Cited by 89Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Treatment and Access

Systematic review and quality assessment of economic evaluations and quality-of-life studies related to generalized anxiety disorder

Bereza, Basil G., Machado, Márcio, Einarson, Thomas R.·2009·Clinical Therapeutics

Abstract

Background The objectives of this article were to systematically review, summarize the results of, and assess the quality of economic evaluations and humanistic studies related to patients with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).Methods EMBASE, EBM Reviews, MEDLINE, and HealthSTAR databases were searched (from the time of inception through April 2008). Full-text publications describing full economic evaluations (cost-benefit, cost-minimization, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses), partial economic evaluations (cost, burden-of-illness, and resource-utilization analyses), and humanistic outcomes (utilities, preferences, and willingness-to-pay analyses) were included. GAD diagnoses per official publications (eg, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) and associated comorbid conditions were included; anxiety-related symptoms without a diagnosis of GAD were excluded. Study quality was assessed with a 38-point checklist of criteria previously developed by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.Results Thirty-six articles were included. Full economic evaluations (n = 5) were based on conventional decision-making modeling or population-summary data, using time horizons < or =12 months. Cognitive-behavioral therapy by a public-salaried psychologist and evidence-based care generated savings compared with current care. Pharmacotherapy with extended-release venlafaxine treatment was cost-effective compared with diazepam; escitalopram was cost-effective compared with paroxetine because of productivity gains. Full economic evaluations addressed 55.3% to 68.4% of the 38 items on the quality-assessment checklist. Partial evaluations were reported; GAD incurred larger mean marginal health care costs compared with other anxiety disorders (a difference of US $2138 in year-1999 values). GAD patients with severe pain interference incurred significantly higher costs than did patients with pain but no GAD. Furthermore, GAD patients used more services from a primary care provider or specialist than did patients with other psychiatric disorders. Comorbidities were associated with greater absenteeism than was having a diagnosis of GAD alone. Mean (SE) utility scores for quality-of-life assessments among patients with GAD (15D, 0.783 [0.019]; EuroQoL EQ-5D, 0.589 [0.038]) were similar to those for patients who were 20 years older and reported somatic conditions such as Parkinson's disease or heart failure.Conclusions Current evidence suggests that GAD is associated with substantial economic and humanistic impact on patients and health care systems. Future research should address economic evaluations from the private-payer perspective, studies related to the cost of underdiagnosed or untreated GAD, and full economic evaluations that incorporate longer clinical courses of the disorder.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.clinthera.2009.06.004

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In all cases of pathological anxiety, the somatic, cognitive and behavioral manifestations interfere with normal functioning and lead to substantial economic and personal burdens.

    “The precipitating stimuli differ among these diagnoses; however, in all cases, the somatic, cognitive and behavioral manifestations of anxiety interfere with normal functioning and lead to substantial economic and personal burdens9-11.”

    From Resolving the neural circuits of anxiety (2015) · cites this paper as [9]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bereza, B. G., Machado, M., & Einarson, T. R.
Affiliations
University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Bereza, Basil G.
Venue
Clinical Therapeutics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-06
Volume
31
Issue
6
Pages
1279-1308
ISSN
0149-2918 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2031543029
Cited by
89
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Clinical Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
H. Lundbeck A/S
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
Keywords
generalized anxiety disorder, economic evaluation, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility analysis, quality of life, health utility, cognitive behavioral therapy, venlafaxine, escitalopram, diazepam, paroxetine, health care costs, productivity loss, absenteeism, comorbidities, pain interference, primary care utilization, quality of life assessment, study quality assessment
MeSH terms
Antidepressive Agents, Anxiety Disorders, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Humans, Quality of Life, Anti-Anxiety Agents, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Health Care Costs, Cost of Illness, Evidence-Based Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review