Psychiatry research · 2026
A cost-utility analysis of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy versus cognitive behavioral therapy for major depressive disorder relapse prevention in primary care.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Abu-Ashour Waseem, Audas Rick, Gamble John-Michael, Hawboldt John, Sale Joanna E M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a chronic condition with high relapse rates affecting patients and health systems. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) are strategies for relapse prevention, but their comparative long-term cost-effectiveness remains unclear.
METHODS: We developed a cohort-based Markov model with three health states, depressive episode, remission, and death, to compare MBCT and CBT in adults with MDD. The model used a lifetime horizon, six-month cycles, with healthcare payer and societal perspectives. Costs included direct medical and productivity losses discounted at 1.5%. Health-state utilities were drawn from published sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefit (NMB) were estimated at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, plus scenario analyses with alternative horizons and discount rates, assessed uncertainty.
RESULTS: In the base case, MBCT was associated with 14.71 QALYs at a cost of $543,861, while CBT yielded 15.07 QALYs at $549,487. CBT provided an incremental 0.37 QALYs at $5625 higher cost, producing an ICER of $15,266 per QALY gained, well below both thresholds. NMB favored CBT ($204,242 vs. $191,443 at $50,000; $957,971 vs. $926,746 at $100,000). Sensitivity analyses highlighted remission- and depression-related costs as main drivers. Probabilistic analyses showed CBT optimal in 56% of simulations at $50,000 and 61% at $100,000, with MBCT preferred at lower thresholds.
CONCLUSION: CBT may be more cost-effective relative to MBCT for relapse prevention in MDD, though differences are modest. MBCT remains a competitive alternative where CBT access is limited.
METHODS: We developed a cohort-based Markov model with three health states, depressive episode, remission, and death, to compare MBCT and CBT in adults with MDD. The model used a lifetime horizon, six-month cycles, with healthcare payer and societal perspectives. Costs included direct medical and productivity losses discounted at 1.5%. Health-state utilities were drawn from published sources. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefit (NMB) were estimated at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses, plus scenario analyses with alternative horizons and discount rates, assessed uncertainty.
RESULTS: In the base case, MBCT was associated with 14.71 QALYs at a cost of $543,861, while CBT yielded 15.07 QALYs at $549,487. CBT provided an incremental 0.37 QALYs at $5625 higher cost, producing an ICER of $15,266 per QALY gained, well below both thresholds. NMB favored CBT ($204,242 vs. $191,443 at $50,000; $957,971 vs. $926,746 at $100,000). Sensitivity analyses highlighted remission- and depression-related costs as main drivers. Probabilistic analyses showed CBT optimal in 56% of simulations at $50,000 and 61% at $100,000, with MBCT preferred at lower thresholds.
CONCLUSION: CBT may be more cost-effective relative to MBCT for relapse prevention in MDD, though differences are modest. MBCT remains a competitive alternative where CBT access is limited.