4.7 Article

Cost-effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Depressed Youth Declining Antidepressants

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 141, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2017-1969

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health [R01-MH73918]
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH)
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [R01MH073918] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adolescents with depression identified in primary care settings often have limited treatment options beyond antidepressant (AD) therapy. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of a brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) program among depressed adolescents who declined or quickly stopped using ADs. METHODS: A total of 212 youth with depression were randomly assigned to treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU plus brief individual CBT. Clinical outcomes included depression-free days (DFDs) and estimated quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Costs were adjusted to 2008 US dollars. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing CBT to TAU were calculated over 12-and 24-month follow-up periods. RESULTS: Youth randomly assigned to CBT had 26.8 more DFDs (P = .044) and 0.067 more QALYs (P = .044) on average compared with TAU over 12 months. Total costs were $4976 less (P = .025) by the end of the 24-month follow-up among youth randomly assigned to CBT. Total costs per DFD were -$51 (ICER = -$51; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -$394 to $9) at 12 months and -$115 (ICER = -$115; 95% CI: -$1090 to -$6) at 24 months. Total costs per QALY were -$20 282 (ICER = -$20 282; 95% CI: -$156 741 to $3617) at 12 months and -$45 792 (ICER = -$45 792; 95% CI: -$440 991 to -$2731) at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Brief primary care CBT among youth declining AD therapy is cost-effective by widely accepted standards in depression treatment. CBT becomes dominant over TAU over time, as revealed by a statistically significant cost offset at the end of the 2-year follow-up.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据