Receive a weekly summary and discussion of the top papers of the week by leading researchers in the field.

In Journal of affective disorders ; h5-index 79.0

Background Bipolar disorder (BD) is associated with substantial societal burden. Therefore, economic studies in BD are becoming increasingly important. The goal of the current study is three-fold: (1) summarize the evidence regarding economic evaluations (EEs) of non-pharmacological interventions for BD, (2) summarize cost-of-illness studies (COIs) for BD published 2012 or later and (3) assess the quality of the identified studies. Methods A systematic search was conducted in MedLine, EMBASE and PsycINFO. For both EEs and COIs, quality assessments were conducted and general and methodological characteristics of the studies were extracted. Outcomes included incremental-cost-effectiveness ratios for EEs and direct and indirect costs for COIs. Results Eight EEs and ten COIs were identified. The included studies revealed high heterogeneity in general and methodological characteristics and study quality. All interventions resulted in improved clinical outcomes. Five studies additionally concluded decreased total costs. For COIs, we found a wide range of direct ($881-$27,617) and indirect cost estimates per capita per year ($1,568-$116,062). Limitations High heterogeneity in terms of interventions, study design and outcomes made it difficult to compare results across studies. Conclusions Interventions improved clinical outcomes in all studies and led to cost-savings in five studies. Findings suggest that non-pharmacological intervention for BD might be cost-effective. Studies on the costs of BD revealed that BD has a substantial economic burden. However, we also found that the number of EEs was relatively low and methodology was heterogenous and therefore encourage future research to widen the body of knowledge in this research field and use standardized methodology.

Kraiss Jannis T, Wijnen Ben, Kupka Ralph W, Bohlmeijer Ernst T, Lokkerbol Joran


Bipolar disorder, Cost-benefit, Cost-effectiveness, Cost-of-illness, Economic evaluation, systematic review