BACKGROUND: Healthcare decision makers require accurate long-term economic models to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new mental health interventions. AIMS: To assess the suitability of current patient-level economic models to estimate long-term economic outcomes in severe mental illness. METHOD: We undertook pre-specified systematic searches in MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO to identify reviews and stand-alone publications of economic models of interventions for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder (PROSPERO: CRD42020158243). We screened paper titles and abstracts to identify unique patient-level economic models. We conducted a structured extraction of identified models, recording the presence of key predefined model features. Model quality and validation were appraised using the 2014 ISPOR and 2016 AdViSHE model checklists. RESULTS: We identified 15 unique patient-level models for psychosis and major depressive disorder from 1481 non-duplicate records. Models addressed schizophrenia (n = 6), bipolar disorder (n = 2) and major depressive disorder (n = 7). The predominant model type was discrete event simulation (n = 9). Model complexity and incorporation of patient heterogeneity varied considerably, and only five models extrapolated costs and outcomes over a lifetime horizon. Key model parameters were often based on low-quality evidence, and checklist quality assessment revealed weak model verification procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Existing patient-level economic models of interventions for severe mental illness have considerable limitations. New modelling efforts must be supplemented by the generation of good-quality, contemporary evidence suitable for model building. Combined effort across the research community is required to build and validate economic extrapolation models suitable for accurately assessing the long-term value of new interventions from short-term clinical trial data.
BACKGROUND: Healthcare decision makers require accurate long-term economic models to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of new mental health interventions. AIMS: To assess the suitability of current patient-level economic models to estimate long-term economic outcomes in severe mental illness. METHOD: We undertook pre-specified systematic searches in MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO to identify reviews and stand-alone publications of economic models of interventions for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder (PROSPERO: CRD42020158243). We screened paper titles and abstracts to identify unique patient-level economic models. We conducted a structured extraction of identified models, recording the presence of key predefined model features. Model quality and validation were appraised using the 2014 ISPOR and 2016 AdViSHE model checklists. RESULTS: We identified 15 unique patient-level models for psychosis and major depressive disorder from 1481 non-duplicate records. Models addressed schizophrenia (n = 6), bipolar disorder (n = 2) and major depressive disorder (n = 7). The predominant model type was discrete event simulation (n = 9). Model complexity and incorporation of patient heterogeneity varied considerably, and only five models extrapolated costs and outcomes over a lifetime horizon. Key model parameters were often based on low-quality evidence, and checklist quality assessment revealed weak model verification procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Existing patient-level economic models of interventions for severe mental illness have considerable limitations. New modelling efforts must be supplemented by the generation of good-quality, contemporary evidence suitable for model building. Combined effort across the research community is required to build and validate economic extrapolation models suitable for accurately assessing the long-term value of new interventions from short-term clinical trial data.
Authors: Jonathan Karnon; James Stahl; Alan Brennan; J Jaime Caro; Javier Mar; Jörgen Möller Journal: Value Health Date: 2012 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Adriane R Rosa; María Reinares; Erin E Michalak; C Mar Bonnin; Brisa Sole; Carolina Franco; Mercè Comes; Carla Torrent; Flávio Kapczinski; Eduard Vieta Journal: Value Health Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Jan Spijker; Ron de Graaf; Rob V Bijl; Aartjan T F Beekman; Johan Ormel; Willem A Nolen Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Chiara Gastaldon; Franziska Mosler; Sarah Toner; Federico Tedeschi; Victoria Jane Bird; Corrado Barbui; Stefan Priebe Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-09-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Manuela Russo; Stephen Z Levine; Arsime Demjaha; Marta Di Forti; Stefania Bonaccorso; Paul Fearon; Paola Dazzan; Carmine M Pariante; Anthony S David; Craig Morgan; Robin M Murray; Abraham Reichenberg Journal: Schizophr Bull Date: 2013-05-09 Impact factor: 7.348