RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.
Cost-effectiveness of first- and second-step treatment strategies for major depressive disorder
A rapid review
Dobrescu, A., Chapman, A., Affengruber, L., Persad, E., Toromanova, A., Wagner, G., Klerings, I., Emprechtinger, R., & Gartlehner, G. (2023). Cost-effectiveness of first- and second-step treatment strategies for major depressive disorder: A rapid review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 176(2), 212-216. https://doi.org/10.7326/M22-1872
BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is the most prevalent, disabling form of depression, with a high economic effect.
PURPOSE: To assess evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions as first- and second-step treatments in patients with MDD.
DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases limited to English language were searched (1 January 2015 to 29 November 2022).
STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators independently screened the literature. Seven economic modeling studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria.
DATA EXTRACTION: Data abstraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second; 2 investigators independently rated risk of bias. One investigator determined certainty of evidence, and another checked for plausibility.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Seven modeling studies met the eligibility criteria. In a U.S. setting over a 5-year time horizon, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was cost-effective compared with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) as a first-step treatment from the societal and health care sector perspectives. However, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings should be interpreted cautiously. For second-step treatment, only switch strategies between SGAs were assessed. The evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions.
LIMITATIONS: Methodologically heterogeneous studies, which compared only CBT and some SGAs, were included. No evidence on other psychotherapies or complementary and alternative treatments as first-step treatment or augmentation strategies as second-step treatment was available.
CONCLUSION: Although CBT may be cost-effective compared with SGAs as a first-step treatment at a 5-year time horizon from the societal and health care sector perspectives, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings need to be interpreted cautiously. For other comparisons, the evidence was entirely missing or insufficient to draw conclusions.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: American College of Physicians.
