Search

Economic evaluations of lifestyle interventions for people with mental illness are needed to inform policymakers and managers about implementing such interventions and corresponding reforms in routine mental healthcare. We aimed to evaluate changes in healthcare costs 18 months after the implementation of a multidisciplinary lifestyle-enhancing treatment for inpatients with severe mental illness (MULTI) versus treatment as usual (TAU). In a cohort study (n = 114; 65 MULTI, 49 TAU), we retrospectively retrieved cost data in Euros on all patient sessions, ward stay, medication use, and hospital referrals in the quarter year at the start of MULTI (Q1 2014) and after its evaluation (Q3 2015). We used linear regression analyses correcting for baseline values and differences between groups, calculated deterministic incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for previously shown changes in physical activity, metabolic health, psychosocial functioning, and additionally quality of life, and performed probabilistic sensitivity analyses including cost-effectiveness planes. Adjusted regression showed reduced total costs per patient per quarter year in favor of MULTI (B = –736.30, 95%CI: –2145.2 to 672.6). Corresponding probabilistic sensitivity analyses accounting for uncertainty surrounding the parameters showed statistically non-significant cost savings against health improvements for all health-related outcomes in MULTI compared to TAU. It is concluded that MULTI did not increase healthcare costs while improving health outcomes. This indicates that starting lifestyle interventions does not need to be hampered by costs. Potential societal and economic value may justify investment to support implementation and maintenance. Further research is needed to study this hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims Anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha [anti-TNF] treatment accounts for 31% of health care expenditures associated with ulcerative colitis [UC]. Withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission may decrease side effects and infections, while promoting cost containment. Approximately 36% of patients relapse within 12–24 months of anti-TNF withdrawal, but reintroduction of treatment is successful in 80% of patients. We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of continuation versus withdrawal of anti-TNF in patients with UC in remission. Methods We developed a Markov model comparing cost-effectiveness of anti-TNF continuation versus withdrawal, from a health care provider perspective. Transition probabilities were calculated from literature, or estimated by an expert panel of 11 gastroenterologists. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to account for assumptions and uncertainty. The cost-effectiveness threshold was set at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €80,000 per quality-adjusted life-year [QALY]. Results At 5 years, anti-TNF withdrawal was less costly [-€10,781 per patient], but also slightly less effective [-0.04 QALY per patient] than continued treatment. Continuation of anti-TNF compared with withdrawal costs €300,390/QALY, exceeding the cost-effectiveness threshold. Continued therapy would become cost-effective if the relapse rate following anti-TNF withdrawal was ≥43% higher, or if adalimumab or infliximab [biosimilar] prices fell below €87/40 mg and €66/100 mg, respectively. Conclusions Continuation of anti-TNF in UC patients in remission is not cost-effective compared with withdrawal. A stop-and-reintroduction strategy is cost-saving but is slightly less effective than continued therapy. This strategy could be improved by identifying patients at increased risk of relapse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]