Evidence of cost-effective treatments for depression: a systematic review
Please note: this is a legacy publication from CPEC (formely PSSRU at LSE).Journal of Affective Disorders 84 1 1-13
Available online: 8 December 2004
Abstract
Background High levels of public spending, rising costs of treatments and scarcity of mental health resources have intensified the need for information on the cost-effectiveness of interventions for depression. There have been few reviews that consider the cost-effectiveness of all treatments for depression together. Methods Systematic review of published economic evaluations of interventions for depression to identify where evidence of cost-effectiveness exists and where ambiguity remains. Results Fifty-eight papers met the criteria and were included in the review. The quality of the evaluations varied greatly. Evidence establishing the cost-effectiveness of interventions for depression is accumulating; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and the newer antidepressants venlafaxine, mirtazepine and nefazodone appear cost-effective compared with older drugs. Despite the availability of high quality economic evaluations of psychological therapies compared to usual care, there is limited evidence of their cost-effectiveness particularly when compared directly to pharmacotherapies. Changes to health systems have been found to be cost-effective in some patient groups, but there is no evidence that screening in primary care populations is a cost-effective strategy. Limitations Vastly different interventions, outcome measures and cost perspectives meant a meta-analysis of costs and effects was not considered possible. Conclusions On the basis of available evidence, it is not possible to identify the most cost-effective strategy for alleviating the symptoms of depression, although the SSRIs and newer antidepressants consistently appear more cost-effective than tricyclic antidepressants in many patient groups. Better quality economic evidence is needed.
Background High levels of public spending, rising costs of treatments and scarcity of mental health resources have intensified the need for information on the cost-effectiveness of interventions for depression. There have been few reviews that consider the cost-effectiveness of all treatments for depression together. Methods Systematic review of published economic evaluations of interventions for depression to identify where evidence of cost-effectiveness exists and where ambiguity remains. Results Fifty-eight papers met the criteria and were included in the review. The quality of the evaluations varied greatly. Evidence establishing the cost-effectiveness of interventions for depression is accumulating; selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and the newer antidepressants venlafaxine, mirtazepine and nefazodone appear cost-effective compared with older drugs. Despite the availability of high quality economic evaluations of psychological therapies compared to usual care, there is limited evidence of their cost-effectiveness particularly when compared directly to pharmacotherapies. Changes to health systems have been found to be cost-effective in some patient groups, but there is no evidence that screening in primary care populations is a cost-effective strategy. Limitations Vastly different interventions, outcome measures and cost perspectives meant a meta-analysis of costs and effects was not considered possible. Conclusions On the basis of available evidence, it is not possible to identify the most cost-effective strategy for alleviating the symptoms of depression, although the SSRIs and newer antidepressants consistently appear more cost-effective than tricyclic antidepressants in many patient groups. Better quality economic evidence is needed.