Cost-effectiveness of active monitoring versus antidepressants for major depression in primary health care: a 12-month non-randomized controlled trial (INFAP study)

Co-creation and collaboration: A promising approach towards successful implementation. Experience from an integrated communication and mental health skills training programme for Japanese General Practice

INTRODUCTION

This paper describes the co-creation and delivery of an integrated training programme in communication and depression assessment & management for Japanese GPs.

METHODS

Experts in communication and depression from EACH and WONCA developed a framework and filled it with content. Through iterative discussions with the Japanese participants and experts during delivery, the training was further adjusted to match local needs. It included didactic and experiential training methods with an emphasis on practicing and feedback. A "train-the-trainer" component helped participants develop their own trainer skills to enhance dissemination of the training in Japan.

RESULTS

Six Japanese GPs participated in two one week training-modules in May and November 2018. To aid implementation participants received online supervision on depression management and on teaching between the two modules and after the second module. Evaluation of the content of the training, the teaching methods and the participatory approach was positive. More than two years after the training, many elements of the training continue to be used in daily practice with the GPs teaching communication as well as depression management skills.

CONCLUSION

The method of co-creation is promising. Research is needed to confirm that it is effective in transfer to clinical practice.

Use of Mental Health Services for Patients Diagnosed with Major Depressive Disorders in Primary Care

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is one of the most disabling diseases worldwide, generating high use of health services. Previous studies have shown that Mental Health Services (MHS) use is associated with patient and Family Physician (FP) factors. The aim of this study was to investigate MHS use in a naturalistic sample of MDD outpatients and the factors influencing use of services in specialized psychiatric care, to know the natural mental healthcare pathway. Non-randomized clinical trial including newly depressed Primary Care (PC) patients (n = 263) with a 12-month follow-up (from 2013 to 2015). Patient sociodemographic variables were assessed along with clinical variables (mental disorder diagnosis, severity of depression or anxiety, quality of life, disability, beliefs about illness and medication). FP (n = 53) variables were also evaluated. A multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to assess factors associated with public or private MHS use. Subjects were clustered by FP. Having previously used MHS was associated with the use of MHS. The use of public MHS was associated with worse perception of quality of life. No other sociodemographic, clinical, nor FP variables were associated with the use of MHS. Patient self-perception is a factor that influences the use of services, in addition to having used them before. This is in line with Value-Based Healthcare, which propose to put the focus on the patient, who is the one who must define which health outcomes are relevant to him.

Consumption of psychotropic medicines at a referral hospital in Namibia: findings and implications

SETTING

In Namibia, the burden of mental illnesses is estimated at 25.6% and is expected to double by 2025. Few studies in sub-Saharan Africa estimate the consumption rates of psychotropic medicines as a proxy of irrational use.

AIM

The consumption rate of psychotropic medicines at a referral hospital was determined.

METHODS

A hospital-based retrospective medicine utilization analysis of Facility Electronic Stock Card (FESC) psychotropic medication was conducted at Intermediate Hospital Katutura over a 7 year period, 2011-2017. Data on consumption and expenditure on psychotropic medicines were abstracted from FESC and analysed using descriptive statistics in SPSS v22. The main outcomes were consumption rates, daily Defined Dose, (DDD) and/or expenditure.

RESULTS

Of the 580 351,4 DDD of psychotropic medicines consumed, 84% were anti-psychotics, 9.2% anti-depressants and 6.8% anxiolytics. Anti-psychotics (48.8%) and anxiolytics (47.9%) had the highest consumption by cost relative to anti-depressants (3.3%). The most consumed antidepressants were imipramine (62%) by DDD and fluoxetine (55.8%) by cost. The most consumed anti-psychotics were chlorpromazine (74.6%) by DDD and haloperidol (68.4%) by cost respectively. Diazepam (79.4%) and hydroxyzine (94.2%) were most consumed sedative-hypnotics by DDD and cost respectively.

CONCLUSION

The consumption of new psychotropics contributes to higher costs. There is need for cost-effectiveness analysis of new versus conventional psychotropics to optimize treatment, outcomes and costs.

Cost-effectiveness of antidepressants versus active monitoring for mild-to-moderate major depressive disorder: a multisite non-randomized-controlled trial in primary care (INFAP study)

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.

Diagnostic accuracy and treatment approach to depression in primary care: predictive factors

OBJECTIVE

The study assessed the predictive factors of diagnostic accuracy and treatment approach (antidepressants versus active monitoring) for depression in primary care.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study that uses information from a naturalistic prospective controlled trial performed in Barcelona (Spain) enrolling newly diagnosed patients with mild to moderate depression by GPs. Treatment approach was based on clinical judgement. Diagnosis was later assessed according to DSM-IV criteria using Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I) interview by an external researcher. Patients (sociodemographic, psychiatric diagnosis, severity of depression and anxiety, health-related quality of life, disability, beliefs about medication and illness and comorbidities) and GP factors associated with diagnostic accuracy and treatment approach were assessed using multilevel logistic regression. Variables with missing data were imputed through multiple imputations.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-three patients were recruited by 53 GPs. Mean age was 51 years (SD = 15). Thirty percent met DSM-IV criteria for major depression. Mean depression symptomatology was moderate-severe. Using multivariate analyses, patients' beliefs about medicines were the only variable associated with the antidepressant approach. Specialization in general medicine and being a resident tutor were associated with a more accurate diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical depression diagnosis by GPs was not always associated with a formal diagnosis through a SCID-I. GPs' training background was central to an adequate depression diagnosis. Patients' beliefs in medication were the only factor associated with treatment approach. More resources should be allocated to improving the diagnosis of depression.

Effectiveness of watchful waiting versus antidepressants for patients diagnosed of mild to moderate depression in primary care: A 12-month pragmatic clinical trial (INFAP study)

Background:

Although mild to moderate major depressive disorder (MDD) is one of the main reasons for consulting a general practitioner (GP), there is still no international consensus on the most appropriate therapeutic approach.

Methods:

The aim of this study is to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of watchful waiting (WW) compared with the use of antidepressants (ADs) for the treatment of mild to moderate depressive symptoms in 263 primary care (PC) usual-practice patients in a 12-month pragmatic non-randomised controlled trial. Both longitudinal and per-protocol analyses were performed, through a multilevel longitudinal analysis and a sensitivity analysis.

Results:

We observed a statistically significant time x treatment interaction in the severity of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire, PHQ-9) and disability (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule, WHODAS) in favour of the AD group at 6 months but not at 12 months. The effect size of this difference was small. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups in severity of anxiety (Beck Anxiety Inventory, BAI) or health-related quality-of-life (EuroQol-5D, EQ-5D). Sensitivity analysis and per-protocol analysis showed no differences between the two groups in any of the evaluated scales.

Conclusions:

Superiority of either treatment (WW and AD) was not demonstrated in patients treated for depression in PC after one year of follow-up.

Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-Utility Analysis of the Treatment of Emotional Disorders in Primary Care: PsicAP Clinical Trial. Description of the Sub-study Design

Introduction: In the primary care (PC) setting in Spain, the prevalence of emotional disorders (EDs) such as anxiety, depression and somatoform disorder is high. In PC patients, these disorders are not always managed in accordance with the recommendations provided by clinical practice guidelines, resulting in major direct and indirect economic costs and suboptimal treatment outcomes. The aim is to analyze and compare the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of group-based psychological therapy versus treatment as usual (TAU).

Methods: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial involving 300 patients recruited from PC centers in Madrid, Spain, with symptoms or possible diagnosis of anxiety, mood (mild or moderate), or somatoform disorders. Patients will be randomized to one of two groups: an experimental group, which will receive group-based transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioral therapy (TD-CBT); and a control group, which will receive TAU (mainly pharmacological interventions) prescribed by their general practitioner (GP). Clinical assessment will be performed with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). Direct and indirect costs will be calculated and relevant socio-demographic variables will be registered. The Spanish version of the EuroQol 5D-5L will be administered. Patients will be assessed at baseline, immediately after treatment finalization, and at 6 and 12 months post-treatment.

Discussion: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compare TD-CBT to TAU in the PC setting in Spain. This is the first comparative economic evaluation of these two treatment approaches in PC. The strength of the study is that it is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial of psychotherapy and TAU for EDs in PC.

Trial registration: Protocol code: ISCRCTN58437086; 20/05/2013.

                                       EUDRACT: 2013-001955-11.

                                       Protocol Version: 6, 11/01/2014.

Economic evaluation of a guided and unguided internet-based CBT intervention for major depression: Results from a multi-center, three-armed randomized controlled trial conducted in primary care

Depression is one of the most common mental disorders and will become one of the leading causes of disability in the world. Internet-based CBT programs for depression have been classified as “well established” following the American Psychological Association criteria for empirically supported treatments. The aim of this study is to analyze the cost effectiveness at 12-month follow-up of the Internet-based CBT program “Smiling is fun” with (LITG) and without psychotherapist support (TSG) compared to usual care. The perspective used in our analysis is societal. A sample of 296 depressed patients (mean age of 43.04 years; 76% female; BDI-II mean score = 22.37) from primary care services in four Spanish regions were randomized in the RCT. The complete case and intention-to-treat (ITT) perspectives were used for the analyses. The results demonstrated that both Internet-based CBT interventions exhibited cost utility and cost effectiveness compared with a control group. The complete case analyses revealed an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €-169.50 and an incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR) of €-11389.66 for the TSG group and an ICER of €-104.63 and an ICUR of €-6380.86 for the LITG group. The ITT analyses found an ICER of €-98.37 and an ICUR of €-5160.40 for the TSG group and an ICER of €-9.91 and an ICUR of €496.72 for the LITG group. In summary, the results of this study indicate that the two Internet-based CBT interventions are appropriate from both economic and clinical perspectives for depressed patients in the Spanish primary care system. These interventions not only help patients to improve clinically but also generate societal savings.

Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01611818

World Health Organization disability assessment schedule 2.0: An international systematic review

PURPOSE

This systematic review examines research and practical applications of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS 2.0) as a basis for establishing specific criteria for evaluating relevant international scientific literature. The aims were to establish the extent of international dissemination and use of WHODAS 2.0 and analyze psychometric research on its various translations and adaptations. In particular, we wanted to highlight which psychometric features have been investigated, focusing on the factor structure, reliability, and validity of this instrument.

METHOD

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology, we conducted a search for publications focused on "whodas" using the ProQuest, PubMed, and Google Scholar electronic databases.

RESULTS

We identified 810 studies from 94 countries published between 1999 and 2015. WHODAS 2.0 has been translated into 47 languages and dialects and used in 27 areas of research (40% in psychiatry).

CONCLUSIONS

The growing number of studies indicates increasing interest in the WHODAS 2.0 for assessing individual functioning and disability in different settings and individual health conditions. The WHODAS 2.0 shows strong correlations with several other measures of activity limitations; probably due to the fact that it shares the same disability latent variable with them. Implications for Rehabilitation WHODAS 2.0 seems to be a valid, reliable self-report instrument for the assessment of disability. The increasing interest in use of the WHODAS 2.0 extends to rehabilitation and life sciences rather than being limited to psychiatry. WHODAS 2.0 is suitable for assessing health status and disability in a variety of settings and populations. A critical issue for rehabilitation is that a single "minimal clinically important .difference" score for the WHODAS 2.0 has not yet been established.