PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 25–37 | Cite as

Cost Effectiveness of a Pharmacy-Based Coaching Programme to Improve Adherence to Antidepressants

  • Judith E. Bosmans
  • Oscar H. Brook
  • Hein P. J. van Hout
  • Martine C. de Bruijne
  • Hugo Nieuwenhuyse
  • Lex M. Bouter
  • Wim A. B. Stalman
  • Maurits W. van Tulder
Original Research Article

Abstract

Introduction

The efficacy of antidepressants in the treatment of depression has been convincingly demonstrated in randomised trials. However, non-adherence to antidepressant treatment is common.

Objective

To evaluate, from a societal perspective, the cost effectiveness of a pharmacy-based intervention to improve adherence to antidepressant therapy in adult patients receiving treatment in primary care.

Methods

An economic evaluation was performed alongside a 6-month randomised controlled trial in The Netherlands.

Patients who came to 19 pharmacies with a new prescription for a non-tricyclic antidepressant, i.e. those who had not received any prescription for an antidepressant in the past 6 months, were invited to participate. They were then randomly allocated to education and coaching by the pharmacist or to usual care. The coaching programme consisted of three contacts with the pharmacist, with a mean duration of between 13 and 20 minutes, and a take-home video reviewing important facts on depression and antidepressant treatment.

The clinical outcome measures were adherence to antidepressant treatment measured using an electronic pill container (eDEM) and improvement in depressive symptoms measured using the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (SCL). Resource use was measured by means of questionnaires. The uncertainty around differences in costs and cost effectiveness between the treatment groups was evaluated using bootstrapping.

Results

Seventy patients were randomised to the intervention group and 81 to the usual care group; of these, 40 in the intervention group and 48 in the control group completed all of the follow-up questionnaires.

There were no significant differences in adherence, improvements in the SCL depression mean item score and costs over 6 months between the two treatment groups. Mean total costs (2002 values) were €3275 in the intervention group and €2961 in the control group (mean difference €315; 95% CI —1922, 2416). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio associated with the pharmacist intervention was €149 per 1% improvement in adherence and €2550 per point improvement in the SCL depression mean item score. Cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves indicated that the pharmacist intervention was not likely to be cost effective compared with usual care.

Conclusion

In patients starting treatment with antidepressants, there were no significant differences in adherence, severity of depression, costs and cost effectiveness between patients receiving coaching by a pharmacist and patients receiving usual care after 6 months. Considering the resources needed to implement an intervention like this in clinical practice, based on these results, the continuation of usual care is recommended.

Keywords

Usual Care Antidepressant Treatment Community Pharmacist Usual Care Group Human Capital Approach 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Dutch Health Care Insurance Board (DHCIB) financed this trial (grant number OG 01–146). The funding source had no involvement in the production of this manuscript; the views expressed in this paper are those of the authors only and are not attributable to the DHCIB. The authors have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this study.

The study was designed by Hein van Hout, Oscar Brook and Hugo Nieuwenhuyse. The data were collected by Oscar Brook and Hein van Hout. Judith Bosmans and Martine de Bruijne analysed the cost-effectiveness data. The data were interpreted by Judith Bosmans, Oscar Brook, Hein van Hout and Martine de Bruijne. All authors contributed to the drafting and preparation of the paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Lepine JP, Gastpar M, Mendlewicz J, et al. Depression in the community: the first pan-European study DEPRES (Depression Research in European Society). Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1997; 12: 19–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murray CJ, Lopez AD. Alternative projections of mortality and disability by cause 1990–2020: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 1997; 349: 1498–1504PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Simon GE. Social and economic burden of mood disorders. Biol Psychiatry 2003; 54: 208–215PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donoghue J, Hylan TR. Antidepressant use in clinical practice: efficacy vs effectiveness. Br J Psychiatry 2001; Suppl. 42: S9–S17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simon GE. Evidence review: efficacy and effectiveness of antidepressant treatment in primary care. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2002; 24: 213–224PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pampallona S, Bollini P, Tibaldi G, et al. Patient adherence in the treatment of depression. Br J Psychiatry 2002; 180: 104–109PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Katon W, Von Korff M, Lin E, et al. Collaborative management to achieve treatment guidelines: impact on depression in primary care. J Am Med Assoc 1995; 273: 1026–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Katon W, Robinson P, Von Korff M, et al. A multifaceted intervention to improve treatment of depression in primary care. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1996; 53: 924–932PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Katon W, Von Korff M, Lin E, et al. Stepped collaborative care for primary care patients with persistent symptoms of depression: a randomized trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1999; 56: 1109–1115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peveler R, George C, Kinmonth AL, et al. Effect of antidepressant drug counselling and information leaflets on adherence to drug treatment in primary care: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 1999; 319: 612–615PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Knoell DL, Pierson JF, Marsh CB, et al. Measurement of outcomes in adults receiving pharmaceutical care in a comprehensive asthma outpatient clinic. Pharmacotherapy 1998; 18: 1365–1374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mehos BM, Saseen JJ, MacLaughlin EJ. Effect of pharmacist intervention and initiation of home blood pressure monitoring in patients with uncontrolled hypertension. Pharmacotherapy 2000; 20: 1384–1389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tsuyuki RT, Johnson JA, Teo KK, et al. A randomized trial of the effect of community pharmacist intervention on cholesterol risk management: the Study of Cardiovascular Risk Intervention by Pharmacists (SCRIP). Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 1149–1155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chiquette E, Amato MG, Bussey HI. Comparison of an anticoagulation clinic with usual medical care: anticoagulation control, patient outcomes, and health care costs. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 1641–1647PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Capoccia KL, Boudreau DM, Blough DK, et al. Randomized trial of pharmacist interventions to improve depression care and outcomes in primary care. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2004; 61: 364–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Finley PR, Rens HR, Pont JT, et al. Impact of a collaborative pharmacy practice model on the treatment of depression in primary care. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2002; 59: 1518–1526PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Adler DA, Bungay KM, Wilson IB, et al. The impact of a pharmacist intervention on 6-month outcomes in depressed primary care patients. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2004; 26: 199–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    van Marwijk HWJ, Grundmeijer HGLM, Brueren MM, et al. Guidelines on depression of the Dutch College of General Practitioners (NHG-Standaard Depressie). Huisarts Wet 1994; 37: 482–490Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brook O, van Hout H, Nieuwenhuyse H, et al. Impact of coaching by community pharmacists on drug attitude of depressive primary care patients and acceptability to patients; a randomized controlled trial. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2003; 13: 1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Brook OH, van Hout H, Stalman W, et al. A pharmacy-based coaching program to improve adherence to antidepressant treatment among primary care patients. Psychiatr Serv 2005; 56: 487–489PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lin EH, Von Korff M, Katon W, et al. The role of the primary care physician in patients’ adherence to antidepressant therapy. Med Care 1995; 33: 67–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Derogatis LR, Lipman RS, Rickels K, et al. The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): a measure of primary symptom dimensions. Mod Probl Pharmacopsychiatry 1974; 7: 79–110PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Van Rutten FFH. Handbook for cost studies, methods and guidelines for economic evaluation in health care [in Dutch]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Health Care Insurance Council, 2000Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF. Standardisation of costs: the Dutch manual for costing in economic evaluations. Pharmacoeconomics 2002; 20: 443–454PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Z-index. G-Standaard. The Hague, The Netherlands: Z-Index, 2002Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Statistics Netherlands (Centraal Bureau voor Statistiek). Statline [online]. Available from URL: http://statline.cbs.nl/ [Accessed 2006 Oct 1]Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FF, van Ineveld BM, et al. The friction cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J Health Econ 1995; 14: 171–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Efron B, Tibshirani RJ. An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hal, 1993Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Chaudhary MA, Stearns SC. Estimating confidence intervals for cost-effectiveness ratios: an example from a randomized trial. Stat Med 1996; 15: 1447–1458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Black WC. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making 1990; 10: 212–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van Hout BA, Al MJ, Gordon GS, et al. Costs, effects and C/E-ratios alongside a clinical trial. Health Econ 1994; 3: 309–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Briggs AH, Gray AM. Handling uncertainty in economic evaluations of healthcare interventions. BMJ 1999; 319: 635–638PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Simon GE, Katon WJ, Von Korff M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care program for primary care patients with persistent depression. Am J Psychiatry 2001; 158: 1638–1644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Von Korff M, Katon W, Bush T, et al. Treatment costs, cost offset, and cost-effectiveness of collaborative management of depression. Psychosom Med 1998; 60: 143–149Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    George CF, Peveler RC, Heiliger S, et al. Compliance with tricyclic antidepressants: the value of four different methods of assessment. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 50: 166–171PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Demyttenaere K, Van Ganse E, Gregoire J, et al. Compliance in depressed patients treated with fluoxetine or amitriptyline: Belgian Compliance Study Group. Int Clin Psychopharmacol 1998; 13: 11–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thompson C, Peveler RC, Stephenson D, et al. Compliance with antidepressant medication in the treatment of major depressive disorder in primary care: a randomized comparison of fluoxetine and a tricyclic antidepressant. Am J Psychiatry 2000; 157: 338–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Simon GE, Manning WG, Katzelnick DJ, et al. Cost-effectiveness of systematic depression treatment for high utilizers of general medical care. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2001; 58: 181–187PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bower P, Byford S, Sibbald B, et al. Randomised controlled trial of non-directive counselling, cognitive-behaviour therapy, and usual general practitioner care for patients with depression: II. Cost effectiveness. BMJ 2000; 321: 1389–1392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Briggs A. Economic evaluation and clinical trials: size matters. BMJ 2000; 321: 1362–1363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Briggs A, Clark T, Wolstenholme J, et al. Missing... presumed at random: cost-analysis of incomplete data. Health Econ 2003; 12: 377–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Oostenbrink JB, Al MJ. The analysis of incomplete cost data due to dropout. Health Econ 2005; 1: 763–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Judith E. Bosmans
    • 1
  • Oscar H. Brook
    • 2
  • Hein P. J. van Hout
    • 3
  • Martine C. de Bruijne
    • 1
  • Hugo Nieuwenhuyse
    • 2
  • Lex M. Bouter
    • 4
  • Wim A. B. Stalman
    • 3
  • Maurits W. van Tulder
    • 1
    • 5
  1. 1.Health Technology Assessment UnitInstitute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.International Health FoundationThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of General PracticeInstitute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Institute for Research in Extramural Medicine, VU University Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Institute for Health Sciences, Faculty of Earth and Life Sciences, VU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations