1 Section of Neurology, Psychiatry and Sensory Sciences, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Københavns Universitet2 Graduate School of Health and Medical Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Københavns Universitet3 COHERE - Center for Sundhedsøkonomisk Forskning4 Det Teknisk-Naturvidenskabelige Fakultet, Aalborg Universitet5 unknown6 Department of Clinical Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Københavns Universitet7 Department of Clinical Medicine, Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Københavns Universitet
economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial (the OPUS study)
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 (e123 683, s.e. = 8970) were not significantly different from that of standard treatment (e148 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 e50 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.
British Journal of Psychiatry, 2013, Vol 202, Issue 1, p. 35-41