Filter results

Mild to Moderate Depression clinical trials

Phase 1: Researchers test a new drug or treatment in a small group of people for the first time to evaluate its safety, determine a safe dosage range, and identify side effects.
Phase 2: The drug or treatment is given to a larger group of people to see if it is effective and to further evaluate its safety.
Phase 3: The drug or treatment is given to large groups of people to confirm its effectiveness, monitor side effects, compare it to commonly used treatments, and collect information that will allow the drug or treatment to be used safely.
Phase 4: Studies are done after the drug or treatment has been marketed to gather information on the drug's effect in various populations and any side effects associated with long-term use.

View clinical trials related to Mild to Moderate Depression.

Filter by:

Active, not recruiting
Page 1

NCT ID: NCT02245373 Active, not recruiting - Clinical trials for Mild to Moderate Depression.

Cost-effectiveness of a Non-Pharmacological Treatment (Active Monitoring) vs. a Pharmacological Treatment for Major Depression in Primary Care.

Start date: June 2013
Phase: N/A
Study type: Observational [Patient Registry]

Major Depression (MD) is highly prevalent and has associated a high burden and economic costs. Mild levels of MD could be treated without antidepressants at Primary Care (PC). Main objectives: 1) To calculate the cost-effectiveness of active monitoring (recommended by NICE) vs pharmacological antidepressant treatment to treat mild MD at PC level. Methods: 300 patients (≥18 years) with MD (diagnosed by the GP) will be recruited at the PC center. Depending on the level of symptoms, the GP will choose between: A) Active Monitoring (n=150) and B) pharmacological treatment (n=150). Patients will be followed-up for one year and data will be collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Severity will be assessed by Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), quality of life with the EuroQoL-5D (5 health dimensions), and the use of services with an adapted version of the Client Service Receipt Inventory (including lost productivity). Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis will be calculated and 5000 bootstrapping replications will be conducted to asses uncertainty. Cost-acceptability curves will be done using two perspectives: the National Health Service perspective and the Societal perspective. The Propensity Score technique will minimize the absence of randomization, matching cases from both treatment options.