scholarly journals Adjunctive colposcopy technologies for assessing suspected cervical abnormalities: systematic reviews and economic evaluation

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (54) ◽  
pp. 1-260
Author(s):  
Mathilde Peron ◽  
Alexis Llewellyn ◽  
Thirimon Moe-Byrne ◽  
Simon Walker ◽  
Matthew Walton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Watchful Waiting ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Primary Screening ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundDynamic Spectral Imaging System (DySIS)map (DySIS Medical Ltd, Edinburgh, UK) and ZedScan (Zilico Limited, Manchester, UK) can be used adjunctively with conventional colposcopy, which may improve the detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) and cancer.ObjectivesTo systematically review the evidence on the diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness and implementation of DySISmap and ZedScan as adjuncts to standard colposcopy, and to develop a cost-effectiveness model.MethodsFour parallel systematic reviews were performed on diagnostic accuracy, clinical effectiveness issues, implementation and economic analyses. In January 2017 we searched databases (including MEDLINE and EMBASE) for studies in which DySISmap or ZedScan was used adjunctively with standard colposcopy to detect CIN or cancer in women referred to colposcopy. Risk of bias was assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 tool. Summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy were calculated using bivariate and other regression models when appropriate. Other outcomes were synthesised narratively. A patient-level state-transition model was developed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of DySISmap and ZedScan under either human papillomavirus (HPV) triage or the HPV primary screening algorithm. The model included two types of clinics [‘see and treat’ and ‘watchful waiting’ (i.e. treat later after confirmatory biopsy)], as well as the reason for referral (low-grade or high-grade cytological smear). Sensitivity and scenario analyses were undertaken.ResultsEleven studies were included in the diagnostic review (nine of DySISmap and two of ZedScan), three were included in the clinical effectiveness review (two of DySISmap and one of ZedScan) and five were included in the implementation review (four of DySISmap and one of ZedScan). Adjunctive DySISmap use was found to have a higher sensitivity for detecting CIN grade 2+ (CIN 2+) lesions [81.25%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 72.2% to 87.9%] than standard colposcopy alone (57.91%, 95% CI 47.2% to 67.9%), but with a lower specificity (70.40%, 95% CI 59.4% to 79.5%) than colposcopy (87.41%, 95% CI 81.7% to 91.5%). (Confidential information has been removed.) The base-case cost-effectiveness results showed that adjunctive DySISmap routinely dominated standard colposcopy (it was less costly and more effective). The only exception was for high-grade referrals in a watchful-waiting clinic setting. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for ZedScan varied between £272 and £4922 per quality-adjusted life-year. ZedScan also dominated colposcopy alone for high-grade referrals in see-and-treat clinics. These findings appeared to be robust to a wide range of sensitivity and scenario analyses.LimitationsAll but one study was rated as being at a high risk of bias. There was no evidence directly comparing ZedScan with standard colposcopy. No studies directly compared DySIS and ZedScan.ConclusionsThe use of adjunctive DySIS increases the sensitivity for detecting CIN 2+, so it increases the number of high-grade CIN cases that are detected. However, it also reduces specificity, so that more women with no or low-grade CIN will be incorrectly judged as possibly having high-grade CIN. The evidence for ZedScan was limited, but it appears to increase sensitivity and decrease specificity compared with colposcopy alone. The cost-effectiveness of both adjunctive technologies compared with standard colposcopy, under both the HPV triage and primary screening algorithms, appears to be favourable when compared with the conventional thresholds used to determine value in the NHS.Future workMore diagnostic accuracy studies of ZedScan are needed, as are studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy for women referred to colposcopy as part of the HPV primary screening programme.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017054515.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The Added Value of Inflow-Based Vascular-Space-Occupancy and Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Preoperative Grading of Gliomas

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Haimei Cao ◽  
Xiang Xiao ◽  
Jun Hua ◽  
Guanglong Huang ◽  
Wenle He ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Roc Curve ◽  
Diffusion Weighted Imaging ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Mr Images ◽  
Vascular Space ◽  
Diffusion Weighted ◽  
High Grade Gliomas ◽  
And Diffusion

Objectives: The present study aimed to study whether combined inflow-based vascular-space-occupancy (iVASO) MR imaging (MRI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) improve the diagnostic accuracy in the preoperative grading of gliomas. Methods: Fifty-one patients with histopathologically confirmed diffuse gliomas underwent preoperative structural MRI, iVASO, and DWI. We performed 2 qualitative consensus reviews: (1) structural MR images alone and (2) structural MR images with iVASO and DWI. Relative arteriolar cerebral blood volume (rCBVa) and minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (mADC) were compared between low-grade and high-grade gliomas. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to compare the tumor grading efficiency of rCBVa, mADC, and the combination of the two parameters. Results: Two observers diagnosed accurate tumor grade in 40 of 51 (78.4%) patients in the first review and in 46 of 51 (90.2%) in the second review. Both rCBVa and mADC showed significant differences between low-grade and high-grade gliomas. ROC analysis gave a threshold value of 1.52 for rCBVa and 0.85 × 10−3 mm2/s for mADC to provide a sensitivity and specificity of 88.0 and 81.2% and 100.0 and 68.7%, respectively. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) was 0.87 and 0.85 for rCBVa and mADC, respectively. The combination of rCBVa and mADC values increased the AUC to 0.92. Conclusion: The combined application of iVASO and DWI may improve the diagnostic accuracy of glioma grading.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of the Cost-Effectiveness of Nurse Practitioners and Clinical Nurse Specialists: What Is the Quality of the Evidence?

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Faith Donald ◽  
Kelley Kilpatrick ◽  
Kim Reid ◽  
Nancy Carter ◽  
Ruth Martin-Misener ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Nurse Specialist ◽  
Clinical Nurse ◽  
Education Experience ◽  
The Cost

Background. Improved quality of care and control of healthcare costs are important factors influencing decisions to implement nurse practitioner (NP) and clinical nurse specialist (CNS) roles.Objective. To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating NP and CNS cost-effectiveness (defined broadly to also include studies measuring health resource utilization).Design. Systematic review of RCTs of NP and CNS cost-effectiveness reported between 1980 and July 2012.Results. 4,397 unique records were reviewed. We included 43 RCTs in six groupings, NP-outpatient (n=11), NP-transition (n=5), NP-inpatient (n=2), CNS-outpatient (n=11), CNS-transition (n=13), and CNS-inpatient (n=1). Internal validity was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool; 18 (42%) studies were at low, 17 (39%) were at moderate, and eight (19%) at high risk of bias. Few studies included detailed descriptions of the education, experience, or role of the NPs or CNSs, affecting external validity.Conclusions. We identified 43 RCTs evaluating the cost-effectiveness of NPs and CNSs using criteria that meet current definitions of the roles. Almost half the RCTs were at low risk of bias. Incomplete reporting of study methods and lack of details about NP or CNS education, experience, and role create challenges in consolidating the evidence of the cost-effectiveness of these roles.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Alongside Randomised Controlled Trials of Acupuncture

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 273-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Song-Yi Kim ◽  
Hyangsook Lee ◽  
Younbyoung Chae ◽  
Hi-Joon Park ◽  
Hyejung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
German Studies ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

Objective To summarise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture. Methods We identified full economic evaluations such as cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the consequences and costs of acupuncture for any medical condition. Eleven electronic databases were searched up to March 2011 without language restrictions. Eligible RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane criteria for risk of bias and a modified version of the checklist for economic evaluation. The general characteristics and the results of each economic analysis such as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were extracted. Results Of 17 included studies, nine were CUAs that measured quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and eight were CEAs that assessed effectiveness of acupuncture based on improvements in clinical symptoms. All CUAs showed that acupuncture with or without usual care was cost-effective compared with waiting list control or usual care alone, with ICERs ranging from ¢3011/QALY (dysmenorrhoea) to ¢22 298/QALY (allergic rhinitis) in German studies, and from £3855/QALY (osteoarthritis) to £9951/QALY (headache) in UK studies. In the CEAs, acupuncture was beneficial at a relatively low cost in six European and Asian studies. All CUAs were well-designed with a low risk of bias, but this was not the case for CEAs. Conclusions Overall, this review demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture. Despite such promising results, any generalisation of these results needs to be made with caution given the diversity of diseases and the different status of acupuncture in the various countries.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for detecting the staging and grading of bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xinyue Ge ◽  
Zhong-Kai Lan ◽  
Jing Chen ◽  
Shang-Yong Zhu
Keyword(s):  
Bladder Cancer ◽  
Diagnostic Accuracy ◽  
Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Positive Likelihood Ratio ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Forest Plot ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
High Grade ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽  
Contrast Enhanced

Aim: The study retrospectively analysed the accuracy of preoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in differenti-ating stage Ta-T1 or low-grade bladder cancer (BC) from stage T2 or high-grade bladder cancer. Material and methods: We systematically searched the literature indexed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for original diagnostic articles of bladder cancer. The diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was compared with cystoscopy and/or transurethral resection of bladder tumors (TURBT). The bivariate logistic regression model was used for data pooling, couple forest plot, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC). Results: Five studies met the selection criteria; the overall number of reported bladder cancers patients were 436. The pooled-sensitivity (P-SEN), pooled-specificity (P-SPE), pooled-positive likelihood ratio (PLR+), pooled-negative likelihood ratio (PLR−), DOR, and area under the SROC curve were 94.0% (95%CI: 85%–98%), 90% (95%CI: 83%–95%), 9.5 (95%CI: 5.1–17.6), 0.06 (95%CI: 0.02–0.17), 147 (95%CI: 35–612) and 97% (95% CI: 95%–98%) respectively. Conclusion: CEUS reaches a high efficiency in discriminating Ta-T1 or low-grade bladder cancer from stage T2 or high-grade bladder cancer. It can be a promising method in patients to distinguish T staging and grading of bladder cancer because of its high sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy.

scholarly journals Lenvatinib and sorafenib for differentiated thyroid cancer after radioactive iodine: a systematic review and economic evaluation

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Fleeman ◽  
Rachel Houten ◽  
Adrian Bagust ◽  
Marty Richardson ◽  
Sophie Beale ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Differentiated Thyroid Cancer ◽  
Radioactive Iodine ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Base Case ◽  
The Cost

Background Thyroid cancer is a rare cancer, accounting for only 1% of all malignancies in England and Wales. Differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) accounts for ≈94% of all thyroid cancers. Patients with DTC often require treatment with radioactive iodine. Treatment for DTC that is refractory to radioactive iodine [radioactive iodine-refractory DTC (RR-DTC)] is often limited to best supportive care (BSC). Objectives We aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib (Lenvima®; Eisai Ltd, Hertfordshire, UK) and sorafenib (Nexar®; Bayer HealthCare, Leverkusen, Germany) for the treatment of patients with RR-DTC. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, The Cochrane Library and EconLit were searched (date range 1999 to 10 January 2017; searched on 10 January 2017). The bibliographies of retrieved citations were also examined. Review methods We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews, prospective observational studies and economic evaluations of lenvatinib or sorafenib. In the absence of relevant economic evaluations, we constructed a de novo economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib with that of BSC. Results Two RCTs were identified: SELECT (Study of [E7080] LEnvatinib in 131I-refractory differentiated Cancer of the Thyroid) and DECISION (StuDy of sorafEnib in loCally advanced or metastatIc patientS with radioactive Iodine-refractory thyrOid caNcer). Lenvatinib and sorafenib were both reported to improve median progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo: 18.3 months (lenvatinib) vs. 3.6 months (placebo) and 10.8 months (sorafenib) vs. 5.8 months (placebo). Patient crossover was high (≥ 75%) in both trials, confounding estimates of overall survival (OS). Using OS data adjusted for crossover, trial authors reported a statistically significant improvement in OS for patients treated with lenvatinib compared with those given placebo (SELECT) but not for patients treated with sorafenib compared with those given placebo (DECISION). Both lenvatinib and sorafenib increased the incidence of adverse events (AEs), and dose reductions were required (for > 60% of patients). The results from nine prospective observational studies and 13 systematic reviews of lenvatinib or sorafenib were broadly comparable to those from the RCTs. Health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data were collected only in DECISION. We considered the feasibility of comparing lenvatinib with sorafenib via an indirect comparison but concluded that this would not be appropriate because of differences in trial and participant characteristics, risk profiles of the participants in the placebo arms and because the proportional hazard assumption was violated for five of the six survival outcomes available from the trials. In the base-case economic analysis, using list prices only, the cost-effectiveness comparison of lenvatinib versus BSC yields an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £65,872, and the comparison of sorafenib versus BSC yields an ICER of £85,644 per QALY gained. The deterministic sensitivity analyses show that none of the variations lowered the base-case ICERs to < £50,000 per QALY gained. Limitations We consider that it is not possible to compare the clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib. Conclusions Compared with placebo/BSC, treatment with lenvatinib or sorafenib results in an improvement in PFS, objective tumour response rate and possibly OS, but dose modifications were required to treat AEs. Both treatments exhibit estimated ICERs of > £50,000 per QALY gained. Further research should include examination of the effects of lenvatinib, sorafenib and BSC (including HRQoL) for both symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, and the positioning of treatments in the treatment pathway. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017055516. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals A systematic review and economic evaluation of adalimumab and dexamethasone for treating non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis in adults

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (68) ◽  
pp. 1-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hazel Squires ◽  
Edith Poku ◽  
Inigo Bermejo ◽  
Katy Cooper ◽  
John Stevens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Posterior Uveitis ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Dexamethasone Implant ◽  
Intermediate Uveitis ◽  
Sham Procedure ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundNon-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis and panuveitis are a heterogeneous group of inflammatory eye disorders. Management includes local and systemic corticosteroids, immunosuppressants and biological drugs.ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of subcutaneous adalimumab (Humira®; AbbVie Ltd, Maidenhead, UK) and a dexamethasone intravitreal implant (Ozurdex®; Allergan Ltd, Marlow, UK) in adults with non-infectious intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis or panuveitis.Data sourcesElectronic databases and clinical trials registries including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the World Health Organization’s International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched to June 2016, with an update search carried out in October 2016.Review methodsReview methods followed published guidelines. A Markov model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone and adalimumab, each compared with current practice, from a NHS and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspective over a lifetime horizon, parameterised with published evidence. Costs and benefits were discounted at 3.5%. Substantial sensitivity analyses were undertaken.ResultsOf the 134 full-text articles screened, three studies (four articles) were included in the clinical effectiveness review. Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [VISUAL I (active uveitis) and VISUAL II (inactive uveitis)] compared adalimumab with placebo, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Time to treatment failure (reduced visual acuity, intraocular inflammation, new vascular lesions) was longer in the adalimumab group than in the placebo group, with a hazard ratio of 0.50 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.70;p < 0.001] in the VISUAL I trial and 0.57 (95% CI 0.39 to 0.84;p = 0.004) in the VISUAL II trial. The adalimumab group showed a significantly greater improvement than the placebo group in the 25-item Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ-25) composite score in the VISUAL I trial (mean difference 4.20;p = 0.010) but not the VISUAL II trial (mean difference 2.12;p = 0.16). Some systemic adverse effects occurred more frequently with adalimumab than with placebo. One RCT [HURON (active uveitis)] compared a single 0.7-mg dexamethasone implant against a sham procedure, with limited standard care also provided in both arms. Dexamethasone provided significant benefits over the sham procedure at 8 and 26 weeks in the percentage of patients with a vitreous haze score of zero (p < 0.014), the mean best corrected visual acuity improvement (p ≤ 0.002) and the percentage of patients with a ≥ 5-point improvement in VFQ-25 score (p < 0.05). Raised intraocular pressure and cataracts occurred more frequently with dexamethasone than with the sham procedure. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for one dexamethasone implant in one eye for a combination of patients with unilateral and bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the HURON trial, was estimated to be £19,509 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The ICER of adalimumab for patients with mainly bilateral uveitis compared with limited current practice, as per the VISUAL trials, was estimated to be £94,523 and £317,547 per QALY gained in active and inactive uveitis respectively. Sensitivity analyses suggested that the rate of blindness has the biggest impact on the model results. The interventions may be more cost-effective in populations in which there is a greater risk of blindness.LimitationsThe clinical trials did not fully reflect clinical practice. Thirteen additional studies of clinically relevant comparator treatments were identified; however, network meta-analysis was not feasible. The model results are highly uncertain because of the limited evidence base.ConclusionsTwo RCTs of systemic adalimumab and one RCT of a unilateral, single dexamethasone implant showed significant benefits over placebo or a sham procedure. The ICERs for adalimumab were estimated to be above generally accepted thresholds for cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of dexamethasone was estimated to fall below standard thresholds. However, there is substantial uncertainty around the model assumptions. In future work, primary research should compare dexamethasone and adalimumab with current treatments over the long term and in important subgroups and consider how short-term improvements relate to long-term effects on vision.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016041799.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

scholarly journals ASSESSING SEARCHES IN NICE SINGLE TECHNOLOGY APPRAISALS: PRACTICE AND CHECKLIST

2013 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Wong ◽  
Suzy Paisley ◽  
Christopher Carroll
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Web Site ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Evidence Review ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Reporting Source

Objectives: No guidelines exist in the approach that Evidence Review Groups (ERGs) should take to appraise search methodologies in the manufacturer's submission (MS) in Single Technology Appraisals (STA). As a result, ERGs are left to appraise searches using their own approach. This study investigates the limitations of manufacturers' search methodologies as critiqued by ERGs in published STA reports and to provide a recommended checklist.Methods: Limitations from search critiques in 83 ERG reports published in the NIHR Web site between 2006 and May 2011 were extracted. The limitations were grouped into themes. Comparisons were made between limitations reported in the clinical effectiveness versus cost-effectiveness searches.Results: Twelve themes were identified, six relating to the search strategy, source, limits, filters, translation, reporting, and missing studies. The search strategy theme contained the most limitations. Missing studies were frequently found by the ERG group in the clinical effectiveness searches. The omission of searches by manufacturers for unpublished and ongoing trials was frequently reported by the ERG. By contrast, failure of the manufacturer to report strategies was the most common limitation in the cost-effectiveness searches. Themes with the most frequent limitations in both types of searches are search strategy, reporting and source.Conclusions: It is recommended that a checklist that has reporting, source and search strategy elements be used in the appraisal of manufacturer's searches during the STA process.

scholarly journals 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

2017 ◽  
Vol 47 (10) ◽  
pp. 1825-1835 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Duarte ◽  
S. Walker ◽  
E. Littlewood ◽  
S. Brabyn ◽  
C. Hewitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Scenario Analyses ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Gp Care ◽  
The Cost

BackgroundComputerized 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.MethodCosts 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.ResultsNeither 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).ConclusionsTechnically 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document