Cost-effectiveness analysis of telephone-based cognitive behaviour therapy compared to treatment as usual CBT for cancer patients: Evidence from a small, randomised controlled trial

Abstract

Objective: A previous equivalence randomised trial indicated that Telephone-based Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (T-CBT) was not inferior to Treatment as Usual CBT (TAU-CBT) delivered face to face in terms of psychological benefit with both groups showing post-therapy improvements compared to pre-therapy baseline. The aim here is to clarify costs and benefits through an economic evaluation of the two therapy models.

Method: The cost-effectiveness analysis (cost per quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) was derived from a single-centre (UK-based), two-arm randomised control trial. Data from 78 patients were available for the main analysis, which includes both an NHS cost perspective and a societal perspective which includes the cost of time off work and any additional private care. Sensitivity analyses were undertaken, which included patients only completing the four core therapy sessions (46 patients) and considering only patients taking both core and the additional therapy sessions which were optional (32 patients).

Results: The base-case analysis, adopting an NHS perspective, showed that T-CBT was associated with an incremental cost of £50 (95% CI: -£759 to £989) and a 0.03 QALY (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.03) decrement per patient when compared to TAU-CBT. The analysis adopting a societal perspective yielded similar results, with T-CBT providing an incremental cost of £171 (95% CI: -£769 to £1112) and a 0.03 QALY (95% CI: -0.08 to 0.03) decrement per patient in comparison to TAU-CBT. The first sensitivity analysis, considering patients only taking the core therapy sessions, showed that T-CBT provided an incremental cost of £100 (95% CI: -£945 to £1247) and yielded a decrement of 0.01 QALY (95% CI: -0.03 to 0.01) per patient compared to TAU-CBT. The second sensitivity analysis, which focused solely on patients who also underwent optional sessions, showed that T-CBT was associated with an incremental cost of £17 (95% CI: -£1307 to £1454) and a 0.04 QALY (95% CI: -0.11 to 0.03) decrement per patient when compared to TAU-CBT.

Conclusions: Based on this single trial, T-CBT is not cost-effective as a therapy option for cancer patients with high psychological needs when compared to TAU-CBT.

Keywords: cancer; cognitive behaviour therapy; cost-effectiveness analysis; health economics; oncology; psycho-oncology; quality-of-life.