Tag: cost benefit analysis for CBT

Economic evaluation of multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment versus cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: A multi-centre RCT has shown that multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment (MRT) is more effective in reducing fatigue over the long-term in comparison with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but evidence on its cost-effectiveness is lacking.

AIM: To compare the cost-effectiveness of MRT versus CBT for patients with CFS from a societal perspective.

METHODS: A multi-centre randomized controlled trial comparing MRT with CBT was conducted among 122 patients with CFS diagnosed using the 1994 criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and aged between 18 and 60 years. The societal costs (healthcare costs, patient and family costs, and costs for loss of productivity), fatigue severity, quality of life, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured over a follow-up period of one year. The main outcome of the cost-effectiveness analysis was fatigue measured by the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS). The main outcome of the cost-utility analysis was the QALY based on the EuroQol-5D-3L utilities. Sensitivity analyses were performed, and uncertainty was calculated using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and cost-effectiveness planes.

RESULTS: The data of 109 patients (57 MRT and 52 CBT) were analyzed. MRT was significantly more effective in reducing fatigue at 52 weeks. The mean difference in QALY between the treatments was not significant (0.09, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.19). The total societal costs were significantly higher for patients allocated to MRT (a difference of €5,389, 95% CI: 2,488 to 8,091). MRT has a high probability of being the most cost effective, using fatigue as the primary outcome. The ICER is €856 per unit of the CIS fatigue subscale. The results of the cost-utility analysis, using the QALY, indicate that the CBT had a higher likelihood of being more cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS: The probability of being more cost-effective is higher for MRT when using fatigue as primary outcome variable. Using QALY as the primary outcome, CBT has the highest probability of being more cost-effective.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN77567702.

Source: Vos-Vromans D, Evers S, Huijnen I, Köke A, Hitters M, Rijnders N, Pont M, Knottnerus A, Smeets R.Economic evaluation of multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment versus cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2017 Jun 2;12(6):e0177260. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0177260. ECollection 2017. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2857498

Long-term economic evaluation of cognitive-behavioural group treatment versus enhanced usual care for functional somatic syndromes

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: Patients with functional somatic syndromes (FSS) such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome have a poor outcome and can incur high healthcare and societal costs. We aimed to compare the medium-term (16 months) cost-effectiveness and the long-term (40 months) economic outcomes of a bespoke cognitive-behavioural group treatment (STreSS) with that of enhanced usual care (EUC).

METHODS: We obtained complete data on healthcare and indirect costs (i.e. labour marked-related and health-related benefits) from public registries for 120 participants from a randomised controlled trial. Costs were calculated as per capita public expenses in 2010 €. QALYs gained were estimated from the SF-6D. We conducted a medium-term cost-effectiveness analysis and a long-term cost-minimization analysis from both a healthcare (i.e. direct cost) and a societal (i.e. total cost) perspective.

RESULTS: In the medium term, the probability that STreSS was cost-effective at thresholds of 25,000 to 35,000 € per QALY was 93-95% from a healthcare perspective, but only 50-55% from a societal perspective. In the long term, however, STreSS was associated with increasing savings in indirect costs, mainly due to a greater number of patients self-supporting. When combined with stable long-term reductions in healthcare expenditures, there were total cost savings of 7184 € (95% CI 2271 to 12,096, p=0.004) during the third year after treatment.

CONCLUSION: STreSS treatment costs an average of 1545 €. This cost was more than offset by subsequent savings in direct and indirect costs. Implementation could both improve patient outcomes and reduce costs.

Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

 

Source: Schröder A, Ørnbøl E, Jensen JS, Sharpe M, Fink P. Long-term economic evaluation of cognitive-behavioural group treatment versus enhanced usual care for functional somatic syndromes. J Psychosom Res. 2017 Mar;94:73-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.01.005. Epub 2017 Jan 10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28183406

 

Adaptive pacing, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome: a cost-effectiveness analysis

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The PACE trial compared the effectiveness of adding adaptive pacing therapy (APT), cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), or graded exercise therapy (GET), to specialist medical care (SMC) for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. This paper reports the relative cost-effectiveness of these treatments in terms of quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and improvements in fatigue and physical function.

METHODS: Resource use was measured and costs calculated. Healthcare and societal costs (healthcare plus lost production and unpaid informal care) were combined with QALYs gained, and changes in fatigue and disability; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were computed.

RESULTS: SMC patients had significantly lower healthcare costs than those receiving APT, CBT and GET. If society is willing to value a QALY at £30,000 there is a 62.7% likelihood that CBT is the most cost-effective therapy, a 26.8% likelihood that GET is most cost effective, 2.6% that APT is most cost-effective and 7.9% that SMC alone is most cost-effective. Compared to SMC alone, the incremental healthcare cost per QALY was £18,374 for CBT, £23,615 for GET and £55,235 for APT. From a societal perspective CBT has a 59.5% likelihood of being the most cost-effective, GET 34.8%, APT 0.2% and SMC alone 5.5%. CBT and GET dominated SMC, while APT had a cost per QALY of £127,047. ICERs using reductions in fatigue and disability as outcomes largely mirrored these findings.

CONCLUSIONS: Comparing the four treatments using a health care perspective, CBT had the greatest probability of being the most cost-effective followed by GET. APT had a lower probability of being the most cost-effective option than SMC alone. The relative cost-effectiveness was even greater from a societal perspective as additional cost savings due to reduced need for informal care were likely.

 

Source: McCrone P, Sharpe M, Chalder T, Knapp M, Johnson AL, Goldsmith KA, White PD. Adaptive pacing, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome: a cost-effectiveness analysis. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e40808. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0040808. Epub 2012 Aug 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411573/ (Full article)

 

Implementing cognitive behavior therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome in mental health care: a costs and outcomes analysis

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the costs and outcomes of implementing cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) in a mental health center (MHC). CBT is an evidence-based treatment for CFS that was scarcely available until now. To investigate the possibilities for wider implementation, a pilot implementation project was set up.

METHOD: Costs and effects were evaluated in a non-controlled before- and after study with an eight months time-horizon. Both the costs of performing the treatments and the costs of implementing the treatment program were included in the analysis. The implementation interventions included: informing general practitioners (GPs) and CFS patients, training therapists, and instructing the MHC employees. Given the non-controlled design, cost outcome ratios (CORs) and their acceptability curves were analyzed. Analyses were done from a health care perspective and from a societal perspective. Bootstrap analyses were performed to estimate the uncertainty around the cost and outcome results.

RESULTS: 125 CFS patients were included in the study. After treatment 37% had recovered from CFS and the mean gained QALY was 0.03. Costs of patients’ health care and productivity losses had decreased significantly. From the societal perspective the implementation led to cost savings and to higher health states for patients, indicating dominancy. From the health care perspective the implementation revealed overall costs of 5.320 euros per recovered patient, with an acceptability curve showing a 100% probability for a positive COR at a willingness to pay threshold of 6.500 euros per recovered patient.

CONCLUSION: Implementing CBT for CFS in a MHC appeared to have a favorable cost outcome ratio (COR) from a societal perspective. From a health care perspective the COR depended on how much a recovered CFS patient is being valued. The strength of the evidence was limited by the non-controlled design. The outcomes of this study might facilitate health care providers when confronted with the decision whether or not to adopt CBT for CFS in their institution.

 

Source: Scheeres K, Wensing M, Bleijenberg G, Severens JL. Implementing cognitive behavior therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome in mental health care: a costs and outcomes analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008 Aug 13;8:175. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-175. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2536664/ (Full article)