as a measure for the early detection of patients in need of highly specialised mental healthcare.

Descriptive Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Counseling and Coordination Model in Psychosocial Care. Integration of Health Care and Social Rehabilitation

INTRODUCTION

A psychosocial outreach clinic was established to offer counseling and coordination of healthcare and complementary services for persons with psychosocial and mental problems. The cost-effectiveness of these services was measured based on a pre-post comparison.

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted with clients of the outreach clinic. Data on resource consumption and quality of life were collected at baseline and follow-up after 3, 6, and 12 months using the Client Sociodemographic and Service Receipt Inventory to assess service utilization, and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey to assess quality of life. The objective of the present analysis was to estimate the relation between monetary expenditure and QALYs (quality-adjusted life-years), before and after the outreach clinic was established, descriptively. The analysis was constructed from payer's perspective and was supplemented by a sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 85 participants were included. Total annual expenditures before the intervention were 5,832 € per client for all service segments. During the 12-months study duration expenditures decreased to 4,350 € including the costs associated with outreach clinic services. QALYs for the 12-month study period were 0.6618 and increased about 0.0568 compared to the period before.

DISCUSSION

Despite methodological limitations due to small sample size, a pre-post comparison and the retrospective cost data collection, this study suggests acceptability of the outreach clinic as cost-effective.

CONCLUSION

The activities of the outreach clinic as an integrated care model seem to be cost-effective regarding the relation between monetary expenditures and clients' quality of life.

Comparative Effect of Collaborative Care, Pain Medication, and Duloxetine in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder and Comorbid (Sub)Chronic Pain: Results of an Exploratory Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Trial (CC:PAINDIP)

OBJECTIVE

Evidence exists for the efficacy of collaborative care (CC) for major depressive disorder (MDD), for the efficacy of the consequent use of pain medication against pain, and for the efficacy of duloxetine against both MDD and neuropathic pain. Their relative effectiveness in comorbid MDD and pain has never been established so far. This study explores the effectiveness of CC with pain medication and duloxetine, and CC with pain medication and placebo, compared with duloxetine alone, on depressive and pain symptoms. This study was prematurely terminated because of massive reorganizations and reimbursement changes in mental health care in the Netherlands during the study period and is therefore of exploratory nature.

METHODS

Three-armed, randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled trial at three specialized mental health outpatient clinics with patients who screened positive for MDD. Interventions lasted 12 weeks. Pain medication was administered according to an algorithm that avoids opiate prescription as much as possible, where paracetamol, COX inhibitors, and pregabalin are offered as steps before opiates are considered. Patients who did not show up for three or more sessions were registered as non-compliant. Explorative, intention-to-treat and per protocol, multilevel regression analyses were performed. The trial is listed in the trial registration (http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1089; NTR number: NTR1089).

RESULTS

Sixty patients completed the study. Patients in all treatment groups reported significantly less depressive and pain symptoms after 12 weeks. CC with placebo condition showed the fastest decrease in depressive symptoms compared with the duloxetine alone group (b = -0.78; p = 0.01). Non-compliant patients (n = 31) did not improve over the 12-week period, in contrast to compliant patients (n = 29). Pain outcomes did not differ between the three groups.

CONCLUSION

In MDD and pain, patient's compliance and placebo effects are more important in attaining effect than choice of one of the treatments. Active pain management with COX inhibitors and pregabalin as alternatives to tramadol or other opiates might provide an attractive alternative to the current WHO pain ladder as it avoids opiate prescription as much as possible. The generalizability is limited due to the small sample size. Larger studies are needed.

Measuring and improving the quality of mental health care: a global perspective

Mental disorders are common worldwide, yet the quality of care for these disorders has not increased to the same extent as that for physical conditions. In this paper, we present a framework for promoting quality measurement as a tool for improving quality of mental health care. We identify key barriers to this effort, including lack of standardized information technology-based data sources, limited scientific evidence for mental health quality measures, lack of provider training and support, and cultural barriers to integrating mental health care within general health environments. We describe several innovations that are underway worldwide which can mitigate these barriers. Based on these experiences, we offer several recommendations for improving quality of mental health care. Health care payers and providers will need a portfolio of validated measures of patient-centered outcomes across a spectrum of conditions. Common data elements will have to be developed and embedded within existing electronic health records and other information technology tools. Mental health outcomes will need to be assessed more routinely, and measurement-based care should become part of the overall culture of the mental health care system. Health care systems will need a valid way to stratify quality measures, in order to address potential gaps among subpopulations and identify groups in most need of quality improvement. Much more attention should be devoted to workforce training in and capacity for quality improvement. The field of mental health quality improvement is a team sport, requiring coordination across different providers, involvement of consumer advocates, and leveraging of resources and incentives from health care payers and systems.

Illness burden and physical outcomes associated with collaborative care in patients with comorbid depressive disorder in chronic medical conditions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Collaborative care (CC) improves depressive symptoms in people with comorbid depressive disorder in chronic medical conditions, but its effect on physical symptoms has not yet systematically been reviewed. This study aims to do so.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and the European and US Clinical Trial Registers. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CC compared to care as usual (CAU), in primary care and general hospital setting, reporting on physical and depressive symptoms as outcomes. Overall treatment effects were estimated for illness burden, physical outcomes and depression, respectively.

RESULTS

Twenty RCTs were included, with N=4774 patients. The overall effect size of CC versus CAU for illness burden was OR 1.64 (95%CI 1.47;1.83), d=0.27 (95%CI 0.21;0.33). Best physical outcomes in CC were found for hypertension with comorbiddepression. Overall, depression outcomes were better for CC than for CAU. Moderator analyses did not yield statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

CC is more effective than CAU in terms of illness burden, physical outcomes and depression, in patients with comorbid depression in chronic medical conditions. More research covering multiple medical conditions is needed.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The protocol for this systematic review and meta-analysis has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on February 19th 2016: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/DisplayPDF.php?ID=CRD42016035553.

Clinical Phenotype of Depression Affects Interleukin-6 Synthesis

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is not a single disease, but a number of various ailments that form one entity. Psychomotor retardation, anhedonia, sleep disorders, an increased suicide risk, and anxiety are the main symptoms that often define the clinical diagnosis of depression. Interleukin-6 (IL-6), as one of the proinflammatory cytokines, seems to be overexpressed during certain mental disorders, including MDD. Overexpression of IL-6 in depression is thought to be a factor associated with bad prognosis and worse disease course. IL-6 may directly affect brain functioning and production of neurotransmitters; moreover, its concentration is correlated with certain clinical symptoms within the wide range of depressive symptomatology. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between IL-6 synthesis and psychosomatic functioning of the patient. This article discusses potential sources and significance of IL-6 in the pathogenesis of depression.

Cost-utility of collaborative care for the treatment of comorbid major depressive disorder in outpatients with chronic physical conditions. A randomized controlled trial in the general hospital setting (CC-DIM)

PURPOSE

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is highly prevalent in patients with a chronic physical condition, and this comorbidity has a negative influence on quality of life, health care costs, self-care, morbidity, and mortality. Research has shown that collaborative care (CC) may be a cost-effective treatment. However, its cost-effectiveness in this patient group has not yet been established. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of CC for the treatment of comorbid MDD in chronically ill patients in the outpatient general hospital setting. The study was conducted from a health care and societal perspective.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, 81 patients with moderate-to-severe MDD were included; 42 were randomly assigned to the CC group and 39 to the care as usual (CAU) group. We applied the TiC-P, short-form Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire, and EuroQol EQ-5D 3 level version, measuring the use of health care, informal care, and household work, respectively, at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean annual direct medical costs in the CC group were €6,718 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3,541 to 10,680) compared to €4,582 (95% CI: 2,782 to 6,740) in the CAU group. The average quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were 0.07 higher in the CC group, indicating that CC is more costly but also more effective than CAU. From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €24,690/QALY.

CONCLUSION

This first cost-utility analysis in chronically ill patients with comorbid MDD shows that CC may be a cost-effective treatment depending on willingness-to-pay levels. Nevertheless, the low utility scores emphasize the need for further research to improve the cost-effectiveness of CC in this highly prevalent and costly group of patients.