Maartje Goorden

Cost utility analysis of a collaborative stepped care intervention for panic and generalized anxiety disorders in primary care.

OBJECTIVE Generalized anxiety and panic disorders are a burden on the society because they are costly and have a significant adverse effect on quality of life. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of a collaborative stepped care intervention for panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder in primary care compared to care as usual from a societal perspective. METHODS The design of the study was a two armed cluster randomized controlled trial. In total 43 primary care practices in the Netherlands participated in the study. Eventually, 180 patients were included (114 collaborative stepped care, 66 care as usual). Baseline measures and follow-up measures (3, 6, 9 and 12 months) were assessed using questionnaires. We applied the TiC-P, the SF-HQL and the EQ-5D respectively measuring health care utilization, production losses and health related quality of life. RESULTS The average annual direct medical costs in the collaborative stepped care group were 1854 Euro (95% C.I., 1726 to 1986) compared to €1503 (95% C.I., 1374 to 1664) in the care as usual group. The average quality of life years (QALYs) gained was 0.05 higher in the collaborative stepped care group, leading to an incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 6965 Euro per QALY. Inclusion of the productivity costs, consequently reflecting the full societal costs, decreased the ratio even more. CONCLUSION The study showed that collaborative stepped care was a cost effective intervention for panic disorder and generalized anxiety disorder and was even dominant when a societal perspective was taken. TRIAL REGISTRATION trialregister.nl, Netherlands Trial Register NTR107.

Cost-utility of collaborative care for major depressive disorder in primary care in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE Major depression is a great burden on society, as it is associated with high disability/costs. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of Collaborative Care (CC) for major depressive disorder compared to Care As Usual (CAU) in a primary health care setting from a societal perspective. METHODS A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted, including 93 patients that were identified by screening (45-CC, 48-CAU). Another 57 patients were identified by the GP (56-CC, 1-CAU). The outcome measures were TiC-P, SF-HQL and EQ-5D, respectively measuring health care utilization, production losses and general health related quality of life at baseline three, six, nine and twelve months. A cost-utility analysis was performed for patients included by screening and a sensitivity analysis was done by also including patients identified by the GP. RESULTS The average annual total costs was €1131 (95% C.I., €-3158 to €750) lower for CC compared to CAU. The average quality of life years (QALYs) gained was 0.02 (95% C.I., -0.004 to 0.04) higher for CC, so CC was dominant from a societal perspective. Taking a health care perspective, CC was less cost-effective due to higher costs, €1173 (95% C.I., €-216 to €2726), of CC compared to CAU which led to an ICER of 53,717 Euro/QALY. The sensitivity analysis showed dominance of CC. CONCLUSION The cost-utility analysis from a societal perspective showed that CC was dominant to CAU. CC may be a promising treatment for depression in the primary care setting. Further research should explore the cost-effectiveness of long-term CC. TRIAL REGISTRATION Netherlands Trial Register ISRCTN15266438.

Cost-effectiveness of multidimensional family therapy compared to cognitive behavioral therapy for adolescents with a cannabis use disorder: Data from a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of Multidimensional Family Therapy (MDFT) for adolescents with a cannabis use disorder, compared to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). METHODS A parallel-group randomized controlled trial was performed. 109 adolescents with a DSM-IV cannabis use disorder (CBT n=54; MDFT n=55) were included. Assessments were conducted at baseline, and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post-baseline, and included measures on cannabis and other substance use, delinquency, health care utilization, and general health related quality of life. RESULTS Excluding those with missing cost-data, 96 participants (MDFT n=49; CBT n=47) were included. From a health care perspective, the average annual direct medical costs in the CBT group were €2015 (95%C.I. 1397-2714), compared to €5446 (95%C.I. 4159-7092) in the MDFT group. The average quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were 0.06 QALY higher for the MDFT group, which led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 54,308 Euro/QALY or €43,405 per recovered patient. Taking the costs of delinquency into account, the costs increased to €21,330 (95%C.I. 12,389-32,894) for the CBT group and to €21,915 (95%C.I. 16,273-28,181) for the MDFT group, which lead to an ICER of 9266 Euro/QALY or a cost per recovered patient of €7491. CONCLUSIONS This is the first comprehensive CEA of MDFT compared to CBT and it demonstrated that when costs of delinquency were included, the ICERS were modest. The results underline the importance of adopting a broader perspective regarding cost effectiveness analyses in mental health care.

Indicators of patients with major depressive disorder in need of highly specialized care: A systematic review

Objectives Early identification of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) that cannot be managed by secondary mental health services and who require highly specialized mental healthcare could enhance need-based patient stratification. This, in turn, may reduce the number of treatment steps needed to achieve and sustain an adequate treatment response. The development of a valid tool to identify patients with MDD in need of highly specialized care is hampered by the lack of a comprehensive understanding of indicators that distinguish patients with and without a need for highly specialized MDD care. The aim of this study, therefore, was to systematically review studies on indicators of patients with MDD likely in need of highly specialized care. Methods A structured literature search was performed on the PubMed and PsycINFO databases following PRISMA guidelines. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and determined the quality of the identified studies. Three reviewers independently executed data extraction by using a pre-piloted, standardized extraction form. The resulting indicators were grouped by topical similarity, creating a concise summary of the findings. Results The systematic search of all databases yielded a total of 7,360 references, of which sixteen were eligible for inclusion. The sixteen papers yielded a total of 48 unique indicators. Overall, a more pronounced depression severity, a younger age of onset, a history of prior poor treatment response, psychiatric comorbidity, somatic comorbidity, childhood trauma, psychosocial impairment, older age, and a socioeconomically disadvantaged status were found to be associated with proxies of need for highly specialized MDD care. Conclusions Several indicators are associated with the need for highly specialized MDD care. These indicators provide easily measurable factors that may serve as a starting point for the development of a valid tool to identify patients with MDD in need of highly specialized care.

Cost-utility of collaborative care for the treatment of comorbid major depressive disorder in outpatients with chronic physical conditions. : A randomized controlled trial in the general hospital setting (CC-DIM)

Purpose Major depressive disorder (MDD) is highly prevalent in patients with a chronic physical condition, and this comorbidity has a negative influence on quality of life, health care costs, self-care, morbidity, and mortality. Research has shown that collaborative care (CC) may be a cost-effective treatment. However, its cost-effectiveness in this patient group has not yet been established. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-utility of CC for the treatment of comorbid MDD in chronically ill patients in the outpatient general hospital setting. The study was conducted from a health care and societal perspective. Patients and methods In this randomized controlled trial, 81 patients with moderate-to-severe MDD were included; 42 were randomly assigned to the CC group and 39 to the care as usual (CAU) group. We applied the TiC-P, short-form Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaire, and EuroQol EQ-5D 3 level version, measuring the use of health care, informal care, and household work, respectively, at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up. Results The mean annual direct medical costs in the CC group were €6,718 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3,541 to 10,680) compared to €4,582 (95% CI: 2,782 to 6,740) in the CAU group. The average quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained were 0.07 higher in the CC group, indicating that CC is more costly but also more effective than CAU. From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €24,690/QALY. Conclusion This first cost-utility analysis in chronically ill patients with comorbid MDD shows that CC may be a cost-effective treatment depending on willingness-to-pay levels. Nevertheless, the low utility scores emphasize the need for further research to improve the cost-effectiveness of CC in this highly prevalent and costly group of patients.

Development and Validation of a Decision Tool for Early Identification of Adult Patients with Severe and Complex Eating Disorder Psychopathology in Need of Highly Specialized Care

Patients with complex and severe eating disorders often receive a number of ineffective or/and insufficient treatments. Direct referral of these patients to highly specialized tertiary treatment facilities in an earlier stage of the disorder is likely to be more (cost)-effective. The aim of the study was to develop a decision tool that aids clinicians in early identification of these patients. After identification of criteria that were indicative of severity and complexity of eating disorder psychopathology by means of a systematic review of literature and consultation of a focus group, a Delphi method was applied to obtain consensus from experts on the list of relevant criteria. Finally, the decision tool was validated in clinical practice, and cut-off criteria were established. The tool demonstrated good feasibility and validity to identify patients for highly specialized tertiary care. The final decision tool consisted of five criteria that can easily be implemented in clinical practice. Copyright

The cost-effectiveness of family/family-based therapy for treatment of externalizing disorders, substance use disorders and delinquency: a systematic review

BackgroundFamily therapy and family-based treatment has been commonly applied in children and adolescents in mental health care and has been proven to be effective. There is an increased interest in economic evaluations of these, often expensive, interventions. The aim of this systematic review is to summarize and evaluate the evidence on cost-effectiveness of family/family-based therapy for externalizing disorders, substance use disorders and delinquency.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Education Resource information Centre (ERIC), Psycinfo and Cochrane reviews including studies conducted after 1990 and before the first of August of 2013. Full economic evaluations investigating family/family-based interventions for adolescents between 10 and 20 years treated for substance use disorders, delinquency or externalizing disorders were included.ResultsSeven hundred thirty-one articles met the search criteria and 51 studies were initially selected. The final selection resulted in the inclusion of 11 studies. The quality of these studies was assessed. Within the identified studies, there was great variation in the specific type of family/family-based interventions and disorders. According to the outcomes of the checklists, the overall quality of the economic evaluations was low. Results varied by study. Due to the variations in setting, design and outcome it was not feasible to pool results using a meta-analysis.ConclusionsThe quality of the identified economic evaluations of family/family-based therapy for treatment of externalizing disorders, adolescent substance use disorders and delinquency was insufficient to determine the cost-effectiveness. Although commonly applied, family/family-based therapy is costly and more research of higher quality is needed.

Indicators to facilitate the early identification of patients with major depressive disorder in need of highly specialized care: A concept mapping study

Early identification of the subgroup of patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) in need of highly specialized care could enhance personalized intervention. This, in turn, may reduce the number of treatment steps needed to achieve and sustain an adequate treatment response. The aim of this study was to identify patient‐related indicators that could facilitate the early identification of the subgroup of patients with MDD in need of highly specialized care.

Cost-effectiveness of short-term inpatient psychotherapy based on transactional analysis in patients with personality disorder

Short-term inpatient psychotherapy based on transactional analysis (STIP-TA) in patients with personality disorders (PD) has shown to be more effective than comparable other specialized psychotherapies (OP). The aim of this study was to assess whether the higher effectiveness of STIP-TA also results in a better cost-effectiveness. Patients treated with STIP-TA were matched with patients treated with OP by the propensity score. Healthcare costs and lost productivity costs were measured over 3 years and from the societal perspective. Cost-effectiveness was represented by costs per quality adjusted life years (QALYs). Uncertainty was assessed using bootstrapping. Mean 3-year costs were €59,834 for STIP-TA and €69,337 for OP, a difference of -€9,503, 95% CI [-32,561, 15,726]. QALYs were 2.29 for STIP-TA and 2.05 for OP, a difference of .24, 95% CI [.05, .44]. STIP-TA is a dominant treatment compared to OP: less costly and more effective. We conclude that STIP-TA is a cost-effective treatment in PD patients.