首页> 外文OA文献 >Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a specialist depression service versus usual specialist mental health care to manage persistent depression: a randomised controlled trial
【2h】

Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a specialist depression service versus usual specialist mental health care to manage persistent depression: a randomised controlled trial

机译:专科抑郁症服务与常规专科精神卫生保健处理持续抑郁症的疗效和成本效益:一项随机对照试验

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Background: Persistent moderate or severe unipolar depression is common and expensive to treat. Clinical guidelines recommend combined pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy. Such treatments can take up to 1 year to show an effect, but no trials of suitable duration have been done. We investigated the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of outpatient- based, specialist depression services (SDS) versus treatment as usual (TAU) on depression symptoms and function.udMethods: We did a multicentre, single-blind, patient level, parallel, randomised controlled trial (RCT), as part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) study, in three mental health outpatient settings in England. Eligible participants were in secondary care, were older than 18 years, had unipolar depression (with a current major depressive episode, a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale [HDRS17] score of ≥16, and a Global Assessment of Function [GAF] score of ≤60), and had not responded to 6 months or more of treatment for depression. Randomisation was stratified by site with allocation conveyed to a trial administrator, with research assessors masked to outcome. Patients were randomised (1:1) using a computer generated pseudo-random code with random permuted blocks of varying sizes of two, four, or six to either SDS (collaborative care approach between psychiatrists and cognitive behavioural therapists for 12 months, followed by graduated transfer of care up to 15 months) or to the TAU group. Intention-to-treat primary outcome measures were changes in HDRS17 and GAF scores between baseline and 6, 12, and 18 months’ follow-up. We will separately publish follow-up outcomes for months 24 and 36. Clinical efficacy and cost-effectiveness were examined from health and social care perspectives at 18 months, as recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01047124) and the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN10963342); the trial has ended.udFindings: 307 patients were assessed for eligibility between Dec 21, 2009, and Oct 31, 2012. 94 patients were assigned to TAU and 93 patients to SDS, and were included in intention-to-treat analyses. The changes from baseline to 6 months in HDRS17 and GAF scores did not significantly differ between treatment groups (mean change difference in HDRS17 score –1·01 [95% CI –3·30 to 1·28], p=0·385; and in GAF score 1·33 [–2·92 to 5·57], p=0·538). Primary outcome data were available for 134 (72%) patients at 12 months. We noted no differences at 12 months’ follow-up between SDS and TAU for mean HDRS17 score (14·8 [SD 7·9] in the SDS group vs 17·2 [7·3] in the TAU group; p=0·056) or GAF score (60·4 [11·7] vs 55·8 [12·7]; p=0·064), and the changes from baseline to 12 months in HDRS17 and GAF scores did not significantly differ between treatment groups (mean change difference in HDRS17 score –2·45 [95% CI –5·04 to 0·14], p=0·064; and in GAF score 4·12 [–0·11 to 8·35], p=0·056). The mean change in HDRS17 score from baseline to 18 months was significantly improved in the SDS group compared with the TAU group (13·6 [SD 8·8] in the SDS group vs 16·1 [6·6] in the TAU group; mean change difference –2·96 [95% CI 5·33 to –0·59], p=0·015), but the GAF scores showed no significant differences between the groups (61·2 [SD 13·0] vs 57·7 [11·9]; mean change difference 3·82 [–9·3 to 8·57], p=0·113).We reported no deaths, but one (1%) patient was admitted to hospital for myocardial infarction, and three episodes of self- harm were reported in three (2%) patients (two receiving TAU, one receiving SDS care). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of SDS versus TAU was £43 603 per quality-adjusted life-year.udInterpretation: Compared with usual specialist mental health secondary care, SDS might improve depression symptoms for patients with persistent moderate to severe depression, but functional outcomes and economic benefits are equivocal.
机译:背景:持续的中度或重度单相抑郁是常见且治疗费用昂贵。临床指南建议药物治疗和心理治疗相结合。此类治疗可能需要长达一年的时间才能显示出疗效,但是尚未进行适当持续时间的试验。我们研究了基于门诊的专业抑郁症服务(SDS)与常规治疗(TAU)在抑郁症症状和功能方面的疗效和成本效益。 ud方法:我们进行了多中心,单盲,患者水平,平行,随机分组对照试验(RCT),是美国国家健康研究所(NIHR)应用健康研究和护理领导力合作研究(CLAHRC)的一部分,在英格兰的三个精神健康门诊患者中进行。符合条件的参与者接受二级保健,年龄大于18岁,患有单相抑郁症(当前主要抑郁症发作,汉密尔顿抑郁评估量表[HDRS17]≥17,≥16,全球功能评估[GAF]评分) ≤60),并且对抑郁症的治疗6个月以上没有反应。随机化按现场分层,分配分配给试验管理者,研究评估者掩盖结果。使用计算机生成的伪随机码将患者随机分组(1:1),将随机排列的,大小分别为2、4或6的随机排列的块随机分配给SDS(精神科医生和认知行为治疗师之间的协作治疗方法,为期12个月,然后毕业最多15个月的护理转移)或TAU组。意向性治疗的主要结局指标是基线,随访6、12和18个月期间HDRS17和GAF评分的变化。我们将分别发布第24个月和第36个月的随访结果。按照美国国立卫生与医疗保健研究院的建议,从18个月的健康和社会护理角度对临床疗效和成本效益进行了检查。该试验已在ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT01047124)和ISRCTN注册中心(ISRCTN10963342)中进行了注册; ud结果:在2009年12月21日至2012年10月31日之间,对307例患者进行了资格评估。将94例患者分配为TAU,将93例患者分配为SDS,并进行了意向性治疗分析。治疗组之间,HDRS17和GAF评分从基线到6个月的变化无显着差异(HDRS17评分的平均变化差异为–1·01 [95%CI –3·30至1·28],p = 0·385;并且在GAF中得分为1·33 [–2·92至5·57],p = 0·538)。在12个月时有134名(72%)患者的主要结局数据可用。我们注意到在SDS和TAU的12个月随访中,HDRS17平均得分没有差异(SDS组为14·8 [SD 7·9],而TAU组为17·2 [7·3]; p = 0 ·056)或GAF评分(60·4 [11·7] vs 55·8 [12·7]; p = 0·064),HDRS17和GAF评分从基线到12个月的变化在两组之间无显着差异治疗组(HDRS17评分–2·45 [95%CI –5·04至0·14],p = 0·064和GAF评分4·12 [–0·11至8·35]的平均变化差异) ,p = 0·056)。与TAU组相比,SDS组HDRS17评分从基线到18个月的平均变化显着改善(SDS组为13·6 [SD 8·8],而TAU组为16·1 [6·6] ;平均变化差异为–2·96 [95%CI 5·33至–0·59],p = 0·015),但GAF评分显示两组之间无显着差异(61·2 [SD 13·0] vs 57·7 [11·9];平均变化差异3·82 [–9·3至8·57],p = 0·113)。我们没有报告死亡,但有一位(1%)患者入院心肌梗塞,三例(2%)患者报告了三起自残事件(两名接受TAU,一名接受SDS护理)。每个质量调整生命年,SDS与TAU的成本效益比增量为£43603。 ud解释:与通常的专业心理健康二级保健相比,SDS可以改善患有持续中度至重度抑郁症但功能正常的患者的抑郁症状结果和经济利益是模棱两可的。

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号