Search

Introduction: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Discussion: 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. Public Significance: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Even though evidence‐based interventions can enhance clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness, in the field of eating disorders, implementation of empirically supported treatments (ESTs) in routine inpatient and outpatient settings is slow. Objective: This study examined differential (cost‐) effectiveness, after implementing evidence‐based cognitive behavioral therapy‐enhanced (CBT‐E) throughout a Dutch treatment center. Method: Two consecutive cohorts of adult patients, BMI between 17.5 and 40, were compared, with one cohort (N = 239) receiving treatment‐as‐usual (TAU) between 2012 and 2014 and the other (N = 320) receiving CBT‐E between 2015 and 2017. Results: Eating disorder pathology, measured with self‐reports, decreased significantly in both cohorts; overall, no differences in clinical outcomes between both cohorts were found. Treatment costs and treatment duration were considerably lower in 2015–2017. When limiting the cost analysis to direct costs, there is a 71% likelihood that CBT‐E is more cost‐effective and a 29% likelihood that CBT‐E leads to fewer remissions at lower costs, based on the distribution of the cost‐effectiveness plane. The likelihood that TAU leads to lower costs is 0%. Discussion: Findings show that implementing an EST throughout inpatient and outpatient settings leads to lower costs with similar treatment effect and has the advantage of shorter treatment duration and a shorter inpatient stay. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with substance use disorder (SUD) or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) have a high risk of drop out from treatment. Few studies have investigated predictors of therapy drop out and outcome in SUD patients with comorbid ADHD. Recently, integrated cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT/Integrated) was shown to be more effective than standard CBT (CBT/SUD) in the treatment of SUD + ADHD.Objective: To investigate the association of demographic, clinical and neurocognitive variables with drop-out and treatment outcome, and to examine which of these variables are suitable for patient-treatment matching.Methods: We performed an RCT in which 119 patients were allocated to CBT/Integrated (n = 60) or CBT/SUD (n = 59). In addition, 55 patients had dropped out before randomization. Demographic variables, clinical characteristics and measures of cognitive functioning (Stroop, Tower of London (ToL) and Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART)) were included as predictors. Outcome measures were: early treatment drop-out, ADHD symptom severity, and substance use severity at end of treatment and follow up.Results: Primary substance of abuse (drugs as opposed to alcohol only) and lower accuracy scores on the ToL were significant predictors of early treatment drop-out. Having more depression and anxiety symptoms and using ADHD medication at baseline significantly predicted more ADHD symptoms at end of treatment, and higher accuracy scores on the ToL significantly predicted higher substance use at end of treatment. No significant predictor-by-treatment interactions were found.Conclusion: The results add to the existing realization that also relatively mild cognitive deficits are a risk factor for treatment drop-out in these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]