Cost-utility of a specific collaborative group intervention for patients with functional somatic syndromes

Characteristics of collaborative care networks in functional disorders: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Functional disorders (FD) are complex conditions, for which multidisciplinary involvement is often recommended. Collaborative care networks (CCN) may unlock the potential of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) in FD care. To understand what characteristics should be part of CCNs in FD, we studied the composition and characteristics of existing CCNs in FD.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines. A search of PubMed, WebofScience, PsycInfo, SocINDEX, AMED and CINAHL was undertaken to select studies describing CCNs in FD. Two reviewers extracted characteristics of the different CCNs. Characteristics were classified as relating to structure and processes of networks.

RESULTS

A total of 62 studies were identified representing 39 CCNs across 11 countries. Regarding structural characteristics, we found that most networks are outpatient, secondary-care based, with teams of between two and 19 members. Medical specialists were most commonly involved and the typical team leads as well as main patient contacts were general practitioners (GPs) or nurses. Regarding processes, collaboration was demonstrated mostly during assessment, management and patient education, less often during rehabilitation and follow-up, mostly using MDT meetings. CCNs provided a wide range of treatment modalities, reflecting a biopsychosocial approach, including psychological therapies, physiotherapy and social and occupational therapy.

CONCLUSION

CCNs for FD are heterogeneous, showing a wide variety of structures as well as processes. The heterogeneity of results provides a broad framework, demonstrating considerable variation in how this framework is applied in different contexts. Better development of network evaluation, as well as professional collaboration and education processes is needed.

Measuring, Analyzing, and Presenting Work Productivity Loss in Randomized Controlled Trials: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to conduct a scoping review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and investigate which work productivity loss outcomes were measured in these RCTs, how each outcome was measured and analyzed, and how the results for each outcome were presented.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted from January 2010 to April 2020 from 2 databases: PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data on country, study population, disease focus, sample size, work productivity loss outcomes measured (absenteeism, presenteeism, employment status changes), and methods used to measure, report, and analyze each work productivity loss outcome were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

We found 435 studies measuring absenteeism or presenteeism, of which 155 studies (35.6%) measured both absenteeism and presenteeism and were included in our final review. Only 9 studies also measured employment status changes. The most used questionnaire was the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire. The analysis of absenteeism and presenteeism data was mostly done using regression models (n = 98, n = 98, respectively) for which a normal distribution was assumed (n = 77, n = 89, respectively). Absenteeism results were most often presented in time whereas presenteeism was commonly presented using a percent scale or score.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of consensus on how to measure, analyze, and present work productivity loss outcomes in RCTs published in the past 10 years. The diversity of measurement, analysis, and presentation methods used in RCTs may make comparability challenging. There is a need for guidelines providing recommendations to standardize the comprehensiveness and the appropriateness of methods used to measure, analyze, and report work productivity loss in RCTs.

A brief cognitive behavioural intervention is cost-effective for primary care patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms compared to usual care

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of a brief cognitive behavioural intervention for patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms (MUPS) provided by a mental health nurse practitioner (MHNP) in primary care in comparison with usual care.

METHODS

We performed an economic evaluation from a societal perspective alongside a cluster randomised controlled trial with 12 months follow-up. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Secondary outcomes were the RAND-36 physical component summary score (PCS), somatic symptom severity (Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15), and anxiety and depression symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)). Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. We used non-parametric bootstrapping to estimate statistical uncertainty. The bootstrapped cost-effect pairs were used to estimate cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves.

RESULTS

Mean total costs in the intervention group were significantly lower than in the usual care group (mean difference - 2300€, 95% CI -3257 to -134). The mean difference in QALYs was 0.01 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.04), in PCS 2.46 (95% CI 1.44 to 3.47), in PHQ-15 -0.26 (95% CI -0.81 to 0.28), and in HADS -0.07 (-0.81 to 0.67). At a willingness to pay of 0 € per additional unit of effect, the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.93 for QALYs and 0.92 for PCS, PHQ-15 and HADS scores.

CONCLUSION

Our intervention is cost-effective compared to usual care for patients with MUPS. Implementation of the intervention has the potential to result in a significant decline in costs. However, large scale implementation would require increased deployment of MHNPs.

The Effectiveness of Patient-Centred Medical Home-Based Models of Care versus Standard Primary Care in Chronic Disease Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised and Non-Randomised Controlled Trials

Patient-centred care by a coordinated primary care team may be more effective than standard care in chronic disease management. We synthesised evidence to determine whether patient-centred medical home (PCMH)-based care models are more effective than standard general practitioner (GP) care in improving biomedical, hospital, and economic outcomes. MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched to identify randomised (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled trials that evaluated two or more principles of PCMH among primary care patients with chronic diseases. Study selection, data extraction, quality assessment using Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) appraisal tools, and grading of evidence using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach were conducted independently. A quantitative synthesis, where possible, was pooled using random effects models and the effect size estimates of standardised mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals were reported. Of the 13,820 citations, we identified 78 eligible RCTs and 7 quasi trials which included 60,617 patients. The findings suggested that PCMH-based care was associated with significant improvements in depression episodes (SMD -0.24; 95% CI -0.35, -0.14; I2 = 76%) and increased odds of remission (OR 1.79; 95% CI 1.46, 2.21; I2 = 0%). There were significant improvements in the health-related quality of life (SMD 0.10; 95% CI 0.04, 0.15; I2 = 51%), self-management outcomes (SMD 0.24; 95% CI 0.03, 0.44; I2 = 83%), and hospital admissions (OR 0.83; 95% CI 0.70, 0.98; I2 = 0%). In terms of biomedical outcomes, with exception to total cholesterol, PCMH-based care led to significant improvements in blood pressure, glycated haemoglobin, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol outcomes. The incremental cost of PCMH care was identified to be small and significantly higher than standard care (SMD 0.17; 95% CI 0.08, 0.26; I2 = 82%). The quality of individual studies ranged from "fair" to "good" by meeting at least 60% of items on the quality appraisal checklist. Additionally, moderate to high heterogeneity across studies in outcomes resulted in downgrading the included studies as moderate or low grade of evidence. PCMH-based care has been found to be superior to standard GP care in chronic disease management. Results of the review have important implications that may inform patient, practice, and policy-level changes.

CBT to reduce healthcare use for medically unexplained symptoms: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Studies have reported that medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) tend to be associated with increased healthcare use, which is demanding of resources and potentially harmful to patients. This association is often used to justify the funding and study of psychological interventions for MUS, yet no systematic review has specifically examined the efficacy of psychological interventions in reducing healthcare use.

AIM

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapies (CBT) for MUS in reducing healthcare use.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

The search from a previous systematic review was updated and expanded. Twenty-two randomised controlled trials reported healthcare use, of which 18 provided data for meta-analysis. Outcomes were healthcare contacts, healthcare costs, medication, and medical investigations.

RESULTS

Small reductions in healthcare contacts and medication use were found for CBT compared with active controls, treatment as usual, and waiting list controls, but not for medical investigations or healthcare costs.

CONCLUSION

Cognitive behavioural interventions show weak benefits in reducing healthcare use in people with MUS. The imprecise use of MUS as a diagnostic label may impact on the effectiveness of interventions, and it is likely that the diversity and complexity of these difficulties may necessitate a more targeted approach.

Cost-effectiveness of interventions for medically unexplained symptoms: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

In primary and secondary care medically unexplained symptoms (MUS) or functional somatic syndromes (FSS) constitute a major burden for patients and society with high healthcare costs and societal costs. Objectives were to provide an overview of the evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of interventions for MUS or FSS, and to assess the quality of these studies.

METHODS

We searched the databases PubMed, PsycINFO, the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS-EED) and the CEA registry to conduct a systematic review. Articles with full economic evaluations on interventions focusing on adult patients with undifferentiated MUS or fibromyalgia (FM), irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), with no restrictions on comparators, published until 15 June 2018, were included. We excluded preventive interventions. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and cost-effectiveness data and used the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria Checklist to appraise the methodological quality.

RESULTS

A total of 39 studies out of 1,613 articles met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-two studies reported costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and cost-utility analyses (CUAs). In 13 CUAs the intervention conditions dominated the control conditions or had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio below the willingness-to-pay threshold of € 50,000 per QALY, meaning that the interventions were (on average) cost-effective in comparison with the control condition. Group interventions focusing on MUS (n = 3) or FM (n = 4) might be more cost-effective than individual interventions. The included studies were heterogeneous with regard to the included patients, interventions, study design, and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This review provides an overview of 39 included studies of interventions for patients with MUS and FSS and the methodological quality of these studies. Considering the limited comparability due to the heterogeneity of the studies, group interventions might be more cost-effective than individual interventions.

REGISTRATION

Study methods were documented in an international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) protocol, registration number: CRD42017060424.

Excess costs from functional somatic syndromes in Germany - An analysis using entropy balancing

AIM

The aim of this study was to calculate disorder-specific excess costs in patients with functional somatic syndromes (FSS).

METHODS

We compared 6-month direct and indirect costs in a patient group with FSS (n=273) to a control group of the general adult population in Germany without FSS (n=2914). Data on the patient group were collected between 2007 and 2009 in a randomized controlled trial (speciAL). Data on the control group were obtained from a telephone survey, representative for the general German population, conducted in 2014. Covariate balance between the patient group and the control group was achieved using entropy balancing. Excess costs were calculated by estimating generalized linear models and two-part models for direct costs and indirect costs. Further, we estimated excess costs according to the level of somatic symptom severity (SSS).

RESULTS

FSS patients differed significantly from the control group regarding 6-month costs of outpatient physicians (+€280) and other outpatient providers (+€74). According to SSS, significantly higher outpatient physician costs were found for mild (+€151), moderate (+€306) and severe (+€376) SSS. We also found significantly higher costs of other outpatient providers in patients with mild, moderate and severe SSS. Regarding costs of rehabilitation and hospital treatments, FSS patients did not differ significantly from the control group for any level of SSS. Indirect costs were significantly higher in patients with severe SSS (+€760).

CONCLUSION

FSS were of major importance in the outpatient sector. Further, we found significantly higher indirect costs in patients with severe SSS.