Spackman Eldon, Richmond Stewart, Sculpher Mark, Bland Martin, Brealey Stephen, Gabe Rhian, Hopton Ann, Keding Ada, Lansdown Harriet, Perren Sara, Torgerson David, Watt Ian, MacPherson Hugh
Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2014 Nov 26;9(11):e113726. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113726. eCollection 2014.
New evidence on the clinical effectiveness of acupuncture plus usual care (acupuncture) and counselling plus usual care (counselling) for patients with depression suggests the need to investigate the health-related quality of life and costs of these treatments to understand whether they should be considered a good use of limited health resources.
The cost-effectiveness analyses are based on the Acupuncture, Counselling or Usual care for Depression (ACUDep) trial results. Statistical analyses demonstrate a difference in mean quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and suggest differences in mean costs which are mainly due to the price of the interventions. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis is used to express decision uncertainty. Acupuncture and counselling are found to have higher mean QALYs and costs than usual care. In the base case analysis acupuncture has an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £4,560 per additional QALY and is cost-effective with a probability of 0.62 at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY. Counselling compared with acupuncture is more effective and more costly with an ICER of £71,757 and a probability of being cost-effective of 0.36. A scenario analysis of counselling versus usual care, excluding acupuncture as a comparator, results in an ICER of £7,935 and a probability of 0.91.
Acupuncture is cost-effective compared with counselling or usual care alone, although the ranking of counselling and acupuncture depends on the relative cost of delivering these interventions. For patients in whom acupuncture is unavailable or perhaps inappropriate, counselling has an ICER less than most cost-effectiveness thresholds. However, further research is needed to determine the most cost-effective treatment pathways for depressed patients when the full range of available interventions is considered.
关于针刺联合常规护理(针刺疗法)以及咨询联合常规护理(咨询疗法)对抑郁症患者临床疗效的新证据表明,有必要对这些治疗方法的健康相关生活质量和成本进行调查,以了解它们是否应被视为对有限医疗资源的合理利用。
成本效益分析基于抑郁症的针刺、咨询或常规护理(ACUDep)试验结果。统计分析表明平均质量调整生命年(QALY)存在差异,并显示平均成本存在差异,这主要归因于干预措施的价格。概率敏感性分析用于表达决策的不确定性。结果发现,针刺疗法和咨询疗法的平均QALY和成本均高于常规护理。在基础病例分析中,针刺疗法每增加一个QALY的增量成本效益比(ICER)为4560英镑,在每个QALY成本效益阈值为20000英镑时,具有成本效益的概率为0.62。与针刺疗法相比,咨询疗法更有效但成本更高,ICER为71757英镑,具有成本效益的概率为0.36。一项咨询疗法与常规护理的情景分析(不将针刺疗法作为对照),ICER为7935英镑,概率为0.91。
与单独的咨询疗法或常规护理相比,针刺疗法具有成本效益,尽管咨询疗法和针刺疗法的排名取决于实施这些干预措施的相对成本。对于无法获得针刺疗法或针刺疗法可能不合适的患者,咨询疗法的ICER低于大多数成本效益阈值。然而,当考虑所有可用干预措施时,需要进一步研究以确定抑郁症患者最具成本效益的治疗途径。