• Andreea Dobrescu, Andrea Chapman, Lisa Affengruber, Emma Persad, Ana Toromanova, Gernot Wagner, Irma Klerings, Robert Emprechtinger, and Gerald Gartlehner.
• Cochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education, Krems, Austria (A.D., A.C., E.P., A.T., G.W., I.K., R.E.).
• Ann. Intern. Med. 2023 Feb 1; 176 (2): 212216212-216.

BackgroundMajor depressive disorder (MDD) is the most prevalent, disabling form of depression, with a high economic effect.PurposeTo assess evidence on cost-effectiveness of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions as first- and second-step treatments in patients with MDD.Data SourcesMultiple electronic databases limited to English language were searched (1 January 2015 to 29 November 2022).Study SelectionTwo investigators independently screened the literature. Seven economic modeling studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria.Data ExtractionData abstraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second; 2 investigators independently rated risk of bias. One investigator determined certainty of evidence, and another checked for plausibility.Data SynthesisSeven modeling studies met the eligibility criteria. In a U.S. setting over a 5-year time horizon, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was cost-effective compared with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) as a first-step treatment from the societal and health care sector perspectives. However, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings should be interpreted cautiously. For second-step treatment, only switch strategies between SGAs were assessed. The evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions.LimitationsMethodologically heterogeneous studies, which compared only CBT and some SGAs, were included. No evidence on other psychotherapies or complementary and alternative treatments as first-step treatment or augmentation strategies as second-step treatment was available.ConclusionAlthough CBT may be cost-effective compared with SGAs as a first-step treatment at a 5-year time horizon from the societal and health care sector perspectives, the certainty of evidence is low, and the findings need to be interpreted cautiously. For other comparisons, the evidence was entirely missing or insufficient to draw conclusions.Primary Funding SourceAmerican College of Physicians.

15 keywords...

hide…