Cargando…

Cost-effectiveness of a care manager collaborative care programme for patients with depression in primary care: economic evaluation of a pragmatic randomised controlled study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a care manager (CM) programme compared with care as usual (CAU) for treatment of depression at primary care centres (PCCs) from a healthcare as well as societal perspective. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: 23 PCCs in two Swedish regions....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Holst, Anna, Ginter, Annika, Björkelund, Cecilia, Hange, Dominique, Petersson, Eva-Lisa, Svenningsson, Irene, Westman, Jeanette, André, Malin, Wikberg, Carl, Wallin, Lars, Möller, Christina, Svensson, Mikael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6252772/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30420353
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024741
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a care manager (CM) programme compared with care as usual (CAU) for treatment of depression at primary care centres (PCCs) from a healthcare as well as societal perspective. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: 23 PCCs in two Swedish regions. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with depression (n=342). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A cost-effectiveness analysis was applied on a cluster randomised trial at PCC level where patients with depression had 3 months of contact with a CM (11 intervention PCCs, n=163) or CAU (12 control PCCs, n=179), with follow-up 3 and 6 months. Effectiveness measures were based on the number of depression-free days (DFDs) calculated from the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale-Self and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results were expressed as the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio: ∆Cost/∆QALY and ∆Cost/∆DFD. Sampling uncertainty was assessed based on non-parametric bootstrapping. RESULTS: Health benefits were higher in intervention group compared with CAU group: QALYs (0.357 vs 0.333, p<0.001) and DFD reduction of depressive symptom score (79.43 vs 60.14, p<0.001). The mean costs per patient for the 6-month period were €368 (healthcare perspective) and €6217 (societal perspective) for the intervention patients and €246 (healthcare perspective) and €7371 (societal perspective) for the control patients (n.s.). The cost per QALY gained was €6773 (healthcare perspective) and from a societal perspective the CM programme was dominant. DISCUSSION: The CM programme was associated with a gain in QALYs as well as in DFD, while also being cost saving compared with CAU from a societal perspective. This result is of high relevance for decision-makers on a national level, but it must be observed that a CM programme for depression implies increased costs at the primary care level. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02378272; Results.