Background: Prolonged exposure (PE) is an effective treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).Objective: This study aimed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of three exposure-based... Show moreBackground: Prolonged exposure (PE) is an effective treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).Objective: This study aimed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of three exposure-based treatments in patients with childhood abuse-related PTSD.Method: A net–benefit analysis was conducted alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with participants (N = 149) randomized to three conditions: PE (n = 48), intensified PE (i-PE, n = 51), and phase-based PE [Skills Training in Affective and Interpersonal Regulation (STAIR) + PE, n = 50]. Assessments took place at baseline (T0), post-treatment (T3), 6 month follow-up (T4), and 12 month follow-up (T5). Costs stemming from healthcare utilization and productivity losses were estimated using the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for Costs associated with Psychiatric Illness. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were based on the 5-level EuroQoL 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) using the Dutch tariff. Missing values of costs and utilities were multiply imputed. To compare i-PE to PE and STAIR + PE to PE, pair-wise unequal-variance t-tests were conducted. Net–benefit analysis was used to relate costs to QALYs and to draw acceptability curves.Results: Intervention costs did not differ across the three treatment conditions. Total medical costs, productivity losses, total societal costs, and EQ-5D-5L-based QALYs did not differ between treatment conditions either (all p > .10). At the relevant €50,000/QALY threshold, the probability of one treatment being more cost-effective than another was 32%, 28%, and 40% for PE, i-PE, and STAIR-PE, respectively.Conclusion: Three equally effective treatments were compared and no differences in cost-effectiveness between treatments were found. Therefore, we advocate the implementation and adoption of any of the treatments and endorse shared decision making. Show less
Kullberg, M.L.J.; Schoorl, S.M.D.; Oprel, D.A.C.; Hoeboer, C.M.; Smit, F.; Does, A.J.W. van der; ... ; Hout, W. van den 2023
Background and purpose: Prognostication is key to determining care in advanced incurable cancer. Although performance status (PS) has been shown to be a strong prognostic predictor, inter-rater... Show moreBackground and purpose: Prognostication is key to determining care in advanced incurable cancer. Although performance status (PS) has been shown to be a strong prognostic predictor, inter-rater reliability is limited, restricting models to specialist settings. This study assessed the extent to which a simple patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), the EQ-5D, may replace PS for prognosis of patients with bone metastases. Materials and methods: Data from 1,011 patients in the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study were used. Cox proportional hazards models were developed to investigate the prognostic value of models incorporating PS alone, the EQ-5D SC dimension alone, all EQ-5D dimensions and EQ-VAS, and finally all dimensions and PS. Three prognostic groups were identified and performance assessed using the Harrell's C-index and Altman-Royston index of separation. Results: Replacing performance status (PS) with the self-care (SC) dimension of the EQ-5D provides similar model performance. In our SC-based model, three groups are identified with median survival of 86 days (95 % CI 76-101), 174 days (95 % CI 145-213), and 483 days (95 % CI 431-539). Whilst not statistically significantly different, the C-index was 0.706 for the PS-only model, 0.718 for SC-only and 0.717 in our full model, suggesting patient-report outcome models perform as well as that based on PS. Conclusion: Prognostic performance was similar across all models. The SC model provides prognostic value similar to that of PS, particularly where a prognosis of < 6 months is considered. Larger, more contemporaneous studies are needed to assess the extent to which PROMs may be of prognostic value, particularly where specialist assessment is less feasible. Show less
Verheijen, E.; Munts, A.G.; Haagen, O. van; Vries, D. de; Dekkers, O.; Hout, W. van den; Vleggeert-Lankamp, C. 2019
