IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal of Economic Evaluations of Pharmacological Interventions for People with Bipolar Disorder

Listed author(s):
  • Ifigeneia Mavranezouli

    ()

    (University College London)

  • Joran Lokkerbol

    (Trimbos Institute (The Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction)
    University Medical Centre Groningen)

Registered author(s):

    Abstract Background Bipolar disorder (BD) is a chronic mood disorder that causes substantial psychological and financial burden. Various pharmacological treatments are effective in the management and prevention of acute episodes of BD. In an era of tighter healthcare budgets and a need for more efficient use of resources, several economic evaluations have evaluated the cost effectiveness of treatments for BD. Objective The aim of this study was to systematically review and appraise published economic evaluations of pharmacological interventions for BD. Methods A systematic search combining search terms specific to BD with a health economics search filter was conducted on six bibliographic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, HTA, NHS EED, CENTRAL) in order to identify trial- or model-based full economic evaluations of pharmacological treatments of any phase of the disorder that were published between 1 January 1990 and 18 December 2015. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were critically appraised using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) checklist, and synthesised in a narrative way. Results The review included 19 economic studies, which varied with regard to the type and number of interventions assessed, the study design, the phase of treatment (acute or maintenance), the source of efficacy data and the method for evidence synthesis, the outcome measures, the time horizon and the countries/settings in which the studies were conducted. The study quality was variable but the majority of studies were of high or fair quality. Conclusion Pharmacological interventions are cost effective, compared with no treatment, in the management of BD, both in the acute and maintenance phases. However, it is difficult to draw safe conclusions on the relative cost effectiveness between drugs due to differences across studies and limitations characterising many of them. Future economic evaluations need to consider the whole range of treatment options available for the management of BD and adopt appropriate methods for evidence synthesis and economic modelling, to explore more robustly the relative cost effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for people with BD.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40273-016-0473-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Springer in its journal PharmacoEconomics.

    Volume (Year): 35 (2017)
    Issue (Month): 3 (March)
    Pages: 271-296

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0473-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s40273-016-0473-1
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.springer.com

    Order Information: Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40273

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as
    in new window


    1. L. M. Lamers & C. A. M. Bouwmans & A. van Straten & M. C. H. Donker & L. Hakkaart, 2006. "Comparison of EQ-5D and SF-6D utilities in mental health patients," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(11), pages 1229-1236.
    2. Elisabeth Fenwick & Karl Claxton & Mark Sculpher, 2001. "Representing uncertainty: the role of cost-effectiveness acceptability curves," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(8), pages 779-787.
    3. Elisabeth Fenwick & Bernie J. O'Brien & Andrew Briggs, 2004. "Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves - facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(5), pages 405-415.
    4. John Brazier & Jennifer Roberts & Aki Tsuchiya & Jan Busschbach, 2004. "A comparison of the EQ-5D and SF-6D across seven patient groups," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 873-884.
    5. Briggs, Andrew & Sculpher, Mark & Claxton, Karl, 2006. "Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198526629.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:pharme:v:35:y:2017:i:3:d:10.1007_s40273-016-0473-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)

    or (Rebekah McClure)

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.