The cost-utility of stepped-care algorithms according to depression guideline recommendations - Results of a state-transition model analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based clinical guidelines for major depressive disorder (MDD) recommend stepped-care strategies for sequencing evidence-based treatments conditional on treatment outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of stepped care as recommended by the multidisciplinary clinical guideline vis-à-vis usual care in the Netherlands. METHODS: Guideline-congruent care as described in stepped-care algorithms for either mild MDD or moderate and severe MDD was compared with usual care in a health-economic state-transition simulation model. Incremental costs per QALY gained were estimated over five years from a healthcare perspective. RESULTS: For mild MDD, the cost-utility analysis showed a 67% likelihood of better health outcomes against lower costs, and 33% likelihood of better outcomes against higher costs, implying dominance of guideline-congruent stepped care. For moderate and severe MDD, the cost-utility analysis indicated a 67% likelihood of health gains at higher costs following the stepped-care approach and 33% likelihood of health gains at lower costs, with a mean ICER of about €3,200 per QALY gained. At a willingness to pay threshold of €20,000 per QALY, the stepped-care algorithms for both mild MDD and moderate or severe MDD is deemed cost-effective compared to usual care with a greater than 95% probability. LIMITATIONS: The findings of our decision-analytic modelling are limited by the accuracy and availability of the underlying evidence. This hampers taking into account all individual differences relevant to optimise treatment to individual needs. CONCLUSIONS: It is highly likely that guideline-congruent stepped care for MDD is cost-effective compared to usual care. Our findings support current guideline recommendations.

Psychotherapy, antidepressants, and their combination for chronic major depressive disorder: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Recommendations for treatment of chronic major depressive disorder (cMDD) are mostly based on clinical experiences and on the literature on treatment-resistant depression (TRD) but not on a systematic review of the literature. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review of 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with 17 comparisons between antidepressants (ADs), psychotherapy, or the combination of both interventions. RESULTS: The best evidence is for the combination of psychotherapy and ADs, and especially for the combination of the cognitive behavourial analysis system of psychotherapy and ADs. Evidence is very weak for both ADs alone and psychotherapy alone. Assessment of TRD was mostly absent in the studies. CONCLUSION: The best treatment for cMDD is a combination of psychotherapy and ADs. However, there is a lack of well-performed RCTs in both ADs and psychotherapy and their combination for cMDD. Therefore, the conclusions are preliminary.

Objectif : Les recommandations de traitement du trouble dépressif majeur chronique (TDMc) sont principalement basées sur les expériences cliniques et la littérature sur la dépression réfractaire au traitement (DRT) mais pas sur une revue systématique de la littérature. Méthode : Nous avons mené une revue systématique de 10 essais randomisés contrôlés (ERC), ainsi que 17 comparaisons entre antidépresseurs (AD), psychothérapie, ou combinaison des deux interventions. Résultats : La meilleure évidence va à la combinaison de psychothérapie et AD, et spécialement à la combinaison du système d'analyse cognitivo-comportementale de la psychothérapie avec les AD. L'évidence est très faible pour les AD seuls et la psychothérapie seule. L'évaluation de la DRT était presque absente des études. Conclusion : Le meilleur traitement du TDMc est une combinaison de psychothérapie et d'AD. Cependant, les ERC bien menés sur les AD et la psychothérapie, et sur leur combinaison pour le TDMc, font défaut. Ces conclusions sont donc préliminaires.

Meta-analysis of the effectiveness of chronic care management for diabetes: investigating heterogeneity in outcomes.

PURPOSE: The study aims to support decision making on how best to redesign diabetes care by investigating three potential sources of heterogeneity in effectiveness across trials of diabetes care management. METHODS: Medline, CINAHL and PsycInfo were searched for systematic reviews and empirical studies focusing on: (1) diabetes mellitus; (2) adult patients; and (3) interventions consisting of at least two components of the chronic care model (CCM). Systematic reviews were analysed descriptively; empirical studies were meta-analysed. Pooled effect measures were estimated using a meta-regression model that incorporated study quality, length of follow-up and number of intervention components as potential predictors of heterogeneity in effects. RESULTS: Overall, reviews (n = 15) of diabetes care programmes report modest improvements in glycaemic control. Empirical studies (n = 61) show wide-ranging results on HbA1c, systolic blood pressure and guideline adherence. Differences between studies in methodological quality cannot explain this heterogeneity in effects. Variety in length of follow-up can explain (part of) the variability, yet not across all outcomes. Diversity in the number of included intervention components can explain 8-12% of the heterogeneity in effects on HbA1c and systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of chronic care management for diabetes are generally positive, yet differ considerably across trials. The most promising results are attained in studies with limited follow-up (<1 year) and by programmes including more than two CCM components. These factors can, however, explain only part of the heterogeneity in effectiveness between studies. Other potential sources of heterogeneity should be investigated to ensure implementation of evidence-based improvements in diabetes care.

Chronic care management for patients with COPD: a critical review of available evidence.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical diversity and methodological heterogeneity exists between studies on chronic care management. This study aimed to examine the effectiveness of chronic care management in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) while taking heterogeneity into account, enabling the understanding of and the decision making about such programmes. Three investigated sources of heterogeneity were study quality, length of follow-up, and number of intervention components. METHODS: We performed a review of previously published reviews and meta-analyses on COPD chronic care management. Their primary studies that were analyzed as statistical, clinical and methodological heterogeneity were present. Meta-regression analyses were performed to explain the variances among the primary studies. RESULTS: Generally, the included reviews showed positive results on quality of life and hospitalizations. Inconclusive effects were found on emergency department visits and no effects on mortality. Pooled effects on hospitalizations, emergency department visits and quality of life of primary studies did not reach significant improvement. No effects were found on mortality. Meta-regression showed that the number of components of chronic care management programmes explained present heterogeneity for hospitalizations and emergency department visits. Four components showed significant effects on hospitalizations, whereas two components had significant effects on emergency department visits. Methodological study quality and length of follow-up did not significantly explain heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that COPD chronic care management has the potential to improve outcomes of care; heterogeneity in outcomes was explained. Further research is needed to elucidate the diversity between COPD chronic care management studies in terms of the effects measured and strengthen the support for chronic care management.

The effectiveness of chronic care management for heart failure: meta-regression analyses to explain the heterogeneity in outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To support decision making on how to best redesign chronic care by studying the heterogeneity in effectiveness across chronic care management evaluations for heart failure. DATA SOURCES: Reviews and primary studies that evaluated chronic care management interventions. STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review including meta-regression analyses to investigate three potential sources of heterogeneity in effectiveness: study quality, length of follow-up, and number of chronic care model components. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our meta-analysis showed that chronic care management reduces mortality by a mean of 18 percent (95 percent CI: 0.72-0.94) and hospitalization by a mean of 18 percent (95 percent CI: 0.76-0.93) and improves quality of life by 7.14 points (95 percent CI: -9.55 to -4.72) on the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire. We could not explain the considerable differences in hospitalization and quality of life across the studies. CONCLUSION: Chronic care management significantly reduces mortality. Positive effects on hospitalization and quality of life were shown, however, with substantial heterogeneity in effectiveness. This heterogeneity is not explained by study quality, length of follow-up, or the number of chronic care model components. More attention to the development and implementation of chronic care management is needed to support informed decision making on how to best redesign chronic care.

Quality improvement in depression care in the Netherlands: the Depression Breakthrough Collaborative. A quality improvement report.

BACKGROUND: Improving the healthcare for patients with depression is a priority health policy across the world. Roughly, two major problems can be identified in daily practice: (1) the content of care is often not completely consistent with recommendations in guidelines and (2) the organization of care is not always integrated and delivered by multidisciplinary teams. AIM: To describe the content and preliminary results of a quality improvement project in primary care, aiming at improving the uptake of clinical depression guidelines in daily practice as well as the collaboration between different mental health professionals. METHOD: A Depression Breakthrough Collaborative was initiated from December 2006 until March 2008. The activities included the development and implementation of a stepped care depression model, a care pathway with two levels of treatment intensity: a first step treatment level for patients with non-severe depression (brief or mild depressive symptoms) and a second step level for patients with severe depression. Twelve months data were measured by the teams in terms of one outcome and several process indicators. Qualitative data were gathered by the national project team with a semi-structured questionnaire amongst the local team coordinators. RESULTS: Thirteen multidisciplinary teams participated in the project. In total 101 health professionals were involved, and 536 patients were diagnosed. Overall 356 patients (66%) were considered non-severely depressed and 180 (34%) patients showed severe symptoms. The mean percentage of non-severe patients treated according to the stepped care model was 78%, and 57% for the severely depressed patient group. The proportion of non-severely depressed patients receiving a first step treatment according to the stepped care model, improved during the project, this was not the case for the severely depressed patients. The teams were able to monitor depression symptoms to a reasonable extent during a period of 6 months. Within 3 months, 28% of monitored patients had recovered, meaning a Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) score of 10 and lower, and another 27% recovered between 3 and 6 months. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION: A stepped care approach seems acceptable and feasible in primary care, introducing different levels of care for different patient groups. Future implementation projects should pay special attention to the quality of care for severely depressed patients. Although the Depression Breakthrough Collaborative introduced new treatment concepts in primary and specialty care, the change capacity of the method remains unclear. Thorough data gathering is needed to judge the real value of these intensive improvement projects.

A stepped care programme for depression management: an uncontrolled pre-post study in primary and secondary care in The Netherlands.

INTRODUCTION: Stepped care strategies are potentially effective to organise integrated care but unknown is whether they function well in practice. This paper evaluates the implementation of a stepped care programme for depression in primary care and secondary care. THEORY AND METHODS: We developed a stepped care algorithm for diagnostics and treatment of depression, supported by a liaison-consultation function. In a 2(1/2) year study with pre-post design in a pilot region, adherence to the protocol was assessed by interviewing 28 caregivers of 235 patients with mild, moderate, or severe major depression. Consultation and referral patterns between primary and secondary care were analysed. RESULTS: Adherence of general practitioners and consultant caregivers to the stepped care protocol proved to be 96%. The percentage of patients referred for depression to secondary care decreased significantly from 26% to 21% (p=0.0180). In the post-period more patients received treatment in primary care and requests for consultation became more concordant with the stepped care protocol. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a stepped care programme is feasible in a primary and secondary care setting and is associated with less referrals. DISCUSSION: Further research on all subsequent treatment steps in a standardised stepped care protocol is needed.

Randomised controlled trial of a psychiatric consultation model for treatment of common mental disorder in the occupational health setting.

BACKGROUND: Common mental disorders are the most prevalent of all mental disorders, with the highest burden in terms of work absenteeism and utilization of health care services. Evidence-based treatments are available, but recognition and treatment could be improved, especially in the occupational health setting. The situation in this setting has recently changed in the Netherlands because of new legislation, which has resulted in reduced sickness absence. Severe mental disorder has now become one of the main causes of work absenteeism. Occupational physicians (OPs) are expected to take an active role in diagnosis and treatment, and seem to be in need of support for a new approach to handle cases of more complex mental disorders. Psychiatric consultation can be a collaborative care model to achieve this. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a two-armed cluster-randomized clinical trial, with randomization among OPs. Forty OPs in two big companies providing medical care for multiple companies will be randomized to either the intervention group, i.e. psychiatric consultation embedded in a training programme, or the control group, i.e. only training aimed at recognition and providing Care As Usual. 60 patients will be included who have been absent from work for 6-52 weeks and who, after screening and a MINI interview, are diagnosed with depressive disorder, anxiety disorder or somatoform disorder based on DSM-IV criteria. Baseline measurements and follow up measurements (at 3 months and 6 months) will be assessed with questionnaires and an interview. The primary outcome measure is level of general functioning according to the SF-20. Secondary measures are severity of the mental disorder according to the PHQ and the SCL-90, quality of life (EQ-D5), measures of Return To Work and cost-effectiveness of the treatment assessed with the TiC-P. Process measures will be adherence to the treatment plan and assessment of the treatment provided by the Psychiatric Consultant (PC) in both groups. DISCUSSION: In the current study, a psychiatric consultation model that has already proved to be effective in the primary care setting, and aimed to enhance evidence-based care for patients with work absenteeism and common mental disorder will be evaluated for its efficacy and cost-effectiveness in the occupational health setting.