Table 2b:

Results of Economic Literature Review—Summary: Cost-Effectiveness of Interpersonal Therapy for the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder

Name, Year, Location	Study Design and Perspective	Population and Comparator	Interventions	Results
				Health Outcomes	Costs	Cost-Effectiveness
Bosmans et al, 2007, Netherlands58	Type of economic analysis: individual-level cost-effectiveness analysis Study design: RCT Perspective: Netherlands, societal Time horizon: 12 months Discount rate: 0%	Adults, aged 55+ years with MDD Total N: 143 Females (%): NR	Intervention: IPT for 5 months (n = 69) Control: usual care (psychoeducation only or combined with pharmacotherapy) or no treatment if no request for GP (n = 74) IPT provided in 10 sessions over 5 months by psychologist or psychiatric nurse	Mean change in % recovery by PRIME-MD, IPT vs. usual care: 45.2% vs. 45% Mean change in MADRS score, IPT vs. usual care: −4.2 vs. −3.0 Mean change in QALYs from baseline to 12 months, IPT vs. usual care: 0.62 (0.24) vs. 0.61 (0.28) Mean difference, QALY: 0.01 (−0.08–0.10)	Currency, cost year: ζ, 2003 Total costs, IPT vs. usual care, at 12 months: ζ5,753 (SD: 6,797) vs. ζ4,984 (SD: 7,059) Mean difference: ζ769 (−2,459–3,433)	Base-case analysis, IPT vs. usual care, ICER: ζ76,900/QALY IPT more effective and more expensive than usual care 93.1% of the time IPT cost-saving 4.4% of the time IPT less effective and more expensive 2.4% of the time

Abbreviations: CBT, cognitive behavioural therapy; GP, general practitioner; ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; IPT, interpersonal therapy; MADRS, Montgomery–Åsberg Depression Rating Scale; MDD, major depressive disorder; NR, not reported; PRIME-MD, Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders; QALY, quality-adjusted life-year; RCT, randomized controlled trial; SD, standard deviation.