IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/aphecp/v20y2022i2d10.1007_s40258-021-00693-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cost-Utility Analysis of Discontinuing Antidepressants in England Primary Care Patients Compared with Long-Term Maintenance: The ANTLER Study

Author

Listed:
  • Caroline S. Clarke

    (University College London)

  • Larisa Duffy

    (University College London)

  • Glyn Lewis

    (University College London)

  • Nick Freemantle

    (University College London)

  • Simon Gilbody

    (University of York)

  • Tony Kendrick

    (University of Southampton)

  • David Kessler

    (University of Bristol)

  • Michael King

    (University College London)

  • Paul Lanham

    (Patient and Public Involvement Collaborator)

  • Derelie Mangin

    (McMaster University)

  • Michael Moore

    (University of Southampton)

  • Irwin Nazareth

    (University College London)

  • Nicola Wiles

    (University of Bristol)

  • Louise Marston

    (University College London)

  • Rachael Maree Hunter

    (University College London)

Abstract

Background Depression is a common mental health condition with considerable negative impact on health and well-being. Although antidepressants are recommended as first-line treatment, there is limited evidence regarding the cost effectiveness of long-term maintenance antidepressants for preventing relapse. Objectives Our objective was to calculate the mean incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over 12 months of discontinuing long-term antidepressant medication in well patients compared with maintenance, using patient-level trial data. Methods We conducted a cost-utility analysis of 478 participants from 150 UK general practices recruited to a randomised, double-blind trial (ANTLER). QALYs were calculated from EQ-5D-5L and 12-Item Short Form survey (SF-12) results, with primary analysis using the EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Resource use was collected from primary care patient electronic medical records and self-completed questionnaires capturing mental-health-related resource use. Costs were calculated by applying standard UK unit costs to resource use. Adjustments were made for baseline variables. Results Participants randomised to discontinuation had significantly worse utility scores at 3 months (− 0.032; 95% confidence interval [CI] − 0.053 to − 0.011) but no significant difference in QALYs (− 0.011; 95% CI − 0.026 to 0.003) or costs (£3.11; 95% CI − 41.28 to 47.50) at 12 months. The probability that discontinuation was cost effective compared with maintenance was 12.9% at a threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Conclusions Discontinuation of antidepressants was unlikely to be cost effective compared with maintenance for currently well patients on long-term antidepressants. However, this analysis provides no information on the wider impact of antidepressants. Our findings provide information on the potential impact of discontinuing long-term maintenance antidepressants and facilitate improving guidance for shared patient–clinician decision making. Trial Registration EudraCT number 2015-004210-26; ISRCTN number ISRCTN15969819.

Suggested Citation

  • Caroline S. Clarke & Larisa Duffy & Glyn Lewis & Nick Freemantle & Simon Gilbody & Tony Kendrick & David Kessler & Michael King & Paul Lanham & Derelie Mangin & Michael Moore & Irwin Nazareth & Nicola, 2022. "Cost-Utility Analysis of Discontinuing Antidepressants in England Primary Care Patients Compared with Long-Term Maintenance: The ANTLER Study," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 269-282, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00693-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s40258-021-00693-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40258-021-00693-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40258-021-00693-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:aphecp:v:20:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s40258-021-00693-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.