Cost-effectiveness of early intervention in first-episode psychosis

economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (the OPUS study)

Lene Halling Hastrup, C Kronborg, M Bertelsen, P Jeppesen, P Jørgensen, L Petersen, A Thorup, Erik Simonsen, Merete Nordentoft

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    Resumé

    Background

    Information about the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programmes for first-episode psychosis is limited.

    Aims

    To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an intensive early-intervention programme (called OPUS) (trial registration NCT00157313) consisting of enriched assertive community treatment, psychoeducational family treatment and social skills training for individuals with first-episode psychosis compared with standard treatment.

    Method

    An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial, adopting a public sector perspective was undertaken.

    Results

    The mean total costs of OPUS over 5 years (€123 683, s.e. = 8970) were not significantly different from that of standard treatment (€148 751, s.e. = 13073). At 2-year follow-up the mean Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score in the OPUS group (55.16, s.d. = 15.15) was significantly higher than in standard treatment group (51.13, s.d. = 15.92). However, the mean GAF did not differ significantly between the groups at 5-year follow-up (55.35 (s.d. = 18.28) and 54.16 (s.d. = 18.41), respectively). Cost-effectiveness planes based on non-parametric bootstrapping showed that OPUS was less costly and more effective in 70% of the replications. For a willingness-to-pay up to €50 000 the probability that OPUS was cost-effective was more than 80%.

    Conclusions

    The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that there was a high probability of OPUS being cost-effective compared with standard treatment.
    OriginalsprogEngelsk
    TidsskriftBritish Journal of Psychiatry
    Vol/bind202
    Udgave nummer1
    Sider (fra-til)35-41
    ISSN0007-1250
    DOI
    StatusUdgivet - 2013

    Citer dette

    Hastrup, Lene Halling ; Kronborg, C ; Bertelsen, M ; Jeppesen, P ; Jørgensen, P ; Petersen, L ; Thorup, A ; Simonsen, Erik ; Nordentoft, Merete. / Cost-effectiveness of early intervention in first-episode psychosis : economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (the OPUS study). I: British Journal of Psychiatry. 2013 ; Bind 202, Nr. 1. s. 35-41.
    @article{41eb73033c734288a4a876701df50d37,
    title = "Cost-effectiveness of early intervention in first-episode psychosis: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (the OPUS study)",
    abstract = "BackgroundInformation about the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programmes for first-episode psychosis is limited.AimsTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an intensive early-intervention programme (called OPUS) (trial registration NCT00157313) consisting of enriched assertive community treatment, psychoeducational family treatment and social skills training for individuals with first-episode psychosis compared with standard treatment. MethodAn incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial, adopting a public sector perspective was undertaken.ResultsThe mean total costs of OPUS over 5 years (€123 683, s.e. = 8970) were not significantly different from that of standard treatment (€148 751, s.e. = 13073). At 2-year follow-up the mean Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score in the OPUS group (55.16, s.d. = 15.15) was significantly higher than in standard treatment group (51.13, s.d. = 15.92). However, the mean GAF did not differ significantly between the groups at 5-year follow-up (55.35 (s.d. = 18.28) and 54.16 (s.d. = 18.41), respectively). Cost-effectiveness planes based on non-parametric bootstrapping showed that OPUS was less costly and more effective in 70{\%} of the replications. For a willingness-to-pay up to €50 000 the probability that OPUS was cost-effective was more than 80{\%}. ConclusionsThe incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that there was a high probability of OPUS being cost-effective compared with standard treatment.",
    author = "Hastrup, {Lene Halling} and C Kronborg and M Bertelsen and P Jeppesen and P J{\o}rgensen and L Petersen and A Thorup and Erik Simonsen and Merete Nordentoft",
    year = "2013",
    doi = "10.1192/bjp.bp.112.112300",
    language = "English",
    volume = "202",
    pages = "35--41",
    journal = "British Journal of Psychiatry",
    issn = "0007-1250",
    publisher = "Royal College of Psychiatrists",
    number = "1",

    }

    Hastrup, LH, Kronborg, C, Bertelsen, M, Jeppesen, P, Jørgensen, P, Petersen, L, Thorup, A, Simonsen, E & Nordentoft, M 2013, 'Cost-effectiveness of early intervention in first-episode psychosis: economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (the OPUS study)', British Journal of Psychiatry, bind 202, nr. 1, s. 35-41. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.112.112300

    Cost-effectiveness of early intervention in first-episode psychosis : economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (the OPUS study). / Hastrup, Lene Halling; Kronborg, C; Bertelsen, M; Jeppesen, P; Jørgensen, P; Petersen, L; Thorup, A; Simonsen, Erik; Nordentoft, Merete.

    I: British Journal of Psychiatry, Bind 202, Nr. 1, 2013, s. 35-41.

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Cost-effectiveness of early intervention in first-episode psychosis

    T2 - economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (the OPUS study)

    AU - Hastrup, Lene Halling

    AU - Kronborg, C

    AU - Bertelsen, M

    AU - Jeppesen, P

    AU - Jørgensen, P

    AU - Petersen, L

    AU - Thorup, A

    AU - Simonsen, Erik

    AU - Nordentoft, Merete

    PY - 2013

    Y1 - 2013

    N2 - BackgroundInformation about the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programmes for first-episode psychosis is limited.AimsTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an intensive early-intervention programme (called OPUS) (trial registration NCT00157313) consisting of enriched assertive community treatment, psychoeducational family treatment and social skills training for individuals with first-episode psychosis compared with standard treatment. MethodAn incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial, adopting a public sector perspective was undertaken.ResultsThe mean total costs of OPUS over 5 years (€123 683, s.e. = 8970) were not significantly different from that of standard treatment (€148 751, s.e. = 13073). At 2-year follow-up the mean Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score in the OPUS group (55.16, s.d. = 15.15) was significantly higher than in standard treatment group (51.13, s.d. = 15.92). However, the mean GAF did not differ significantly between the groups at 5-year follow-up (55.35 (s.d. = 18.28) and 54.16 (s.d. = 18.41), respectively). Cost-effectiveness planes based on non-parametric bootstrapping showed that OPUS was less costly and more effective in 70% of the replications. For a willingness-to-pay up to €50 000 the probability that OPUS was cost-effective was more than 80%. ConclusionsThe incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that there was a high probability of OPUS being cost-effective compared with standard treatment.

    AB - BackgroundInformation about the cost-effectiveness of early intervention programmes for first-episode psychosis is limited.AimsTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an intensive early-intervention programme (called OPUS) (trial registration NCT00157313) consisting of enriched assertive community treatment, psychoeducational family treatment and social skills training for individuals with first-episode psychosis compared with standard treatment. MethodAn incremental cost-effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial, adopting a public sector perspective was undertaken.ResultsThe mean total costs of OPUS over 5 years (€123 683, s.e. = 8970) were not significantly different from that of standard treatment (€148 751, s.e. = 13073). At 2-year follow-up the mean Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) score in the OPUS group (55.16, s.d. = 15.15) was significantly higher than in standard treatment group (51.13, s.d. = 15.92). However, the mean GAF did not differ significantly between the groups at 5-year follow-up (55.35 (s.d. = 18.28) and 54.16 (s.d. = 18.41), respectively). Cost-effectiveness planes based on non-parametric bootstrapping showed that OPUS was less costly and more effective in 70% of the replications. For a willingness-to-pay up to €50 000 the probability that OPUS was cost-effective was more than 80%. ConclusionsThe incremental cost-effectiveness analysis showed that there was a high probability of OPUS being cost-effective compared with standard treatment.

    U2 - 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.112300

    DO - 10.1192/bjp.bp.112.112300

    M3 - Journal article

    VL - 202

    SP - 35

    EP - 41

    JO - British Journal of Psychiatry

    JF - British Journal of Psychiatry

    SN - 0007-1250

    IS - 1

    ER -