ABSTRACT
Objective Screening has an essential role in preventive medicine. Ideally, screening tools detect patients early enough to manage the disease and reduce symptoms. We aimed to determine the cost-effectiveness of routine screening schedules.
Methods We used a discrete-time nonstationary Markov model to simulate the progression of depression. We adopted annual transition probabilities, which were dependent on patient histories, such as the number of previous episodes, treatment status, and time spent without treatment state based on the available data. We used Monte Carlo techniques to simulate the stochastic model for 20 years or during the lifetime of individuals. Baseline and screening scenario models with screening frequencies of annual, 2-year, and 5-year were compared based on incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).
Results In the general population, all screening strategies were cost-effective compared to the baseline. However, male and female populations differed based on cost over quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Females had lower ICERs, and annual screening had the highest ICER for females, with 11,134 $/QALY gained. In contrast, males had around three times higher ICER, with annual screening costs of 34,065$/QALY gained.
Conclusions Considering the high lifetime prevalence and recurrence rates of depression, detection and prevention efforts can be one critical cornerstone to support required care. Our analysis combined the expected benefits and costs of screening and assessed the effectiveness of screening scenarios. We conclude that routine screening is cost-effective for all age groups of females and young, middle-aged males. Male population results are sensitive to the higher costs of screening.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This research was supported in part by the Center for Health and Humanitarian Systems, the William W. George Endowment at Georgia Tech, the following Georgia Tech benefactors: Andrea Laliberte, Claudia L. and J. Paul Raines, and Richard E. Rick and Charlene Zalesky, and the Allison Distinguished Professorship at NC State University.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Publicly available data was used in this study. No patient or identified data was used.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflicts of Interest: None reported.
Financial Support: This research was supported in part by the Center for Health and Humanitarian Systems, the William W. George Endowment at Georgia Tech, the following Georgia Tech benefactors: Andrea Laliberte, Claudia L. and J. Paul Raines, and Richard E. “Rick” and Charlene Zalesky, and the Allison Distinguished Professorship at NC State University.
Data Availability
All data used in the study is publicly available as described in the paper.
