Bamelis Lotte L M, Arntz Arnoud, Wetzelaer Pim, Verdoorn Ryanne, Evers Silvia M A A
Department of Clinical Psychological Science, Faculty of Psychology and Neuroscience.
J Clin Psychiatry. 2015 Nov;76(11):e1432-40. doi: 10.4088/JCP.14m09412.
To compare from a societal perspective the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of schema therapy, clarification-oriented psychotherapy, and treatment as usual for patients with avoidant, dependent, obsessive-compulsive, paranoid, histrionic, and/or narcissistic personality disorder.
A multicenter, randomized controlled trial, single-blind parallel design, was conducted between May 2006 and December 2011 in 12 Dutch mental health institutes. Data from 320 patients (diagnosed according to DSM-IV criteria) randomly assigned to schema therapy (n = 145), treatment as usual (n = 134), or clarification-oriented psychotherapy (n = 41) were analyzed. Costs were repeatedly measured during 36 months by interview and patient registries. Primary outcome measures were proportion of recovered patients as measured with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders for the cost-effectiveness analysis, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the cost-utility analysis. Bootstrap replications in the cost-effectiveness and the cost-utility planes were used to estimate the probability that one treatment was more cost-effective than the other. Mixed gamma regression on net monetary benefit for different levels of willingness to pay for extra effects was used as sensitivity analysis. Additional sensitivity analyses were done to assess robustness of the results.
Due to higher clinical effects and lower costs, schema therapy was dominant over the other treatments in the cost-effectiveness analyses. Schema therapy has the probability of being the most cost-effective treatment (78% at €0 to 96% at €37,500 [$27,375] willingness to pay per extra recovery). Treatment as usual was more cost-effective than clarification-oriented psychotherapy due to lower costs. In the cost-utility analysis, schema therapy had a stable 75% probability of being cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses confirmed these findings.
The results support the cost-effectiveness of schema therapy but not of clarification-oriented psychotherapy.
Netherlands Trial Register NTR566.
从社会角度比较图式疗法、以澄清为导向的心理治疗以及常规治疗对于回避型、依赖型、强迫型、偏执型、表演型和/或自恋型人格障碍患者的成本效益和成本效用。
2006年5月至2011年12月期间,在荷兰12家心理健康机构进行了一项多中心随机对照试验,采用单盲平行设计。对320例患者(根据《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版标准诊断)的数据进行分析,这些患者被随机分配至图式疗法组(n = 145)、常规治疗组(n = 134)或以澄清为导向的心理治疗组(n = 41)。通过访谈和患者登记在36个月内反复测量成本。主要结局指标为:在成本效益分析中,使用《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第四版轴II人格障碍结构化临床访谈测量的康复患者比例;在成本效用分析中,为质量调整生命年(QALY)。在成本效益和成本效用平面上进行自举复制,以估计一种治疗比另一种治疗更具成本效益的概率。对不同额外效果支付意愿水平的净货币效益进行混合伽马回归作为敏感性分析。进行了额外的敏感性分析以评估结果的稳健性。
在成本效益分析中,由于临床效果更好且成本更低,图式疗法优于其他治疗方法。图式疗法有成为最具成本效益治疗方法的可能性(每额外康复支付意愿为0欧元时概率为78%,支付意愿为37,500欧元[27,375美元]时概率为96%)。由于成本较低,常规治疗比以澄清为导向的心理治疗更具成本效益。在成本效用分析中,图式疗法具有75%的稳定成本效益概率。敏感性分析证实了这些发现。
结果支持图式疗法的成本效益,但不支持以澄清为导向的心理治疗的成本效益。
荷兰试验注册NTR566。