Ana Duarte

A randomised controlled trial of computerised cognitive behaviour therapy for the treatment of depression in primary care: the Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy (REEACT) trial

BACKGROUND Computerised cognitive behaviour therapy (cCBT) has been developed as an efficient form of therapy delivery with the potential to enhance access to psychological care. Independent research is needed which examines both the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cCBT over the short and longer term. OBJECTIVES To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of cCBT as an adjunct to usual general practitioner (GP) care against usual GP care alone, for a free-to-use cCBT program (MoodGYM; National Institute for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) and a commercial pay-to-use cCBT program (Beating the Blues(®); Ultrasis, London, UK) for adults with depression, and to determine the acceptability of cCBT and the experiences of users. DESIGN A pragmatic, multicentre, three-armed, parallel, randomised controlled trial (RCT) with concurrent economic and qualitative evaluations. Simple randomisation was used. Participants and researchers were not blind to treatment allocation. SETTING Primary care in England. PARTICIPANTS Adults with depression who scored ≥ 10 on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). INTERVENTIONS Participants who were randomised to either of the two intervention groups received cCBT (Beating the Blues or MoodGYM) in addition to usual GP care. Participants who were randomised to the control group were offered usual GP care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was depression at 4 months (PHQ-9). Secondary outcomes were depression at 12 and 24 months; measures of mental health and health-related quality of life at 4, 12 and 24 months; treatment preference; and the acceptability of cCBT and experiences of users. RESULTS Clinical effectiveness: 210 patients were randomised to Beating the Blues, 242 patients were randomised to MoodGYM and 239 patients were randomised to usual GP care (total 691). There was no difference in the primary outcome (depression measured at 4 months) either between Beating the Blues and usual GP care [odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.88] or between MoodGYM and usual GP care (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.56). There was no overall difference across all time points for either intervention compared with usual GP care in a mixed model (Beating the Blues versus usual GP care, p = 0.96; and MoodGYM versus usual GP care, p = 0.11). However, a small but statistically significant difference between MoodGYM and usual GP care at 12 months was found (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.93). Free-to-use cCBT (MoodGYM) was not inferior to pay-to-use cCBT (Beating the Blues) (OR 0.91, 90% CI 0.62 to 1.34; p = 0.69). There were no consistent benefits of either intervention when secondary outcomes were examined. There were no serious adverse events thought likely to be related to the trial intervention. Despite the provision of regular technical telephone support, there was low uptake of the cCBT programs. Cost-effectiveness: cost-effectiveness analyses suggest that neither Beating the Blues nor MoodGYM appeared cost-effective compared with usual GP care alone. Qualitative evaluation: participants were often demotivated to access the computer programs, by reason of depression. Some expressed the view that a greater level of therapeutic input would be needed to promote engagement. CONCLUSIONS The benefits that have previously been observed in developer-led trials were not found in this large pragmatic RCT. The benefits of cCBT when added to routine primary care were minimal, and uptake of this mode of therapy was relatively low. There remains a clinical and economic need for effective low-intensity psychological treatments for depression with improved patient engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered as ISRCTN91947481. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Cost-effectiveness of integrated collaborative care for comorbid major depression in patients with cancer☆

Objectives Comorbid major depression is associated with reduced quality of life and greater use of healthcare resources. A recent randomised trial (SMaRT, Symptom Management Research Trials, Oncology-2) found that a collaborative care treatment programme (Depression Care for People with Cancer, DCPC) was highly effective in treating depression in patients with cancer. This study aims to estimate the cost-effectiveness of DCPC compared with usual care from a health service perspective. Methods Costs were estimated using UK national unit cost estimates and health outcomes measured using quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness of DCPC compared with usual care was calculated and scenario analyses performed to test alternative assumptions on costs and missing data. Uncertainty was characterised using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. The probability of DCPC being cost-effective was determined using the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellences (NICE) cost-effectiveness threshold range of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY gained. Results DCPC cost on average £631 more than usual care per patient, and resulted in a mean gain of 0.066 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £9549 per QALY. The probability of DCPC being cost-effective was 0.9 or greater at cost-effectiveness thresholds above £20,000 per QALY for the base case and scenario analyses. Conclusions Compared with usual care, DCPC is likely to be cost-effective at the current thresholds used by NICE. This study adds to the weight of evidence that collaborative care treatment models are cost-effective for depression, and provides new evidence regarding their use in specialist medical settings.

Cost effectiveness of surgical versus non-surgical treatment of adults with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus: economic evaluation alongside the PROFHER trial.

AIMS A pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial (PROFHER) was conducted in United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) hospitals to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of surgery compared with non-surgical treatment for displaced fractures of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck in adults. METHODS A cost utility analysis from the NHS perspective was performed. Differences between surgical and non-surgical treatment groups in costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) at two years were used to derive an estimate of the cost effectiveness of surgery using regression methods. RESULTS Patients randomised to receive surgical intervention accumulated mean greater costs and marginally lower QALYs than patients randomised to non-surgery. The surgical intervention cost a mean of £1758 more per patient (95% confidence intervals (CI) £1126 to £2389). Total QALYs for the surgical group were smaller than those for non-surgery -0.0101 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.11). The probability of surgery being cost effective was less than 10% given the current NICE willingness to pay at a threshold of £20 000 for an additional QALY. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. DISCUSSION The results suggest that current surgical treatment is not cost effective for the majority of displaced fractures of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck in the United Kingdoms NHS. TAKE HOME MESSAGE The results of this trial do not support the trend of increased surgical treatment for patients with displaced fractures of the proximal humerus involving the surgical neck within the United Kingdom NHS.

Cost-effectiveness of computerized cognitive-behavioural therapy for the treatment of depression in primary care : findings from the Randomised Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Acceptability of Computerised Therapy (REEACT) trial

BACKGROUND Computerized cognitive-behavioural therapy (cCBT) forms a core component of stepped psychological care for depression. Existing evidence for cCBT has been informed by developer-led trials. This is the first study based on a large independent pragmatic trial to assess the cost-effectiveness of cCBT as an adjunct to usual general practitioner (GP) care compared with usual GP care alone and to establish the differential cost-effectiveness of a free-to-use cCBT programme (MoodGYM) in comparison with a commercial programme (Beating the Blues) in primary care. METHOD Costs were estimated from a healthcare perspective and outcomes measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over 2 years. The incremental cost-effectiveness of each cCBT programme was compared with usual GP care. Uncertainty was estimated using probabilistic sensitivity analysis and scenario analyses were performed to assess the robustness of results. RESULTS Neither cCBT programme was found to be cost-effective compared with usual GP care alone. At a £20 000 per QALY threshold, usual GP care alone had the highest probability of being cost-effective (0.55) followed by MoodGYM (0.42) and Beating the Blues (0.04). Usual GP care alone was also the cost-effective intervention in the majority of scenario analyses. However, the magnitude of the differences in costs and QALYs between all groups appeared minor (and non-significant). CONCLUSIONS Technically supported cCBT programmes do not appear any more cost-effective than usual GP care alone. No cost-effective advantage of the commercially developed cCBT programme was evident compared with the free-to-use cCBT programme. Current UK practice recommendations for cCBT may need to be reconsidered in the light of the results.