Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Treatments for Depression: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

BackgroundAn increasing number of model-based studies that evaluate the cost effectiveness of treatments for depression are being published. These studies have different characteristics and use different simulation methods.ObjectiveWe aimed to systematically review model-based studies evaluating the cost effectiveness of treatments for depression and examine which modelling technique is most appropriate for simulating the natural course of depression.MethodsThe literature search was conducted in the databases PubMed, EMBASE and PsycInfo between 1 January 2002 and 1 October 2016. Studies were eligible if they used a health economic model with quality-adjusted life-years or disability-adjusted life-years as an outcome measure. Data related to various methodological characteristics were extracted from the included studies. The available modelling techniques were evaluated based on 11 predefined criteria.ResultsThis methodological review included 41 model-based studies, of which 21 used decision trees (DTs), 15 used cohort-based state-transition Markov models (CMMs), two used individual-based state-transition models (ISMs), and three used discrete-event simulation (DES) models. Just over half of the studies (54%) evaluated antidepressants compared with a control condition. The data sources, time horizons, cycle lengths, perspectives adopted and number of health states/events all varied widely between the included studies. DTs scored positively in four of the 11 criteria, CMMs in five, ISMs in six, and DES models in seven.ConclusionThere were substantial methodological differences between the studies. Since the individual history of each patient is important for the prognosis of depression, DES and ISM simulation methods may be more appropriate than the others for a pragmatic representation of the course of depression. However, direct comparisons between the available modelling techniques are necessary to yield firm conclusions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s41669-017-0014-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cost–Utility Analysis of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy Versus Antidepressant Pharmacotherapy for Prevention of Depressive Relapse in a Canadian Context: Analyse coût-utilité de la thérapie cognitive basée sur la pleine conscience contre la pharmacothérapie antidépressive pour prévenir la rechute de la dépression en contexte canadien

“…45 This study contributed to the literature gap on the need for economic evaluations of psychotherapy in the treatment of depression. 31,34 Our overall findings are consistent with Shawyer et al, 32 regardless of the choice of comparator and outcome measure (disability-adjusted life years). This study's findings are consistent with Kuyken et al 22 which found that MBCT had a high probability (>80%) of being cost-effective at WTP levels of !$10,000.…”

“…33 The study adopted a 24-month time horizon, based on the existing literature on model-based economic evaluations conducted for depression treatments. 34 A literature review was undertaken to obtain efficacy, utility, and costing data. Parameter inputs were based on the best available evidence.…”

Protocol for the economic evaluation of metacognitive therapy for cardiac rehabilitation participants with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression

“… 33 Another recent review looking at model-based analyses specifically of treatments for depression found that the majority of papers used decision trees (21/41) or Markov models (15/41). 34 Therefore, a simpler model design (decision tree and/or Markov) is likely to be preferred.…”

Model Registration: A Call to Action

“…Reports of model-based studies often lack details of any attempts at either internal or external validation (e.g. [ 15 – 17 ]). Even where model developers do report on validation, it is vital that decision makers and other model users are themselves able to assess model validity [ 18 ].…”