Eric L Ross1, Sandeep Vijan2, Erin M Miller3, Marcia Valenstein4, Kara Zivin5. 1. Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts (E.L.R.). 2. Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, and University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan (S.V.). 3. University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan (E.M.M.). 4. University of Michigan Medical School and the Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, Michigan (M.V.). 5. University of Michigan Medical School, Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, University of Michigan School of Public Health, and the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (K.Z.).
Abstract
Background: Most guidelines for major depressive disorder recommend initial treatment with either a second-generation antidepressant (SGA) or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Although most trials suggest that these treatments have similar efficacy, their health economic implications are uncertain. Objective: To quantify the cost-effectiveness of CBT versus SGA for initial treatment of depression. Design: Decision analytic model. Data Sources: Relative effectiveness data from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials; additional clinical and economic data from other publications. Target Population: Adults with newly diagnosed major depressive disorder in the United States. Time Horizon: 1 to 5 years. Perspectives: Health care sector and societal. Intervention: Initial treatment with either an SGA or group and individual CBT. Outcome Measures: Costs in 2014 U.S. dollars, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results of Base-Case Analysis: In model projections, CBT produced higher QALYs (3 days more at 1 year and 20 days more at 5 years) with higher costs at 1 year (health care sector, $900; societal, $1500) but lower costs at 5 years (health care sector, -$1800; societal, -$2500). Results of Sensitivity Analysis: In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, SGA had a 64% to 77% likelihood of having an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $100 000 or less per QALY at 1 year; CBT had a 73% to 77% likelihood at 5 years. Uncertainty in the relative risk for relapse of depression contributed the most to overall uncertainty in the optimal treatment. Limitation: Long-term trials comparing CBT and SGA are lacking. Conclusion: Neither SGAs nor CBT provides consistently superior cost-effectiveness relative to the other. Given many patients' preference for psychotherapy over pharmacotherapy, increasing patient access to CBT may be warranted. Primary Funding Source: Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institute of Mental Health.
Background: Most guidelines for major depressive disorder recommend initial treatment with either a second-generation antidepressant (SGA) or cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). Although most trials suggest that these treatments have similar efficacy, their health economic implications are uncertain. Objective: To quantify the cost-effectiveness of CBT versus SGA for initial treatment of depression. Design: Decision analytic model. Data Sources: Relative effectiveness data from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials; additional clinical and economic data from other publications. Target Population: Adults with newly diagnosed major depressive disorder in the United States. Time Horizon: 1 to 5 years. Perspectives: Health care sector and societal. Intervention: Initial treatment with either an SGA or group and individual CBT. Outcome Measures: Costs in 2014 U.S. dollars, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results of Base-Case Analysis: In model projections, CBT produced higher QALYs (3 days more at 1 year and 20 days more at 5 years) with higher costs at 1 year (health care sector, $900; societal, $1500) but lower costs at 5 years (health care sector, -$1800; societal, -$2500). Results of Sensitivity Analysis: In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, SGA had a 64% to 77% likelihood of having an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $100 000 or less per QALY at 1 year; CBT had a 73% to 77% likelihood at 5 years. Uncertainty in the relative risk for relapse of depression contributed the most to overall uncertainty in the optimal treatment. Limitation: Long-term trials comparing CBT and SGA are lacking. Conclusion: Neither SGAs nor CBT provides consistently superior cost-effectiveness relative to the other. Given many patients' preference for psychotherapy over pharmacotherapy, increasing patient access to CBT may be warranted. Primary Funding Source: Department of Veterans Affairs, National Institute of Mental Health.
Authors: Don Husereau; Michael Drummond; Stavros Petrou; Chris Carswell; David Moher; Dan Greenberg; Federico Augustovski; Andrew H Briggs; Josephine Mauskopf; Elizabeth Loder Journal: Value Health Date: 2013 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Sagar V Parikh; Lena C Quilty; Paula Ravitz; Michael Rosenbluth; Barbara Pavlova; Sophie Grigoriadis; Vytas Velyvis; Sidney H Kennedy; Raymond W Lam; Glenda M MacQueen; Roumen V Milev; Arun V Ravindran; Rudolf Uher Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Robert J DeRubeis; Steven D Hollon; Jay D Amsterdam; Richard C Shelton; Paula R Young; Ronald M Salomon; John P O'Reardon; Margaret L Lovett; Madeline M Gladis; Laurel L Brown; Robert Gallop Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2005-04
Authors: Paul N Pfeiffer; Joseph Glass; Karen Austin; Marcia Valenstein; John F McCarthy; Kara Zivin Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2011-01-06 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: A John Rush; Madhukar H Trivedi; Stephen R Wisniewski; Andrew A Nierenberg; Jonathan W Stewart; Diane Warden; George Niederehe; Michael E Thase; Philip W Lavori; Barry D Lebowitz; Patrick J McGrath; Jerrold F Rosenbaum; Harold A Sackeim; David J Kupfer; James Luther; Maurizio Fava Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Pim Cuijpers; Derek P de Beurs; Bregje A J van Spijker; Matthias Berking; Gerhard Andersson; Ad J F M Kerkhof Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2012-07-24 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Sigal Maya; James G Kahn; Tracy K Lin; Laurie M Jacobs; Laura A Schmidt; William B Burrough; Rezvaneh Ghasemzadeh; Leyla Mousli; Matthew Allan; Maya Donovan; Erin Barker; Hacsi Horvath; Joanne Spetz; Claire D Brindis; Mohsen Malekinejad Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-18 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Hannah N Ziobrowski; Ruifeng Cui; Eric L Ross; Howard Liu; Victor Puac-Polanco; Brett Turner; Lucinda B Leung; Robert M Bossarte; Corey Bryant; Wilfred R Pigeon; David W Oslin; Edward P Post; Alan M Zaslavsky; Jose R Zubizarreta; Andrew A Nierenberg; Alex Luedtke; Chris J Kennedy; Ronald C Kessler Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2022-02-11 Impact factor: 10.592
Authors: Shihchen Kuo; Wen Ye; Mary de Groot; Chandan Saha; Jay H Shubrook; W Guyton Hornsby; Yegan Pillay; Kieren J Mather; William H Herman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 19.112