RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Telephone cognitive-behaviour therapy (TCBT) may be a cost-effective method for improving access to evidence-based treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) in young people.AimsEconomic evaluation of TCBT compared with face-to-face CBT for OCD in young people. METHOD: Randomised non-inferiority trial comparing TCBT with face-to-face CBT for 72 young people (aged 11 to 18) with a diagnosis of OCD. Cost-effectiveness at 12-month follow-up was explored in terms of the primary clinical outcome (Children's Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale, CY-BOCS) and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (trial registration: ISRCTN27070832). RESULTS: Total health and social care costs were higher for face-to-face CBT (mean total cost £2965, s.d. = £1548) than TCBT (mean total cost £2475, s.d. = £1024) but this difference was non-significant (P = 0.118). There were no significant between-group differences in QALYs or the CY-BOCS and there was strong evidence to support the clinical non-inferiority of TCBT. Cost-effectiveness analysis suggests a 74% probability that face-to-face CBT is cost-effective compared with TCBT in terms of QALYs, but the result was less clear in terms of CY-BOCS, with TCBT being the preferred option at low levels of willingness to pay and the probability of either intervention being cost-effective at higher levels of willingness to pay being around 50%. CONCLUSIONS: Although cost-effectiveness of TCBT was sensitive to the outcome measure used, TCBT should be considered a clinically non-inferior alternative when access to standard clinic-based CBT is limited, or when patient preference is expressed.Declaration of interestD.M.-C. reports research grants from the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet), the Swedish Research Council for Health, working life and welfare (Forte), the US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), the UK National Institute of Health Research (NIHR), as well as royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health and Elsevier, all unrelated to the submitted work.
RESUMEN
AIMS: To determine whether the provision of contingency management using financial incentives to improve hepatitis B vaccine completion in people who inject drugs entering community treatment represents a cost-effective use of health-care resources. DESIGN: A probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted, using a decision-tree to estimate the short-term clinical and health-care cost impact of the vaccination strategies, followed by a Markov process to evaluate the long-term clinical consequences and costs associated with hepatitis B infection. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Data on attendance to vaccination from a UK cluster randomized trial. INTERVENTION: Two contingency management options were examined in the trial: fixed versus escalating schedule financial incentives. MEASUREMENT: Life-time health-care costs and quality-adjusted life years discounted at 3.5% annually; incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. FINDINGS: The resulting estimate for the incremental life-time health-care cost of the contingency management strategy versus usual care was £21.86 [95% confidence interval (CI) = -£12.20 to 39.86] per person offered the incentive. For 1000 people offered the incentive, the incremental reduction in numbers of hepatitis B infections avoided over their lifetime was estimated at 19 (95% CI = 8-30). The probabilistic incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year gained of the contingency management programme was estimated to be £6738 (95% CI = £6297-7172), with an 89% probability of being considered cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life years gained (97.60% at £30 000). CONCLUSIONS: Using financial incentives to increase hepatitis B vaccination completion in people who inject drugs could be a cost-effective use of health-care resources in the UK as long as the incidence remains above 1.2%.
Asunto(s)
Vacunas contra Hepatitis B/uso terapéutico , Hepatitis B/prevención & control , Motivación , Trastornos Relacionados con Opioides/terapia , Abuso de Sustancias por Vía Intravenosa/terapia , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/economía , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/etiología , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/prevención & control , Carcinoma Hepatocelular/cirugía , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Árboles de Decisión , Manejo de la Enfermedad , Costos de la Atención en Salud , Hepatitis B/complicaciones , Hepatitis B/economía , Vacunas contra Hepatitis B/economía , Humanos , Cirrosis Hepática/economía , Cirrosis Hepática/etiología , Cirrosis Hepática/prevención & control , Cirrosis Hepática/cirugía , Neoplasias Hepáticas/economía , Neoplasias Hepáticas/etiología , Neoplasias Hepáticas/prevención & control , Neoplasias Hepáticas/cirugía , Trasplante de Hígado/economía , Cadenas de Markov , Mortalidad , Años de Vida Ajustados por Calidad de Vida , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
ISSUES: UK clinical guidelines published in 2007 recommended contingency management (CM) as an adjunct to opiate substitution therapy. However, CM has not been adopted in the UK despite evidence of clinical effectiveness. Evidence for the cost-effectiveness of CM is less clear and will need to be explored if CM is to be adopted by national health systems in countries such as the UK. APPROACH: Systematic review and descriptive synthesis of published economic evaluations. KEY FINDINGS: The review identified nine published studies that could be classified as economic evaluations. These were all based within US treatment settings, and five were conducted by the same group of authors. All studies found that the addition of CM to usual care increased both costs and effects (commonly drug abstinence or medication adherence). IMPLICATIONS: This review confirms that the existing evidence base for cost-effectiveness has limited generalisability beyond the original research clinical settings and populations. CONCLUSION: The data were not sufficiently strong to make any conclusion about the cost-effectiveness of CM. More relevant and comprehensive evidence for cost-effectiveness than currently exists is needed.