Search

Background: For anorexia nervosa, firm evidence of the superiority of specialized psychological treatments is limited and economic evaluations of such treatments in real world settings are scarce. This consecutive cohort study examined differential (cost-)effectiveness for adult inpatients and outpatients with anorexia nervosa, after implementing cognitive behavioral therapy-enhanced (CBT-E) throughout a routine setting. Methods: Differences in remission, weight regain and direct eating disorder treatment costs were examined between one cohort (N = 75) receiving treatment-as-usual (TAU) between 2012–2014, and the other (N = 88) CBT-E between 2015–2017. The economic evaluation was performed from a health care perspective with a one-year time horizon, using EDE global score < 2.77, the absence of eating disorder behaviors combined with a BMI ≥ 18.5, as effect measure. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were displayed to assess the probability that CBT-E is cost effective compared to TAU. Results: Using direct eating disorder treatment costs in the cost-effectiveness analysis, the cost-effectiveness plane of the base case scenario for all patients indicated a 84% likelihood of CBT-E generating better health gain at additional costs. The median ICER is €51,081, indicating a probable preference for CBT-E (> 50% probability of cost-effectiveness) assuming a WTP of €51,081 or more for each additional remission, On remission, no difference was found with 9.3% remission during TAU and 14.6% during CBT-E (p =.304). Weight regain was higher during CBT-E (EMD = 1.33 kg/m2, SE =.29, 95% CI [0.76–1.9], p <.001). Conclusions: In this mixed inpatient and outpatient cohort study, findings indicate a probability of CBT-Ebeing more effective at higher costs. These findings may contribute to the knowledge of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of specialized psychological treatments. Plain English Summary: In this study, the effectiveness and treatment costs of a specialized psychological treatment for adult clients with anorexia nervosa were compared with a regular, non-specialist treatment. One group of inpatients and outpatients did receive non-specialist treatment, the next group of inpatients and outpatients received CBT-E, a specialized treatment, later on. CBT-E is recommended for clients with bulimia and with binge eating disorder, for clients with anorexia nervosa it is less clear which specialized psychological treatment should be recommended. Results indicate that at end-of-treatment, CBT-E was not superior on remission. When looking at weight regain, CBT-E seemed superior than the treatment offered earlier. Economic evaluation suggests that CBT-E generates better health gain, but at additional costs. This study contributes to the knowledge on the effectiveness and treatment costs of psychological treatments, as they are offered in routine practice, to adults with anorexia nervosa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A major challenge to psychological treatment for alcohol use disorder (AUD) is patient non-compliance. A promising new treatment approach that is hypothesized to increase patient compliance is blended treatment, consisting of face-to-face contact with a therapist combined with modules delivered over the internet within the same protocol. While this treatment concept has been developed and proven effective for a variety of mental disorders, it has not yet been examined for AUD. Aims: The study described in this protocol aims to examine and evaluate patient compliance with blended AUD treatment as well as the clinical and cost effectiveness of such treatment compared to face-to-face treatment only. Methods: The study design is a pragmatic, stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. The included outpatient institutions (planned number of patients: n = 1800) will be randomized in clusters to implement either blended AUD treatment or face-to-face treatment only, i.e. treatment as usual (TAU). Both treatment approaches consist of motivational interviewing and cognitive behavioral therapy. Data on sociodemographics, treatment (e.g. intensity, duration), type of treatment conclusion (compliance vs. dropout), alcohol consumption, addiction severity, consequences of drinking, and quality of life, will be collected at treatment entry, at treatment conclusion, and 6 months after treatment conclusion. The primary outcome is compliance at treatment conclusion, and the secondary outcomes include alcohol consumption and quality of life at six-months follow-up. Data will be analyzed with an Intention-to-treat approach by means of generalized linear mixed models with a random effect for cluster and fixed effect for each step. Also, analyses evaluating cost-effectiveness will be conducted. Discussion: Blended treatment may increase treatment compliance and thus improve treatment outcomes due to increased flexibility of the treatment course. Since this study is conducted within an implementation framework it can easily be scaled up, and when successful, blended treatment has the potential to become an alternative offer in many outpatient clinics nationwide and internationally. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov.: NCT04535258, retrospectively registered 01.09.20. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Optimizing psychotherapy dosage for comorbid depression and personality disorders (PsyDos): a pragmatic randomized factorial trial using schema therapy and short-term psychodynamic psychotherapy. Block randomization The sentence currently reads: Patients will then be randomized by one of two research department employees in one of four groups (with a 1:1:1:1 allocation) using a computer script performing block randomization (25 vs 50-sessions; ST vs SPSP). [Extracted from the article]

Background: Patients with comorbid depression and personality disorders suffer from a heavy disease burden while tailored treatment options are limited, accounting for a high psychological and economic burden. Little is known about the effect of treatment dosage and type of psychotherapy for this specific co-morbid patient population, in terms of treatment-effect and cost-effectiveness. This study aims to compare treatment outcome of 25 versus 50 individual therapy sessions in a year. We expect the 50-session condition to be more effective in treating depression and maintaining the effect. Secondary objectives will be addressed in order to find therapy-specific and non-specific mechanisms of change. Methods: In a mono-center pragmatic randomized controlled trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design, 200 patients with a depressive disorder and personality disorder(s) will be included. Patients will be recruited from a Dutch mental health care institute for personality disorders. They will be randomized over therapy dosage (25 vs 50 sessions in a year) and type of therapy (schema therapy vs short-term psychodynamic supportive psychotherapy). The primary clinical outcome measure will be depression severity and remission. Changes in personality functioning and quality of life will be investigated as secondary outcomes. A priori postulated effect moderators and mediators will be collected as well. All patients are assessed at baseline and at 1, 2, 3, 6, 9–12 months (end of therapy) and at follow up (6 and 12 months after end of treatment). Alongside the trial, an economic evaluation will be conducted. Costs will be collected from a societal perspective. Discussion: This trial will be the first to compare two psychotherapy dosages in patients with both depression and personality disorders. Insight in the effect of treatment dosage for this patient group will contribute to both higher treatment effectiveness and lower costs. In addition, this study will contribute to the limited evidence base on treating patients with both depression and personality disorders. Understanding the processes that account for the therapeutic changes could help to gain insight in what works for whom. Trial registration: This trial has been registered on July 20th 2016, Netherlands Trial Register, part of the Dutch Cochrane Centre (NTR5941). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]