Baka Agni, van der Zweerde Tanja, Lancee Jaap, Bosmans Judith E, van Straten Annemieke
Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Science, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Clinical, Neuro- and Developmental Psychology, & Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Behav Sleep Med. 2022 Mar-Apr;20(2):188-203. doi: 10.1080/15402002.2021.1901708. Epub 2021 Mar 28.
Clinical guidelines recommend cognitive-behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) as first-line treatment. However, provision of CBT-I is limited due to insufficient time and expertise. Internet-delivered CBT-I might bridge this gap. This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of guided, internet-delivered CBT-I (i-Sleep) compared to care-as-usual for insomnia patients in general practice over 26 weeks from a societal perspective.
Primary outcomes were the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI, continuous score and clinically relevant response), and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). Societal costs were assessed at baseline, and at 8 and 26 weeks. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Statistical uncertainty around cost and effect differences was estimated using bootstrapping, and presented in cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves.
The difference in societal costs between i-Sleep and care-as-usual was not statistically significant (-€318; 95% CI -1282 to 645). Cost-effectiveness analyses revealed a 95% probability of i-Sleep being cost-effective compared to care-as-usual at ceiling ratios of €450/extra point of improvement in ISI score and €7,000/additional response to treatment, respectively. Cost-utility analysis showed a 67% probability of cost-effectiveness for i-Sleep compared to care-as-usual at a ceiling ratio of 20,000 €/QALY gained.
The internet-delivered intervention may be considered cost-effective for insomnia severity in comparison with care-as-usual from the societal perspective. However, the improvement in insomnia severity symptoms did not result in similar improvements in QALYs.
临床指南推荐将失眠认知行为疗法(CBT-I)作为一线治疗方法。然而,由于时间和专业知识不足,CBT-I的提供受到限制。互联网提供的CBT-I可能会弥补这一差距。本研究旨在从社会角度估计,与常规护理相比,在26周内为全科医疗中的失眠患者提供的有指导的互联网CBT-I(i-Sleep)的成本效益。
主要结局指标为失眠严重程度指数(ISI,连续评分和临床相关反应)以及质量调整生命年(QALY)。在基线、第8周和第26周评估社会成本。使用多重插补法对缺失数据进行插补。使用自举法估计成本和效果差异周围的统计不确定性,并在成本效益平面和可接受性曲线中呈现。
i-Sleep与常规护理之间的社会成本差异无统计学意义(-318欧元;95%置信区间为-1282至645)。成本效益分析显示,与常规护理相比,i-Sleep在ISI评分每提高1分的上限比率为450欧元以及治疗额外反应的上限比率为7000欧元时,具有成本效益的概率为95%。成本效用分析显示,与常规护理相比,i-Sleep在每获得1个QALY的上限比率为20000欧元时,具有成本效益的概率为67%。
从社会角度来看,与常规护理相比,互联网提供的干预措施对于失眠严重程度可能具有成本效益。然而,失眠严重程度症状的改善并未导致QALY有类似改善。