Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Impact of Treatment Success on Health Service Use and Cost in Depression

Longitudinal Database Analysis

  • Original Research Article
  • Impact of Treatment Success on Cost in Depression
  • Published:
PharmacoEconomics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: Research has consistently demonstrated a relationship between depression and increased levels of health service use over the short term. However, much less is known about how this relationship is influenced by the success, or otherwise, of depression management strategies, and the economic impact over the longer term.

Objective: To investigate the economic impact of non-remission on health service use and costs over 12 months from the index episode in patients with depression.

Methods: A naturalistic, longitudinal study was carried out using data from a large primary care UK general practice research database between 2001 and 2006. The records of 88935 patients aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with depression and in receipt of at least two antidepressant prescriptions (for amitriptyline, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline or venlafaxine) in the first 3 months after the index prescription were included. The main outcome measures were health service use and cost over the 12-month study period, by remission status, where remission is defined as patients not using antidepressants for at least 6 months after antidepressant treatment has ended.

Results: Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were similar for participants classified as in remission and those not in remission. Over 12 months from the index prescription, patients classified as non-remitters spent longer, on average, than patients classified as remitters on concomitant psychotropic medication (204 days vs 93 days, respectively), and had more contact with primary care services (17 vs 13 GP visits), secondary care psychiatrists and other specialists (47% vs 40%). Days in hospital, accident and emergency attendances and psychological therapy contacts did not differ between the groups. Total 12-month costs per participant were significantly lower for remitters (mean £656 vs £937; mean difference £317; p < 0.0001). Total costs fell over time for both groups, but at a faster rate for those in remission, and for those who remitted earlier after the index prescription than for those who remitted later.

Conclusions: Successful cessation of antidepressant medication treatment in adults with depression can result in significant cost savings to the health service.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Table I
Fig. 1
Table II
Table III
Table IV
Table V
Table VI
Fig. 2
Table VII

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Simon G, Ormel J, Von Korff M, et al. Health care costs associated with depressive and anxiety disorders in primary care. Am J Psychiatry 1995; 152 (3): 352–7

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Katon WJ. Clinical and health services relationships between major depression, depressive symptoms, and general medical illness. Biol Psychiatry 2003; 54 (3): 216–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Simon GE, Khandker RK, Ichikawa L, et al. Recovery from depression predicts lower health services costs. J Clin Psychiatry 2006; 67 (8): 1226–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sobocki P, Ekman M, Agren H, et al. The mission is remission: health economic consequences of achieving full remission with antidepressant treatment for depression. Int J Clin Pract 2006; 60 (7): 791–8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. van Schaik DJF, Klijn AFJ, van Hout HPJ, et al. Patients’ preferences in the treatment of depressive disorder in primary care. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2004; 26: 184–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cooper C, Bebbington P, King M, et al. Why people do not take their psychotropic drugs as prescribed: results from the 2000 National Psychiatric Morbidity Survey. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2007; 116: 47–53

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Moore M, Yuen HM, Dunn N, et al. Explaining the rise in antidepressant prescribing: a descriptive study using the general practice research database. BMJ 2009; 339: b3999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. The General Practice Research Database (GPRD) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.gprd.com [Accessed 2008 Sep 5]

  9. Montgomery SA, Asberg M. A new depression scale designed to be sensitive to change. Br J Psychiatry 1979; 134: 382–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hawley CJ, Gale TM, Sivakumaran T. Defining remission by cut off score on the MADRS: selecting the optimal value. J Affective Disord 2002; 72 (2): 177–84

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Sicras-Mainar A, Blanca-Tamayo M, Navarro-Artieda R, et al. Clinical validity of remission in patients with major depression in population databases [abstract no. PMH50]. Value Health 2009; 12 (7): A360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Curtis L, Netten A. Unit costs of health and social care 2006. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  13. Department of Health. NHS reference costs 2006. London: Department of Health, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  14. British Medical Association, Royal Pharmaceutical Society. British national formulary. London: British Medical Association, 2006

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hospital Episode Statistics (HESonline™) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.HESonline.nhs.uk [Accessed 2008 Sep 5]

  16. WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC/DDD index 2010 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.whocc.no/atcddd [Accessed 2008 Sep 5]

    Google Scholar 

  17. Martinez C, Rietbrock S, Wise L, et al. Antidepressant treatment and the risk of fatal and non-fatal self harm in first episode depression: nested case-control study. BMJ 2005; 330: 389–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. McCullagh P, Nelder J. Generalized linear models. London: Chapman and Hall, 1989

    Google Scholar 

  19. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Depression: management of depression in primary and secondary care. Clinical guideline 23. London: NICE, 2004

    Google Scholar 

  20. Paykel ES, Priest RG. Recognition and management of depression in general practice: consensus statement. BMJ 1992; 305: 1198–202

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Glick HA, Briggs AH, Polsky D. Quantifying stochastic uncertainty and presenting results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Exp Rev Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 2001; 1 (1): 25–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rodin G, Voshart K. Depression in the medically ill: an overview. Am J Psychiatry 1986; 143: 696–705

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Thomas CM, Morris S. Cost of depression among adults in England in 2000. Br J Psychiatry 2003; 183: 514–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kendrick T, Chatwin J, Dowrick C, et al. 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. Health Technol Assess 2009 Apr; 13 (22): iii-iv, ix-xi, 1–159

    Google Scholar 

  25. Byford S, Leese M, Knapp M, et al. Comparison of alternative methods of collection of service use data for the economic evaluation of health care interventions. Health Econ 2007; 16: 531–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by H. Lundbeck A/S. The funding organization were involved in the design of the study, provided statistical support to collect and analyse the data (Nicolas Despiégel), commented on drafts of the document and approved the final version.

Sarah Byford and Barbara Barrett received funding from H. Lundbeck A/S to undertake the work. Nicolas Despiégel is a full-time employee of H. Lundbeck A/S.

Alan Wade has acted as a consultant to and has received lecture fees and research grants from H. Lundbeck A/S. He received no direct funding for his contribution to this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. King’s College London, Centre for the Economics of Mental Health, P024, Institute of Psychiatry, De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AF, UK

    Sarah Byford & Barbara Barrett

  2. Lundbeck SAS, Paris, France

    Nicolas Despiégel

  3. CPS Clinical Research Centre, Glasgow, UK

    Alan Wade

Authors
  1. Sarah Byford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara Barrett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicolas Despiégel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alan Wade
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Byford.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Byford, S., Barrett, B., Despiégel, N. et al. Impact of Treatment Success on Health Service Use and Cost in Depression. Pharmacoeconomics 29, 157–170 (2011). https://doi.org/10.2165/11537360-000000000-00000

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11537360-000000000-00000

Keywords

Search

Navigation