Melisse Bernou, Blankers Matthijs, van den Berg Elske, de Jonge Margo, Lommerse Nick, van Furth Eric, Dekker Jack, de Beurs Edwin
Novarum Center for Eating Disorders & Obesity, Amstelveen, The Netherlands.
Section Clinical Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Int J Eat Disord. 2023 Sep;56(9):1772-1784. doi: 10.1002/eat.24003. Epub 2023 Jun 12.
The aim is to perform an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial comparing guided self-help cognitive behavioral therapy-enhanced (CBT-E) for binge-eating disorder (BED) to a waiting list control condition.
BED patients (N = 212) were randomly assigned to guided self-help CBT-E or the 3-month waiting list. Measurements took place at baseline and the end-of-treatment. The cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the number of binge-eating episodes during the last 28 days as an outcome indicator according to the eating disorder examination. A cost-utility analysis was performed using the EuroQol-5D.
The difference in societal costs over the 3 months of the intervention between both conditions was €679 (confidence interval [CI] 50-1330). The incremental costs associated with one incremental binge eating episode prevented in the guided self-help condition was approximately €18 (CI 1-41). From a societal perspective there was a 96% likelihood that guided self-help CBT-E led to a greater number of binge-eating episodes prevented, but at higher costs. Each additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was associated with incremental costs of €34,000 (CI 2494-154,530). With a 95% likelihood guided self-help CBT-E led to greater QALY gain at higher costs compared to waiting for treatment. Based on the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence willingness-to-pay threshold of €35,000 per QALY, guided self-help CBT-E can be considered cost-effective with a likelihood of 95% from a societal perspective.
Guided self-help CBT-E is likely a cost-effective treatment for BED in the short-term (3-month course of treatment). Comparison to treatment-as-usual is recommended for future research, as it enables an economic evaluation with a longer time horizon.
Offering treatment remotely has several benefits for patients suffering from binge-eating disorders. Guided self-help CBT-E is an efficacious and likely cost-effective treatment, reducing binge eating and improving quality-of-life, albeit at higher societal costs.
目的是在一项随机对照试验的同时进行经济评估,该试验将针对暴饮暴食症(BED)的引导式自助认知行为疗法强化版(CBT-E)与等待名单对照条件进行比较。
BED患者(N = 212)被随机分配到引导式自助CBT-E组或3个月的等待名单组。测量在基线和治疗结束时进行。成本效益分析根据饮食失调检查,将过去28天内的暴饮暴食发作次数作为结果指标进行。使用欧洲五维健康量表(EuroQol-5D)进行成本效用分析。
两种情况在干预的3个月内社会成本差异为679欧元(置信区间[CI] 50 - 1330)。在引导式自助条件下,每预防一次额外的暴饮暴食发作所产生的增量成本约为18欧元(CI 1 - 41)。从社会角度来看,引导式自助CBT-E有96%的可能性导致预防更多的暴饮暴食发作,但成本更高。每增加一个质量调整生命年(QALY)所产生的增量成本为34,000欧元(CI 2494 - 154,530)。与等待治疗相比,引导式自助CBT-E有95%的可能性以更高的成本带来更大的QALY增益。基于英国国家卫生与临床优化研究所每QALY 35,000欧元的支付意愿阈值,从社会角度来看,引导式自助CBT-E有95%的可能性被认为具有成本效益。
引导式自助CBT-E在短期内(3个月的治疗疗程)可能是一种具有成本效益的BED治疗方法。建议未来的研究与常规治疗进行比较,因为这样可以进行更长时间跨度的经济评估。
远程提供治疗对患有暴饮暴食症的患者有诸多益处。引导式自助CBT-E是一种有效且可能具有成本效益的治疗方法,可减少暴饮暴食并改善生活质量,尽管社会成本较高。