Holst Anna, Björkelund Cecilia, Metsini Alexandra, Madsen Jens-Henrik, Hange Dominique, Petersson Eva-Lisa L, Eriksson Maria Cm, Kivi Marie, Andersson Per-Åke Å, Svensson Mikael
Department of Primary Health Care/Public Health and Community Medicine, Institute of Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
County Council of Värmland, Karlstad, Sweden.
BMJ Open. 2018 Jun 14;8(6):e019716. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019716.
To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial of internet-mediated cognitive behavioural therapy (ICBT) compared with treatment as usual (TaU) for patients with mild to moderate depression in the Swedish primary care setting. In particular, the objective was to assess from a healthcare and societal perspective the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of ICBT versus TaU at 12 months follow-up.
A cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a pragmatic effectiveness trial.
Sixteen primary care centres (PCCs) in south-west Sweden.
Ninety patients diagnosed with mild to moderate depression at the PCCs.
ICERs calculated as (Cost-Cost)/(Health outcome-Health outcome)=ΔCost/ΔHealth outcomes, the health outcomes being changes in the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) score and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).
The total cost per patient for ICBT was 4044 Swedish kronor (SEK) (€426) (healthcare perspective) and SEK47 679 (€5028) (societal perspective). The total cost per patient for TaU was SEK4434 (€468) and SEK50 343 (€5308). In both groups, the largest cost was associated with productivity loss. The differences in cost per patient were not statistically significant. The mean reduction in BDI-II score was 13.4 and 13.8 units in the ICBT and TaU groups, respectively. The mean QALYs per patient was 0.74 and 0.79 in the ICBT and TaU groups, respectively. The differences in BDI-II score reduction and mean QALYs were not statistically significant. The uncertainty of the study estimates when assessed by bootstrapping indicated that no firm conclusion could be drawn as to whether ICBT treatment compared with TaU was the most cost-effective use of resources.
ICBT was regarded to be as cost-effective as TaU as costs, health outcomes and cost-effectiveness were similar for ICBT and TaU, both from a healthcare and societal perspective.
ID NR 30511.
在瑞典初级保健环境中,对互联网介导的认知行为疗法(ICBT)与常规治疗(TaU)治疗轻至中度抑郁症的随机对照试验进行成本效益分析。具体而言,目的是从医疗保健和社会角度评估随访12个月时ICBT与TaU的增量成本效益比(ICER)。
一项成本效益分析以及一项实用效果试验。
瑞典西南部的16个初级保健中心(PCC)。
在PCC诊断为轻至中度抑郁症的90名患者。
ICER计算为(成本-成本)/(健康结局-健康结局)=成本增量/健康结局增量,健康结局为贝克抑郁量表-II(BDI-II)评分和质量调整生命年(QALY)的变化。
从医疗保健角度看,ICBT每位患者的总成本为4044瑞典克朗(SEK)(426欧元),从社会角度看为47679瑞典克朗(5028欧元)。TaU每位患者的总成本为4434瑞典克朗(468欧元)和50343瑞典克朗(5308欧元)。两组中,最大成本都与生产力损失相关。每位患者的成本差异无统计学意义。ICBT组和TaU组BDI-II评分的平均降低分别为13.4和13.8个单位。ICBT组和TaU组每位患者的平均QALY分别为0.74和0.79。BDI-II评分降低和平均QALY的差异无统计学意义。通过自抽样评估研究估计的不确定性表明,关于ICBT治疗与TaU相比是否是资源最具成本效益的使用方式,无法得出确凿结论。
从医疗保健和社会角度来看,ICBT的成本、健康结局和成本效益与TaU相似,因此被认为与TaU具有同样的成本效益。
ID NR 30511。