Randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors plus supportive care, versus supportive care alone, for mild to moderate depression with somatic symptoms in primary care: the THREAD (THREshold for AntiDepressant response) study

BackgroundCollaborative care is effective for depression management in the USA. There is little UK evidence on its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.ObjectiveTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of collaborative care compared with usual care in the management of patients with moderate to severe depression.DesignCluster randomised controlled trial.SettingUK primary care practices (n = 51) in three UK primary care districts.ParticipantsA total of 581 adults aged ≥ 18 years in general practice with a currentInternational Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition depressive episode, excluding acutely suicidal people, those with psychosis, bipolar disorder or low mood associated with bereavement, those whose primary presentation was substance abuse and those receiving psychological treatment.InterventionsCollaborative care: 14 weeks of 6–12 telephone contacts by care managers; mental health specialist supervision, including depression education, medication management, behavioural activation, relapse prevention and primary care liaison. Usual care was general practitioner standard practice.Main outcome measuresBlinded researchers collected depression [Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)], anxiety (General Anxiety Disorder-7) and quality of life (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions three-level version), Short Form questionnaire-36 items) outcomes at 4, 12 and 36 months, satisfaction (Client Satisfaction Questionnaire-8) outcomes at 4 months and treatment and service use costs at 12 months.ResultsIn total, 276 and 305 participants were randomised to collaborative care and usual care respectively. Collaborative care participants had a mean depression score that was 1.33 PHQ-9 points lower [n = 230; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35 to 2.31;p = 0.009] than that of participants in usual care at 4 months and 1.36 PHQ-9 points lower (n = 275; 95% CI 0.07 to 2.64;p = 0.04) at 12 months after adjustment for baseline depression (effect size 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.52; odds ratio for recovery 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.75; number needed to treat 6.5). Quality of mental health but not physical health was significantly better for collaborative care at 4 months but not at 12 months. There was no difference for anxiety. Participants receiving collaborative care were significantly more satisfied with treatment. Differences between groups had disappeared at 36 months. Collaborative care had a mean cost of £272.50 per participant with similar health and social care service use between collaborative care and usual care. Collaborative care offered a mean incremental gain of 0.02 (95% CI –0.02 to 0.06) quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 12 months at a mean incremental cost of £270.72 (95% CI –£202.98 to £886.04) and had an estimated mean cost per QALY of £14,248, which is below current UK willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses including informal care costs indicated that collaborative care is expected to be less costly and more effective. The amount of participant behavioural activation was the only effect mediator.ConclusionsCollaborative care improves depression up to 12 months after initiation of the intervention, is preferred by patients over usual care, offers health gains at a relatively low cost, is cost-effective compared with usual care and is mediated by patient activation. Supervision was by expert clinicians and of short duration and more intensive therapy may have improved outcomes. In addition, one participant requiring inpatient treatment incurred very significant costs and substantially inflated our cost per QALY estimate. Future work should test enhanced intervention content not collaborative care per se.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN32829227.FundingThis project was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) (G0701013) and managed by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) on behalf of the MRC–NIHR partnership.

Download Full-text

AESOPS: a randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of opportunistic screening and stepped care interventions for older hazardous alcohol users in primary care

Health Technology Assessment ◽

10.3310/hta17250 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 17 (25) ◽

Cited By ~ 20

Author(s):

JM Watson ◽

H Crosby ◽

VM Dale ◽

G Tober ◽

Q Wu ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Clinical Effectiveness ◽

Stepped Care ◽

Opportunistic Screening ◽

Hazardous Alcohol ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Alcohol Users

Download Full-text

Cost-effectiveness of a care manager collaborative care programme for patients with depression in primary care: 12-month economic evaluation of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation ◽

10.1186/s12962-021-00304-5 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 19 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Anna Holst ◽

Frida Labori ◽

Cecilia Björkelund ◽

Dominique Hange ◽

Irene Svenningsson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Health Care ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Societal Perspective ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Health Benefits ◽

Care Manager ◽

Moderate Depression ◽

Randomised Controlled

Abstract Objectives To study the cost-effectiveness of a care manager organization for patients with mild to moderate depression in Swedish primary care in a 12-month perspective. Methods Cost-effectiveness analysis of the care manager organization compared to care as usual (CAU) in a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial including 192 individuals in the care manager group and 184 in the CAU group. Cost-effectiveness was assessed from a health care and societal perspectives. Costs were assessed in relation to two different health outcome measures: depression free days (DFDs) and quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Results At the 12-month follow-up, patients treated at the intervention Primary Care Centres (PCCs) with a care manager organization had larger health benefits than the group receiving usual care only at control PCCs. Mean QALY per patient was 0.73 (95% CI 0.7; 0.75) in the care manager group compared to 0.70 (95% CI 0.66; 0.73) in the CAU group. Mean DFDs was 203 (95% CI 178; 229) in the care manager group and 155 (95% CI 131; 179) in the CAU group. Further, from a societal perspective, care manager care was associated with a lower cost than care as usual, resulting in a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for both QALYs and DFDs. From a health care perspective care manager care was related to a low cost per QALY (36,500 SEK / €3,379) and DFD (31 SEK/€3). Limitations A limitation is the fact that QALY data was impaired by insufficient EQ-5D data for some patients. Conclusions A care manager organization at the PCC to increase quality of care for patients with mild-moderate depression shows high health benefits, with no decay over time, and high cost-effectiveness both from a health care and a societal perspective. Trial registration details: The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.com (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02378272) in 02/02/2015 with the registration number NCT02378272. The first patient was enrolled in 11/20/2014.

Download Full-text

A randomised controlled trial of computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for the treatment of depression in primary care: the Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy (REEACT) trial

Health Technology Assessment ◽

10.3310/hta191010 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 19 (101) ◽

pp. 1-174 ◽

Cited By ~ 31

Author(s):

Elizabeth Littlewood ◽

Ana Duarte ◽

Catherine Hewitt ◽

Sarah Knowles ◽

Stephen Palmer ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Clinical Effectiveness ◽

Behaviour Therapy ◽

Cognitive Behaviour ◽

Computerised Cognitive Behaviour Therapy ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

Gp Care

BackgroundComputerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) has been developed as an efficient form of therapy delivery with the potential to enhance access to psychological care. Independent research is needed which examines both the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cCBT over the short and longer term.ObjectivesTo compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cCBT as an adjunct to usual general practitioner (GP) care against usual GP care alone, for a free-to-use cCBT program (MoodGYM; National Institute for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) and a commercial pay-to-use cCBT program (Beating the Blues®; Ultrasis, London, UK) for adults with depression, and to determine the acceptability of cCBT and the experiences of users.DesignA pragmatic, multicentre, three-armed, parallel, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with concurrent economic and qualitative evaluations. Simple randomisation was used. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation.SettingPrimary care in England.ParticipantsAdults with depression who scored ≥ 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9).InterventionsParticipants who were randomised to either of the two intervention groups received cCBT (Beating the Blues or MoodGYM) in addition to usual GP care. Participants who were randomised to the control group were offered usual GP care.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was depression at 4 months (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes were depression at 12 and 24 months; measures of mental health and health-related quality of life at 4, 12 and 24 months; treatment preference; and the acceptability of cCBT and experiences of users.ResultsClinical effectiveness:210 patients were randomised to Beating the Blues, 242 patients were randomised to MoodGYM and 239 patients were randomised to usual GP care (total 691). There was no difference in the primary outcome (depression measured at 4 months) either between Beating the Blues and usual GP care [odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.88] or between MoodGYM and usual GP care (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.56). There was no overall difference across all time points for either intervention compared with usual GP care in a mixed model (Beating the Blues versus usual GP care,p = 0.96; and MoodGYM versus usual GP care,p = 0.11). However, a small but statistically significant difference between MoodGYM and usual GP care at 12 months was found (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93). Free-to-use cCBT (MoodGYM) was not inferior to pay-to-use cCBT (Beating the Blues) (OR 0.91, 90% CI 0.62 to 1.34;p = 0.69). There were no consistent benefits of either intervention when secondary outcomes were examined. There were no serious adverse events thought likely to be related to the trial intervention. Despite the provision of regular technical telephone support, there was low uptake of the cCBT programs.Cost-effectiveness:cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that neither Beating the Blues nor MoodGYM appeared cost-effective compared with usual GP care alone.Qualitative evaluation:participants were often demotivated to access the computer programs, by reason of depression. Some expressed the view that a greater level of therapeutic input would be needed to promote engagement.ConclusionsThe benefits that have previously been observed in developer-led trials were not found in this large pragmatic RCT. The benefits of cCBT when added to routine primary care were minimal, and uptake of this mode of therapy was relatively low. There remains a clinical and economic need for effective low-intensity psychological treatments for depression with improved patient engagement.Trial registrationThis trial is registered as ISRCTN91947481.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Download Full-text

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for falls prevention in older people: a multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial (the REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention trial)

Health Technology Assessment ◽

10.3310/hta21240 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 21 (24) ◽

pp. 1-198 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Sarah Cockayne ◽

Sara Rodgers ◽

Lorraine Green ◽

Caroline Fairhurst ◽

Joy Adamson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Usual Care ◽

Incidence Rate ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Clinical Effectiveness ◽

Cost Effective ◽

Falls Prevention ◽

Randomised Controlled

BackgroundFalls are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to individuals and society. Evidence suggests that foot problems and inappropriate footwear may increase the risk of falling. Podiatric interventions could help reduce falls; however, there is limited evidence regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.ObjectivesTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for preventing falls in community-dwelling older people at risk of falling, relative to usual care.DesignA pragmatic, multicentred, cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and qualitative study.SettingNine NHS trusts in the UK and one site in Ireland.ParticipantsIn total, 1010 participants aged ≥ 65 years were randomised (intervention,n = 493; usual care,n = 517) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible.InterventionsAll participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their podiatrist and general practitioner. The intervention also consisted of footwear advice, footwear provision if required, foot orthoses and foot- and ankle-strengthening exercises.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the incidence rate of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to first fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness.ResultsThe primary analysis consisted of 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) usual-care participants. There was a non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group [adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.05;p = 0.16]. The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (50% vs. 55%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00;p = 0.05). No differences were observed in key secondary outcomes. No serious, unexpected and related adverse events were reported. The intervention costs £252.17 more per participant (95% CI –£69.48 to £589.38) than usual care, was marginally more beneficial in terms of HRQoL measured via the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions [mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI –0.0050 to 0.0314 QALYs] and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. The intervention was generally acceptable to podiatrists and trial participants.LimitationsOwing to the difficulty in calculating a sample size for a count outcome, the sample size was based on detecting a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one fall, and not the primary outcome. We are therefore unable to confirm if the trial was sufficiently powered for the primary outcome. The findings are not generalisable to patients who are not receiving podiatry care.ConclusionsThe intervention was safe and potentially effective. Although the primary outcome measure did not reach significance, a lower fall rate was observed in the intervention group. The reduction in the proportion of older adults who experienced a fall was of borderline statistical significance. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective.Future workFurther research could examine whether or not the intervention could be delivered in group sessions, by physiotherapists, or in high-risk patients.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN68240461.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Download Full-text