Cost-effectiveness analysis of pharmaceutical treatment options in the first-line management of major depressive disorder in Belgium

The objective of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of commonly used antidepressants as first-line treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) in Belgium. The model structure was based on a decision tree developed by the Swedish TLV (TandvAyenrds- och lakemedelsformAyennsverket) and adapted to the Belgium healthcare setting, using primary local data on the patterns of treatment and following KCE [Federal Knowledge Center (Federaal Kenniscentrum voor de Gezondheidszorg)] recommendations. Comparators were escitalopram, citalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, duloxetine, venlafaxine, and mirtazapine. In the model, patients not achieving remission or relapsing after remission on the assessed treatment moved to a second therapeutic step (titration, switch, add-on, or transfer to a specialist). In case of failure in the second step or following a suicide attempt, patients were assumed to be referred to secondary care. The time horizon was 1 year and the analysis was conducted from the National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI; national health insurance) and societal perspectives. Remission rates were obtained from the TLV network meta-analysis and risk of relapse, efficacy following therapeutic change, risk of suicide attempts and related death, utilities, costs (2012), and resources were derived from the published literature and expert opinion. The effect of uncertainty in model parameters was estimated through scenario analyses and a probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). In the base-case analysis, escitalopram was identified as the optimal strategy: it dominated all other treatments except venlafaxine from the NIHDI perspective, against which it was cost effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a,not sign6,352 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Escitalopram also dominated all other treatments from the societal perspective. At a threshold of a,not sign30,000 per QALY and from the NIHDI perspective, the PSA showed that the probability of escitalopram being identified as the optimal strategy ranged from 61 % (vs. venlafaxine) to 100 % (vs. fluoxetine). Escitalopram was associated with the highest probability of being the optimal treatment from the NIHDI and societal perspectives. This analysis, based on new Belgian clinical practice data and following KCE requirements, provides additional information that may be used to guide the choice of treatments in the management of MDD in Belgium

Do general practitioners and psychiatrists agree about defining cure from depression? The DEsCRIBE™ survey

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to document the outcome dimensions that physicians see as important in defining cure from depression. The study also aimed to analyse physicians' attitudes about depression and to find out whether they affect their prescribing practices and/or the outcome dimensions that they view as important in defining cure. METHODS: A 51-item questionnaire based on six validated scales was used to rate the importance of several depression outcome dimensions. Physicians' attitudes about depression were also assessed using the Depression Attitude Scale. Overall, 369 Belgian physicians (264 general practitioners [GPs]; 105 psychiatrists) participated in the DEsCRIBE survey. RESULTS: GPs and psychiatrists strongly agreed that functioning and depressive symptomatology were most important in defining cure; anxious and somatic symptomatology was least important. GPs and psychiatrists differed in their attitudes about depression (p <0.001). Logistic regression revealed that the attitudes of GPs - but not psychiatrists - were significantly associated with their rates of antidepressant prescription (p < 0.001) and that certain attitudes predicted which outcome dimensions were seen as important in defining cure. CONCLUSIONS: Belgian GPs and psychiatrists strongly agreed on which criteria were important in defining cure from depression but differed in their attitudes about depression. The outcome dimensions that were considered important in defining cure were influenced by physicians' attitudes - this was more pronounced in GPs than in psychiatrists

Posttraumatic stress disorder associated with unexpected death of a loved one: Cross-national findings from the world mental health surveys

Background: Unexpected death of a loved one (UD) is the most commonly reported traumatic experience in cross‐national surveys. However, much remains to be learned about posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after this experience. The WHO World Mental Health (WMH) survey initiative provides a unique opportunity to address these issues. Methods: Data from 19 WMH surveys (n = 78,023; 70.1% weighted response rate) were collated. Potential predictors of PTSD (respondent sociodemographics, characteristics of the death, history of prior trauma exposure, history of prior mental disorders) after a representative sample of UDs were examined using logistic regression. Simulation was used to estimate overall model strength in targeting individuals at highest PTSD risk. Results: PTSD prevalence after UD averaged 5.2% across surveys and did not differ significantly between high‐income and low‐middle income countries. Significant multivariate predictors included the deceased being a spouse or child, the respondent being female and believing they could have done something to prevent the death, prior trauma exposure, and history of prior mental disorders. The final model was strongly predictive of PTSD, with the 5% of respondents having highest estimated risk including 30.6% of all cases of PTSD. Positive predictive value (i.e., the proportion of high‐risk individuals who actually developed PTSD) among the 5% of respondents with highest predicted risk was 25.3%. Conclusions: The high prevalence and meaningful risk of PTSD make UD a major public health issue. This study provides novel insights into predictors of PTSD after this experience and suggests that screening assessments might be useful in identifying high‐risk individuals for preventive interventions

Post-traumatic stress disorder associated with natural and human-made disasters in the World Mental Health Surveys

Background: Research on post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) following natural and human-made disasters has been undertaken for more than three decades. Although PTSD prevalence estimates vary widely, most are in the 20–40% range in disaster-focused studies but considerably lower (3–5%) in the few general population epidemiological surveys that evaluated disaster-related PTSD as part of a broader clinical assessment. The World Mental Health (WMH) Surveys provide an opportunity to examine disaster-related PTSD in representative general population surveys across a much wider range of sites than in previous studies. Method: Although disaster-related PTSD was evaluated in 18 WMH surveys, only six in high-income countries had enough respondents for a risk factor analysis. Predictors considered were socio-demographics, disaster characteristics, and pre-disaster vulnerability factors (childhood family adversities, prior traumatic experiences, and prior mental disorders). Results: Disaster-related PTSD prevalence was 0.0–3.8% among adult (ages 18+) WMH respondents and was significantly related to high education, serious injury or death of someone close, forced displacement from home, and pre-existing vulnerabilities (prior childhood family adversities, other traumas, and mental disorders). Of PTSD cases 44.5% were among the 5% of respondents classified by the model as having highest PTSD risk. Conclusion: Disaster-related PTSD is uncommon in high-income WMH countries. Risk factors are consistent with prior research: severity of exposure, history of prior stress exposure, and pre-existing mental disorders. The high concentration of PTSD among respondents with high predicted risk in our model supports the focus of screening assessments that identify disaster survivors most in need of preventive interventions

Cariprazine in the management of negative symptoms of schizophrenia : state of the art and future perspectives

In schizophrenia, dopaminergic hyperactivity in the mesolimbic regions, or possibly even selectively so in the dorsal striatum, seems to cause the emergence of psychotic symptoms, whereas dopaminergic hypoactivity in cortical regions underlies the negative symptoms and cognitive deficits. Managing the negative symptoms is a major current challenge in the treatment of schizophrenia with a dearth of novel modalities to address this clinical issue. Cariprazine is a novel second-generation antipsychotic that specifically targets the D3 receptor mainly associated to negative symptoms. The review summarizes the main issues regarding negative symptom management and the role of cariprazine treatment

Development of lifetime comorbidity in the world health organization world mental health surveys

CONTEXT: Although numerous studies have examined the role of latent variables in the structure of comorbidity among mental disorders, none has examined their role in the development of comorbidity. OBJECTIVE: To study the role of latent variables in the development of comorbidity among 18 lifetime DSM-IV disorders in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys. DESIGN: Nationally or regionally representative community surveys. SETTING: Fourteen countries. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 21 229 survey respondents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: First onset of 18 lifetime DSM-IV anxiety, mood, behavior, and substance disorders assessed retrospectively in the World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview. RESULTS: Separate internalizing (anxiety and mood disorders) and externalizing (behavior and substance disorders) factors were found in exploratory factor analysis of lifetime disorders. Consistently significant positive time-lagged associations were found in survival analyses for virtually all temporally primary lifetime disorders predicting subsequent onset of other disorders. Within-domain (ie, internalizing or externalizing) associations were generally stronger than between-domain associations. Most time-lagged associations were explained by a model that assumed the existence of mediating latent internalizing and externalizing variables. Specific phobia and obsessive-compulsive disorder (internalizing) and hyperactivity and oppositional defiant disorders (externalizing) were the most important predictors. A small number of residual associations remained significant after controlling the latent variables. CONCLUSIONS: The good fit of the latent variable model suggests that common causal pathways account for most of the comorbidity among the disorders considered herein. These common pathways should be the focus of future research on the development of comorbidity, although several important pairwise associations that cannot be accounted for by latent variables also exist that warrant further focused study

Reconceptualising treatment-resistant depression as difficult-to-treat depression

We are heartened that our consensus statement1 on difficult-to-treat depression has provoked robust debate. As pointed out by Lisa Cosgrove and colleagues,2 our proposed definition and model of care for difficult-to-treat depression is not derived from a systematic review or a Delphi technique. The term difficult-to-treat depression had previously been proposed to address semantic and conceptual issues with the so-called treatment-resistant depression model, for patients where achieving sustained remission proves elusive.3 We aimed to extend the discussion regarding this proposal, focusing on practical clinical advice. As the concept of difficult-to-treat depression is new, there is no literature to systematically review. The literature around the management of so-called treatment-resistant depression has been reviewed on many occasions, but this literature was only of partial relevance to our aims. Not only is there no universally accepted definition of treatment-resistant depression, but those that are used rarely if ever take into account psychotherapeutic or neurostimulatory treatments, or how to account for differential efficacy among treatments.4, 5 At the core of the proposed difficult-to-treat depression model is the importance of taking a holistic approach and considering all treatment options available. A systematic review of all treatments for depression was not practical. As a result, our consensus was based on the culmination of extensive discussion and deliberation among 15 international experts in the management of depression from across three continents, and the national guidelines for the treatment of depression from the countries represented. Rather than through a Delphi technique, we arrived at a consensus through many iterative reviews of the manuscript until all 15 contributors were comfortable with all the statements being discussed. However, we wish to clarify two key points that we feel Cosgrove and colleagues might have misunderstood