Article
Utility scores of symptom profiles in major depression.
Mood & Anxiety Disorders Program, Department of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook & Women's College Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Psychiatry Research (impact factor:
2.52).
07/2002;
110(2):189-97.
Source: PubMed
-
Citations (0)
- Cited In (4)
-
Article: When is pharmacogenetic testing for antidepressant response ready for the clinic? A cost-effectiveness analysis based on data from the STAR*D study.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The potential of personalized medicine to transform the treatment of mood disorders has been widely touted in psychiatry, but has not been quantified. We estimated the costs and benefits of a putative pharmacogenetic test for antidepressant response in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) from the societal perspective. Specifically, we performed cost-effectiveness analyses using state-transition probability models incorporating probabilities from the multicenter STAR*D effectiveness study of MDD. Costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared for sequential antidepressant trials, with or without guidance from a pharmacogenetic test for differential response to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Likely SSRI responders received an SSRI, whereas likely nonresponders received the norepinephrine/dopamine reuptake inhibitor bupropion. For a 40-year old with MDD, applying the pharmacogenetic test and using the non-SSRI bupropion for those at higher risk for nonresponse cost $93,520 per additional QALY compared with treating all patients with an SSRI first and switching sequentially in the case of nonremission. Cost per QALY dropped below $50,000 for tests with remission rate ratios as low as 1.5, corresponding to odds ratios approximately 1.8-2.0. Tests for differential antidepressant response could thus become cost effective under certain circumstances. These circumstances, particularly availability of alternative treatment strategies and test effect sizes, can be estimated and should be considered before these tests are broadly applied in clinical settings.Neuropsychopharmacology: official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology 07/2009; 34(10):2227-36. · 6.99 Impact Factor -
Article: A decision analysis of long-term lithium treatment and the risk of renal failure.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To establish whether lithium or anticonvulsant should be used for maintenance treatment for bipolar affective disorder (BPAD) if the risks of suicide and relapse were traded off against the risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Decision analysis based on a systematic literature review with two main decisions: (1) use of lithium or at treatment initiation and (2) the potential discontinuation of lithium in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) after 20 years of lithium treatment. The final endpoint was 30 years of treatment with five outcomes to consider: death from suicide, alive with stable or unstable BPAD, alive with or without ESRD. At the start of treatment, the model identified lithium as the treatment of choice. The risks of developing CKD or ESRD were not relevant at the starting point. Twenty years into treatment, lithium still remained treatment of choice. If CKD had occurred at this point, stopping lithium would only be an option if the likelihood of progression to ESRD exceeded 41.3% or if anticonvulsants always outperformed lithium regarding relapse prevention. At the current state of knowledge, lithium initiation and continuation even in the presence of long-term adverse renal effects should be recommended in most cases.Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 03/2012; 126(3):186-97. · 4.22 Impact Factor -
Article: Methodologies used in cost-effectiveness models for evaluating treatments in major depressive disorder: a systematic review.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Decision makers in many jurisdictions use cost-effectiveness estimates as an aid for selecting interventions with an appropriate balance between health benefits and costs. This systematic literature review aims to provide an overview of published cost-effectiveness models in major depressive disorder (MDD) with a focus on the methods employed. Key components of the identified models are discussed and any challenges in developing models are highlighted. A systematic literature search was performed to identify all primary model-based economic evaluations of MDD interventions indexed in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, EconLit, and PsycINFO between January 2000 and May 2010. A total of 37 studies were included in the review. These studies predominantly evaluated antidepressant medications. The analyses were performed across a broad set of countries. The majority of models were decision-trees; eight were Markov models. Most models had a time horizon of less than 1 year. The majority of analyses took a payer perspective. Clinical input data were obtained from pooled placebo-controlled comparative trials, single head-to-head trials, or meta-analyses. The majority of studies (24 of 37) used treatment success or symptom-free days as main outcomes, 14 studies incorporated health state utilities, and 2 used disability-adjusted life-years. A few models (14 of 37) incorporated probabilities and costs associated with suicide and/or suicide attempts. Two models examined the cost-effectiveness of second-line treatment in patients who had failed to respond to initial therapy. Resource use data used in the models were obtained mostly from expert opinion. All studies, with the exception of one, explored parameter uncertainty. The review identified several model input data gaps, including utility values in partial responders, efficacy of second-line treatments, and resource utilisation estimates obtained from relevant, high-quality studies. It highlighted the differences in outcome measures among the trials of MDD interventions, which can lead to difficulty in performing indirect comparisons, and the inconsistencies in definitions of health states used in the clinical trials and those used in utility studies. Clinical outcomes contributed to the uncertainty in cost-effectiveness estimates to a greater degree than costs or utility weights.Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation 01/2012; 10(1):1. · 0.87 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed.
The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual
current impact factor.
Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence
agreement may be applicable.
Keywords
10 individual symptoms
35 healthy controls
depressed mood
depressive symptoms
different symptoms
different utility scores
greater risk
healthy controls
individual symptoms
lifelong depressive symptoms
Mean utility scores
personal experience
psychological symptoms
similar manner
somatic symptoms
specific health state
standard gamble technique
suicidal ideation
three diagnostic groups
utility scores
