A supported self-help for recurrent depression in primary care; An economic evaluation alongside a multi-center randomised controlled trial

Economic evaluation of preventive cognitive therapy versus care as usual in cognitive behavioral therapy responders

Background

The highly recurrent nature of Major Depressive Disorder is a major contributor to disability and health care costs. Several studies indicate that recurrence may be prevented with Preventive Cognitive Therapy (PCT). This study is the first to perform an economic evaluation of PCT in comparison with care as usual for recurrently depressed patients who experienced two or more depressive episodes and remitted after receiving Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.

Methods

An economic evaluation from the societal perspective was performed alongside a randomized trial (N = 214). Health-related quality of life (QALYs), depression-free days, health care utilization, and productivity losses were measured between randomization and 15 months follow-up. The costs were indexed to the reference year 2014.

Results

QALY gains did not differ significantly between the groups (p = 0.69). Depression-free days were higher after PCT (p = 0.02). Societal costs of PCT were 10,417 euro and for care as usual 9,545 euro per person. We found a 47% likelihood that PCT led to additional QALYs at higher costs, and there was a 26% likelihood that PCT led to fewer QALYs at higher costs. When depression-free days was used as an outcome, we found PCT had a 72% likelihood of leading to more depression-free days at higher costs than care as usual and a 27% likelihood of leading to more depression-free days at lower societal costs.

Limitations

The 15-month follow-up might be too short to draw long-term conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of the PCT. The data collected for this study is part of an RCT to examine the effectiveness of adding PCT to care as usual. Therefore, the study was powered primarily to detect an effect in time to relapse/recurrences.

Conclusion

The economic evaluation is slightly in favour of the PCT condition when depression-free days is used as an outcome. PCT is not cost-effective given the high costs per additional QALYs from the societal perspective when QALYs are the effect measure.

Clinical trial registration

https://www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl/en, identifier NL2482.

Economic Evaluation of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depression: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of cost-utility studies of internet-based and face-to-face cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for depression from childhood to adulthood and to examine their reporting and methodological quality.

METHODS

A structured search for cost-utility studies concerning CBT for depression was performed in 7 comprehensive databases from their inception to July 2020. Two reviewers independently screened the literature, abstracted data, and assessed quality using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Quality of Health Economic Studies checklists. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) across all studies. To make a relevant comparison of the ICERs across the identified studies, cost data were inflated to the year 2020 and converted into US dollars.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight studies were included in this review, of which 26 studies (68%) were deemed of high methodological quality and 12 studies (32%) of fair quality. Despite differences in study designs and settings, the conclusions of most included studies for adult depression were general agreement; they showed that face-to-face CBT monotherapy or combination therapy compared with antidepressants and usual care for adult depression were cost-effective from the societal, health system, or payer perspective (ICER -$241 212.4/quality-adjusted life-year [QALY] to $33 032.47/QALY, time horizon 12-60 months). Internet-based CBT regardless of guided or unguided also has a significant cost-effectiveness advantage (ICER -$37 717.52/QALY to $73 841.34/QALY, time horizon 3-36 months). In addition, CBT was cost-effective in preventing depression (ICER -$23 932.07/QALY to $26 092.02/QALY, time horizon 9-60 months). Nevertheless, the evidence for the cost-effectiveness of CBT for children and adolescents was still ambiguous.

CONCLUSIONS

Fair or high-quality evidence showed that CBT monotherapy or combination therapy for adult depression was cost-effective; whether CBT-related therapy was cost-effective for children and adolescents depression remains inconclusive.

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.

Supported self-help to prevent relapse or recurrence of depression: Who benefits most?

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to identify subgroups for whom supported self-help preventive cognitive therapy (S-PCT) is more (cost)effective than treatment as usual (TAU) in preventing relapse and recurrence of major depression.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial in which 248 remitted, recurrently depressed participants were randomized to S-PCT (n = 124) or TAU (n = 124). Clinical outcome was relapse or recurrence of major depressive disorder (SCID-I). We tested the moderating effects on relapse or recurrence of age, gender, education level, residual depressive symptoms, number of previous episodes, age of onset, antidepressant medication, somatization, and self-efficacy with logistic regression analyses adjusted for baseline values of depressive symptoms. We examined moderating effects on costs using linear regression analyses adjusted for baseline costs. A stratified cost-effectiveness analysis was performed to tease out differences in cost-effectiveness between subgroups.

RESULTS

We found no moderating effect on relapse or recurrence for any of the potential moderators. For costs, the number of previous depressive episodes was identified as a moderator. At a willingness-to-pay of 16,000€, the probability that S-PCT was cost-effective compared to TAU was 95% for participants with 2-3 episodes and 11% for participants with ≥4 episodes.

LIMITATIONS

Participants and counselors were not blinded. The study was primarily designed to assess the (cost)effectiveness of S-PCT and not to conduct moderation analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

S-PCT was effective in preventing relapse or recurrence of depressive disorders in a broad range of participants, but is more likely to be cost-effective in participants with 2-3 episodes than ≥4 episodes. This indicates that S-PCT can best be offered to participants with fewer previous depressive episodes.