Impact of Treating Depression on Associated Comorbidities: A Systematic Literature Review

Objective: To identify and summarize data that describe the impact of effectively treating major depressive disorder (MDD) on the severity or risk of serious comorbidities.

Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and several congresses were searched. Searches included terms related to MDD, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and physical comorbidities and were restricted to English-language publications. Searches were conducted in November 2019 for the previous 2 years for conference proceedings; no date restriction was applied to the database searches.

Study Selection: Included studies were RCTs or meta-analyses that assessed depression therapies. Studies were required to report a statistically significant improvement in depression scores as well as the concurrent impact on comorbidities. A total of 1,997 articles were initially identified for screening.

Data Extraction: Two investigators extracted data and assessed study quality.

Results: A total of 30 studies, including 24 RCTs (N = 6,333) and 6 meta/pooled analyses of RCTs, were included. Findings in several comorbidity categories were mixed; for example, in half (4 of 8) of the identified studies in people with cardiovascular disease and depression, individuals who received treatment leading to reduced depressive symptoms compared with a control arm also had a significantly decreased incidence of cardiovascular events or significantly improved cardiac disease symptom/severity scores compared with controls. Significant improvements in comorbid disease severity observed alongside improvements in depressive symptoms were also noted in studies of comorbid Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic pain and fibromyalgia, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Conclusions: Effective treatment of MDD may lead to a reduction in the severity of certain serious comorbidities. These results highlight the importance of appropriate and timely treatment of MDD.

Impact of Major Depressive Disorder on Comorbidities: A Systematic Literature Review

Objective: To summarize the breadth of data exploring the relationship between major depressive disorder (MDD) and both the incidence and the disease course of a range of comorbidities. Data Sources: The authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and several prespecified congresses. Searches included terms related to MDD and several comorbidity categories, restricted to those published in the English language from 2005 onward. Study Selection: Eligibility criteria included observational studies within North America and Europe that examined the covariate-adjusted impact of MDD on the risk and/or severity of comorbidities. A total of 6,811 articles were initially identified for screening. Data Extraction: Two investigators extracted data and assessed study quality. Results: In total, 199 articles were included. Depression was significantly (P < .05) associated with an increased incidence of dementia and Alzheimer's disease as well as cognitive decline in individuals with existing disease; increased incidence and worsening of cardiovascular disease/events (although mixed results were found for stroke); worsening of metabolic syndrome; increased incidence of diabetes, particularly among men, and worsening of existing diabetes; increased incidence of obesity, particularly among women; increased incidence and worsening of certain autoimmune diseases; increased incidence and severity of HIV/AIDS; and increased incidence of drug abuse and severity of both alcohol and drug abuse. Conclusions: The presence of MDD was identified as a risk factor for both the development and the worsening of a range of comorbidities. These results highlight the importance of addressing depression early in its course and the need for integrating mental and general health care.

High-Deductible Health Plans Paired With Health Savings Accounts Increased Medication Cost Burden Among Individuals With Bipolar Disorder

Objective: High-deductible health plans paired with health savings accounts (HSA-HDHPs) require substantial out-of-pocket spending for most services, including medications. We examined effects of HSA-HDHPs on medication out-of-pocket spending and use among people with bipolar disorder. Methods: This quasi-experimental study used claims data for January 2003 through December 2014. We studied a national sample of 348 members with bipolar disorder (defined based on International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision), aged 12 to 64 years, who were continuously enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible plan (≤ $500) then 1 year in an HSA-HDHP (≥ $1,000) after an employer-mandated switch. HSA-HDHP members were matched to 4,087 contemporaneous controls who remained in low-deductible plans. Outcome measures included out-of-pocket spending and use of bipolar disorder medications, non-bipolar psychotropics, and all other medications. Results: Mean pre-to-post out-of-pocket spending per person for bipolar disorder medications increased by 149.7% among HSA-HDHP versus control members (95% confidence interval [CI], 109.9% to 189.5%). Specifically, out-of-pocket spending increased for antipsychotics (220.9% [95% CI, 150.0% to 291.8%]) and anticonvulsants (109.6% [95% CI, 67.3% to 152.0%]). Both higher-income and lower-income HSA-HDHP members experienced increases in out-of-pocket spending for bipolar disorder medications (135.2% [95% CI, 86.4% to 184.0%] and 164.5% [95% CI, 100.9% to 228.1%], respectively). We did not detect statistically significant changes in use of bipolar disorder medications, non-bipolar psychotropics, or all other medications in this study population of HSA-HDHP members. Conclusions: HSA-HDHP members with bipolar disorder experienced substantial increases in out-of-pocket burdens for medications essential for their functioning and well-being. Although HSA-HDHPs were not associated with detectable reductions in medication use, high out-of-pocket costs could cause financial strain for lower-income enrollees.

The post COVID-19 healthcare landscape and the use of long-acting injectable antipsychotics for individuals with schizophrenia and bipolar I disorder: the importance of an integrated collaborative-care approach

BACKGROUND

Long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) are an essential maintenance treatment option for individuals with schizophrenia or bipolar I disorder (BP-I). This report summarizes a roundtable discussion on the impact of COVID-19 on the mental healthcare landscape and use of LAIs for individuals with schizophrenia or BP-I.

METHODS

Ten experts and stakeholders from diverse fields of healthcare participated in a roundtable discussion on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, treatment challenges, and gaps in healthcare for individuals with schizophrenia or BP-I, informed by a literature search.

RESULTS

Individuals with schizophrenia or BP-I are at increased risk of COVID-19 infection and increased risk of mortality after COVID-19 diagnosis. LAI prescriptions decreased early on in the pandemic, driven by a decrease in face-to-face consultations. Mental healthcare services are adapting with increased use of telehealth and home-based treatment. Clinical workflows to provide consistent, in-person LAI services include screening for COVID-19 exposure and infection, minimizing contact, and ensuring mask-wearing by individuals and staff. The importance of continued in-person visits for LAIs needs to be discussed so that staff can share that information with patients, their caregivers, and families. A fully integrated, collaborative-care model is the most important aspect of care for individuals with schizophrenia or BP-I during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of a fully integrated collaborative-care model to ensure regular, routine healthcare contact and access to prescribed treatments and services for individuals with schizophrenia and BP-I.

Impact of High-Deductible Health Plans on Medication Use Among Individuals With Bipolar Disorder

OBJECTIVE

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) require substantial out-of-pocket spending for most services, although medications may be subject to traditional copayment arrangements. This study examined effects of HDHPs on medication out-of-pocket spending and use and quality of care among individuals with bipolar disorder.

METHODS

This quasi-experimental study used claims data (2003-2014) for a national sample of 3,532 members with bipolar disorder, ages 12-64, continuously enrolled for 1 year in a low-deductible plan (≤$500) and then for 1 year in an HDHP (≥$1,000) after an employer-mandated switch. HDHP members were matched to 18,923 contemporaneous individuals in low-deductible plans (control group). Outcome measures were out-of-pocket spending and use of bipolar disorder medications, psychotropics for other disorders, and all other medications and appropriate laboratory monitoring for psychotropics.

RESULTS

Relative to the control group, annual out-of-pocket spending per person for bipolar disorder medications increased 20.8% among HDHP members (95% confidence interval [CI]=14.9%-26.7%), and the absolute increase was $36 (95% CI=$25.9-$45.2). Specifically, out-of-pocket spending increased for antipsychotics (27.1%; 95% CI=17.4%-36.7%) and anticonvulsants (19.2%; 95% CI=11.9%-26.6%) but remained stable for lithium (-3.7%; 95% CI=-12.2% to 4.8%). No statistically significant changes were detected in use of bipolar disorder medications, other psychotropics, or all other medications or in appropriate laboratory monitoring for bipolar disorder medications.

CONCLUSIONS

HDHP members with bipolar disorder experienced a moderate increase in out-of-pocket spending for medications but preserved bipolar disorder medication use. Findings may reflect individuals' perceptions of the importance of these medications for their functioning and well-being.

Experiences of health care costs among people with employer-sponsored insurance and bipolar disorder

BACKGROUND

Cost-sharing disproportionately affects people with chronic illnesses needing more care. Our qualitative study examined lived experiences navigating insurance benefits and treatment for bipolar disorder, which requires ongoing access to behavioral specialists and psychotropic medications.

METHODS

Forty semi-structured telephone interviews with individuals with bipolar disorder and employer-sponsored health insurance, or their family caregivers, explored health care needs, coverage details, out-of-pocket (OOP) costs, and perspectives on value. An iterative analytic approach identified salient themes.

RESULTS

Most individuals in our sample faced an annual insurance deductible, from $350-$10,000. OOP costs for specialist visits ranged from $0-$450 and for monthly psychotropic medications from $0-$1650. Acute episodes and care for comorbidities, including medication side effects, added to cost burdens. Medication nonadherence due to OOP costs was rare; respondents frequently pointed to the necessity of medications: "whatever it takes to get those"; "it's a life or death situation." Respondents also prioritized visits to psychiatrist prescribers, though visits were maximally spaced because of cost. Psychotherapy was often deemed unaffordable and forgone, despite perceived need. Interviewees cited limited networks and high out-of-network costs as barriers to specialists. Cost-sharing sometimes led to debt, skimping on nonbehavioral care or other necessities, exacerbated or prolonged mood symptoms, and stress at home.

LIMITATIONS

Volunteer respondents may not fully represent the target population.

CONCLUSIONS

Many people with bipolar disorder in US employer-sponsored plans experience undertreatment, hardship, and adverse health consequences due to high cost-sharing. More nuanced insurance benefit designs should accommodate the needs of individuals with complex conditions.

Development of a patient decision aid for treatment resistant depression

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) involves patients and clinicians choosing treatment jointly. SDM in mental health is hampered by lack of well-developed supporting tools. We describe an evidence-based patient decision aid (PDA) to facilitate SDM for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) following US National Quality Forum standards which are based upon the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS).

METHODS

A web-based PDA was developed by a multidisciplinary steering committee of clinicians, patient advocates, patients and a decision scientist. Development included creating content consistent with decision-making domains that are impacted by patient preference in TRD. Development was guided by literature review, group conference calls/discussions, patient and clinician interviews (N = 8), high and lower literacy focus groups (N = 11) and pilot study (N = 5). The PDA presents risk-benefit information on domains (e.g., effectiveness, mode of administration, side effects, cost) and includes values clarification exercises. Pilot study patients were administered the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and Decision Self-Efficacy Scale (DSES) prior to and following PDA interaction and clinician SDM.

RESULTS

During the pilot, prior to PDA interaction, mean (standard deviation) DCS score was 42.2 (14.4) and DSES score was 86.0 (14.6) out of 100. Following PDA interaction and SDM, DCS decreased (improved) to 28.1 (SD 4.1) and DSES increased to 95.5 (6.7). All patients endorsed that the PDA helped them to: recognize pros and cons of options; understand how treatments were administered, possible side-effects, and likelihood of benefit; recognize what was important relative to the decision; organize thoughts and prepare for a discussion with their clinician.

CONCLUSIONS

This PDA may support SDM in TRD. A future trial to determine impact of the present SMD on decision-making quality is warranted. It also highlights gaps in comparative effectiveness trials that could guide equitable shared decision-making.