Cost and Effectiveness of Blended Versus Standard Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Outpatients With Depression in Routine Specialized Mental Health Care: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Background Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is an effective treatment, but access is often restricted due to costs and limited availability of trained therapists. Blending online and face-to-face CBT for depression might improve cost-effectiveness and treatment availability. Objective This pilot study aimed to examine the costs and effectiveness of blended CBT compared with standard CBT for depressed patients in specialized mental health care to guide further research and development of blended CBT. Methods Patients were randomly allocated to blended CBT (n=53) or standard CBT (n=49). Blended CBT consisted of 10 weekly face-to-face sessions and 9 Web-based sessions. Standard CBT consisted of 15 to 20 weekly face-to-face sessions. At baseline and 10, 20, and 30 weeks after start of treatment, self-assessed depression severity, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and costs were measured. Clinicians, blinded to treatment allocation, assessed psychopathology at all time points. Data were analyzed using linear mixed models. Uncertainty intervals around cost and effect estimates were estimated with 5000 Monte Carlo simulations. Results Blended CBT treatment duration was mean 19.0 (SD 12.6) weeks versus mean 33.2 (SD 23.0) weeks in standard CBT (P<.001). No significant differences were found between groups for depressive episodes (risk difference [RD] 0.06, 95% CI −0.05 to 0.19), response to treatment (RD 0.03, 95% CI −0.10 to 0.15), and QALYs (mean difference 0.01, 95% CI −0.03 to 0.04). Mean societal costs for blended CBT were €1183 higher than standard CBT. This difference was not significant (95% CI −399 to 2765). Blended CBT had a probability of being cost-effective compared with standard CBT of 0.02 per extra QALY and 0.37 for an additional treatment response, at a ceiling ratio of €25,000. For health care providers, mean costs for blended CBT were €176 lower than standard CBT. This difference was not significant (95% CI −659 to 343). At €0 per additional unit of effect, the probability of blended CBT being cost-effective compared with standard CBT was 0.75. The probability increased to 0.88 at a ceiling ratio of €5000 for an added treatment response, and to 0.85 at €10,000 per QALY gained. For avoiding new depressive episodes, blended CBT was deemed not cost-effective compared with standard CBT because the increase in costs was associated with negative effects. Conclusions This pilot study shows that blended CBT might be a promising way to engage depressed patients in specialized mental health care. Compared with standard CBT, blended CBT was not considered cost-effective from a societal perspective but had an acceptable probability of being cost-effective from the health care provider perspective. Results should be carefully interpreted due to the small sample size. Further research in larger replication studies focused on optimizing the clinical effects of blended CBT and its budget impact is warranted. Trial Registration Netherlands Trial Register NTR4650; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/4408 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.1186/s12888-014-0290-z

Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Etoricoxib versus Celecoxib and Nonselective NSAIDs in the Treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis in Norway

Objectives. To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of etoricoxib (90 mg) relative to celecoxib (200/400 mg), and the nonselective NSAIDs naproxen (1000 mg) and diclofenac (150 mg) in the initial treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in Norway.Methods. A previously developed Markov state-transition model was used to estimate costs and benefits associated with initiating treatment with the different competing NSAIDs. Efficacy, gastrointestinal and cardiovascular safety, and resource use data were obtained from the literature. Data from different studies were synthesized and translated into direct costs and quality adjusted life years by means of a Bayesian comprehensive decision modeling approach.Results. Over a 30-year time horizon, etoricoxib is associated with about 0.4 more quality adjusted life years than the other interventions. At 1 year, naproxen is the most cost-saving strategy. However, etoricoxib is cost and quality adjusted life year saving relative to celecoxib, as well as diclofenac and naproxen after 5 years of follow-up. For a willingness-to-pay ceiling ratio of 200,000 Norwegian krones per quality adjusted life year, there is a >95% probability that etoricoxib is the most-cost-effective treatment when a time horizon of 5 or more years is considered.Conclusions. Etoricoxib is the most cost-effective NSAID for initiating treatment of ankylosing spondylitis in Norway.

A COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF rhDNase IN CHILDREN WITH CYSTIC FIBROSIS

Objectives: This study compared the relative cost-effectiveness of daily recombinant human deoxyribonuclease (rhDNase), with alternate day rhDNase and hypertonic saline (HS) for treating children with cystic fibrosis (CF).Methods: A randomized controlled trial with a crossover design allocated 40 CF children consecutively to 12 weeks of daily rhDNase, alternate day rhDNase, or HS. The primary outcome measure was forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1), a measure of lung function. All health resource use was prospectively documented for each patient and multiplied by unit costs to give a total health service cost for each 12-week treatment period. The nonparametric bootstrap method was used to present cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and net benefit statistics for each treatment comparison, for various hypothetical levels of the decision maker's ceiling ratio.Results: Compared with HS, there was a 14% improvement in FEV1 for daily rhDNase (95% CI, 5% to 23%), and a 12% improvement (95% CI, 2% to 22%) for alternate day rhDNase. For a ceiling ratio of £200 per 1% gain in FEV1, the mean net benefits of daily and alternate day rhDNase compared with HS were £1,158 (95% CI, −£621 to 2,842) and £1,188 (95% CI, −847 to 3,343), respectively; the mean net benefit of daily compared with alternate day rhDNase was *minus;£30 (95% CI, −£2,091 to 1,576).Conclusions: If decision makers are prepared to pay £200 for a 1% gain in FEV1 over a 12-week period, then on average either rhDNase strategy is cost-effective.