Jose Luis Ayuso-Mateos

Publications (4)34.15 Total impact

• Source

  Available from: Martin Prince

  Article: Evidence-based guidelines for mental, neurological, and substance use disorders in low- and middle-income countries: summary of WHO recommendations.

  Tarun Dua, Corrado Barbui, Nicolas Clark, Alexandra Fleischmann, Vladimir Poznyak, Mark van Ommeren, M Taghi Yasamy, Jose Luis Ayuso-Mateos, Gretchen L Birbeck, Colin Drummond, [......], Atif Rahman, Josemir W Sander, John B Saunders, Chiara Servili, Thara Rangaswamy, Jürgen Unützer, Peter Ventevogel, Lakshmi Vijayakumar, Graham Thornicroft, Shekhar Saxena
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Shekhar Saxena and colleagues summarize the recent WHO Mental Health Gap Action Programme (mhGAP) intervention guide that provides evidence-based management recommendations for mental, neurological, and substance use (MNS) disorders.
  PLoS Medicine 11/2011; 8(11):e1001122. · 16.27 Impact Factor
• Source

  Available from: Sandra Saldivia

  Article: Schizophrenia treatment in the developing world: an interregional and multinational cost-effectiveness analysis.

  Dan Chisholm, Oye Gureje, Sandra Saldivia, Marcelo Villalón Calderón, Rajitha Wickremasinghe, Nalaka Mendis, Jose-Luis Ayuso-Mateos, Shekhar Saxena
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Schizophrenia is a highly disabling disease and is costly to treat. We set out to establish what are the most cost-effective interventions applicable to developing regions and countries. Analysis was undertaken at the level of three WHO subregions spanning the Americas, Africa and South-East Asia, and subsequently in three member states (Chile, Nigeria and Sri Lanka). A state transition model was used to estimate the population-level health impact of older and newer antipsychotic drugs, alone or in combination with psychosocial intervention. Total population-level costs (in international dollars or local currencies) and effectiveness (measured in disability-adjusted life years averted) were combined to form cost-effectiveness ratios. The most cost-effective interventions were those using older antipsychotic drugs combined with psychosocial treatment, delivered via a community-based service model (I$ 2350-7158 per disability-adjusted life year averted across the three subregions, I$ 1670-3400 following country-level contextualisation within each of these subregions). The relative cost-effectiveness of interventions making use of newer, "atypical" antipsychotic drugs is estimated to be much less favourable. By moving to a community-based service model and selecting efficient treatment options, the cost of substantially increasing treatment coverage is not high (less than I$ 1 investment per capita). Taken together with other priority-setting criteria such as disease severity, vulnerability and human rights protection, this study suggests that a great deal more could be done for persons and families living under the spectre of this disorder.
  Bulletin of the World Health Organisation 08/2008; 86(7):542-51. · 4.64 Impact Factor
• Source

  Available from: rcpsych.org

  Article: Cost-effectiveness of clinical interventions for reducing the global burden of bipolar disorder.

  Dan Chisholm, Mark van Ommeren, Jose-Luis Ayuso-Mateos, Shekhar Saxena
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Bipolar disorder has been ranked seventh among the worldwide causes of non-fatal disease burden. To estimate the cost-effectiveness of interventions for reducing the global burden of bipolar disorder. Hospital- and community-based delivery of two generic mood stabilisers (lithium and valproic acid), alone and in combination with psychosocial treatment, were modelled for 14 global sub-regions. A population model was employed to estimate the impact of different strategies, relative to no intervention. Total costs (in international dollars (I$)) and effectiveness (disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) averted) were combined to form cost-effectiveness ratios. Baseline results showed lithium to be no more costly yet more effective than valproic acid, assuming an anti-suicidal effect for lithium but not for valproic acid. Community-based treatment with lithium and psychosocial care was most cost-effective (cost per DALY averted: I$2165-6475 in developing sub-regions; I$5487-21123 in developed sub-regions). Community-based interventions for bipolar disorder were estimated to be more efficient than hospital-based services, each DALY averted costing between one and three times average gross national income.
  The British Journal of Psychiatry 01/2006; 187:559-67. · 6.62 Impact Factor
• Source

  Available from: rcpsych.org

  Article: Reducing the global burden of depression: population-level analysis of intervention cost-effectiveness in 14 world regions.

  Dan Chisholm, Kristy Sanderson, Jose Luis Ayuso-Mateos, Shekhar Saxena
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: International evidence on the cost and effects of interventions for reducing the global burden of depression remain scarce. Aims To estimate the population-level cost-effectiveness of evidence-based depression interventions and their contribution towards reducing current burden. Primary-care-based depression interventions were modelled at the level of whole populations in 14 epidemiological subregions of the world. Total population-level costs (in international dollars or I$) and effectiveness (disability adjusted life years (DALYs) averted) were combined to form average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Evaluated interventions have the potential to reduce the current burden of depression by 10-30%. Pharmacotherapy with older antidepressant drugs, with or without proactive collaborative care, are currently more cost-effective strategies than those using newer antidepressants, particularly in lower-income subregions. Even in resource-poor regions, each DALYaverted by efficient depression treatments in primary care costs less than 1 year of average per capita income, making such interventions a cost-effective use of health resources. However, current levels of burden can only be reduced significantly if there is a substantial increase substantial increase in treatment coverage.
  The British Journal of Psychiatry 06/2004; 184:393-403. · 6.62 Impact Factor