Economic evaluations of nonpharmacological treatments for drug-resistant epilepsy: A systematic review.

This study was undertaken to systematically identify and critically appraise all published full economic evaluations assessing the cost-effectiveness of nonpharmacological interventions for patients with drug-resistant epilepsy. The Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study criteria was used to design search strategies for the identification and selection of relevant studies. Literature search was performed using the MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase, International Health Technology Assessment, National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry databases to identify articles published between January 2000 and May 2023. Web of Science was additionally used to perform forward and backward referencing. Title, abstract, and full-text screening was performed by two independent researchers. The Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist and Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 were applied for quality assessment. A total of 4470 studies were identified, of which 18 met our inclusion criteria. Twelve of the studies conducted model-based economic evaluation, and others were trial-based. Three studies showed that epilepsy surgery was cost-effective in adults, whereas this remained inconclusive for children (two positive, three negative). Three studies showed negative economic outcome for ketogenic diet in children. One of four studies showed positive results for self-management. For vagus nerve stimulation, one study showed positive results in adults and another one negative results in children. One recent study showed cost-effectiveness of responsive neurostimulation (RNS) in adults. Finally, one study showed promising but inconclusive results for deep brain stimulation (DBS). The mean scores for risk of bias assessment (based on CHEC) and for reporting quality (CHEERS 2022) were 95.8% and 80.5%, respectively. This review identified studies that assessed the cost-effectiveness of nonpharmacological treatments in both adults and children with drug-resistant epilepsy, suggesting that in adults, epilepsy surgery, vagus nerve stimulation, and RNS are cost-effective, and that DBS and self-management appear to be promising. In children, the cost-effectiveness of epilepsy surgery remains inconclusive. Finally, the use of ketogenic diet was shown not to be cost-effective. However, limited long-term data were available for newer interventions (i.e., ketogenic diet, DBS, and RNS).

What do we not know (yet) about recovery colleges? A study protocol on their (cost-)effectiveness, mechanisms of action, fidelity and positioning.

BACKGROUND: Recovery Colleges (RCs) have spread across the globe as a new way of supporting people with mental vulnerabilities in their recovery journey. RCs focus on 'learning' rather than 'curing' and in that line facilitate a transition from being a passive, dependent patient/client to an active, empowered student learning to live life, despite vulnerabilities. Peer support and co-creation are central in RCs, as peers learn from each other by sharing personal experiences with mental vulnerabilities in an accessible, inspiring and stimulating atmosphere. The implementation of RCs is highly encouraged internationally, and as a result RCs and related self-help initiatives increasingly emerge. However, high-quality research on RCs is scarce and there is a call for thorough investigation of (cost-)effectiveness, mechanisms of action, cross-border fidelity and positioning of RCs. In response, this research project aims to fill these gaps. METHODS: This research project entails (1) a prospective quasi-experimental effectiveness study and economic evaluation, (2) a multifaceted qualitative study to elaborate on the mechanisms of action of RCs for those involved (3) a study to develop a (Dutch) Fidelity Measure of Recovery Colleges, and (4) an organisational case study to describe the positioning of RCs in relation to other mental health care services and community-based initiatives. Following the ideals of co-creation and empowerment in RCs we conduct this research project in co-creation with RC students from Enik Recovery College in Utrecht, the Netherlands. DISCUSSION: This research project will lead to one of the first longitudinal controlled quantitative evaluations of both cost-effectiveness and effectiveness of RC attendance in a broad sense (beyond attending courses alone). Moreover, we will gather data on a micro level (i.e., impact on RC students), meso level (i.e., organisational fidelity) and macro level (i.e., positioning in the care and support domain), capturing all important perspectives when scrutinizing the impact of complex systems. Finally, we will demonstrate the validity and value of embracing experiential knowledge in science as a complementary source of information, leading to a more profound understanding of what is researched. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The prospective quasi-experimental study has been pre-registered at clinicaltrails.gov (#NCT05620212).

Parental preferences for seizure detection devices: A discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies identified essential user preferences for seizure detection devices (SDDs), without addressing their relative strength. We performed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to quantify attributes' strength, and to identify the determinants of user SDD preferences. METHODS: We designed an online questionnaire targeting parents of children with epilepsy to define the optimal balance between SDD sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) while accounting for individual seizure frequency. We selected five DCE attributes from a recent study. Using a Bayesian design, we constructed 11 unique choice tasks and analyzed these using a mixed multinomial logit model. RESULTS: One hundred parents responded to the online questionnaire link; 49 completed all tasks, whereas 28 completed the questions, but not the DCE. Most parents preferred a relatively high sensitivity (80%-90%) over a high PPV (>50%). The preferred sensitivity-to-PPV ratio correlated with seizure frequency (r = -.32), with a preference for relative high sensitivity and low PPV among those with relative low seizure frequency (p = .04). All DCE attributes significantly impacted parental choices. Parents expressed preferences for consulting a neurologist before device use, personally training the device's algorithm, interaction with their child via audio and video, alarms for all seizure types, and an interface detailing measurements during an alarm. Preferences varied between subgroups (learning disability or not, SDD experience, relative low vs. high seizure frequency based on the population median). SIGNIFICANCE: Various attributes impact parental SDD preferences and may explain why preferences vary among users. Tailored approaches may help to meet the contrasting needs among SDD users.

Economic evaluation of deep brain stimulation compared with vagus nerve stimulation and usual care for patients with refractory epilepsy: A lifetime decision analytic model.

OBJECTIVES: This study was undertaken to estimate the cost-effectiveness of deep brain stimulation (DBS) compared with vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) and care as usual (CAU) for adult patients with refractory epilepsy from a health care perspective using a lifetime decision analytic model. METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model was constructed to estimate the lifetime cost-effectiveness of DBS compared with VNS and CAU. Transition probabilities were estimated from a randomized controlled trial, and assumptions were made in consensus with an expert panel. Primary outcomes were expressed as incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) and per responder. Univariate and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to characterize parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: In DBS, 28.4% of the patients were responders, with an average of 21.38 QALYs per patient and expected lifetime health care costs of €187 791. VNS had fewer responders (22.3%), fewer QALYs (20.70), and lower lifetime costs (€156 871). CAU had the fewest responders (6.2%), fewest QALYs (18.74), and lowest total health care costs (€64 670). When comparing with CAU, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) showed that costs per QALY gained were slightly lower for DBS (€46 640) than for VNS (€47 155). When comparing DBS with VNS, an incremental cost per additional QALY gained of €45 170 was found for DBS. Sensitivity analyses showed that ICERs were heavily dependent on assumptions regarding loss to follow-up in the respective clinical trial. SIGNIFICANCE: This study suggests that, given current limited evidence, VNS and DBS are potentially cost-effective treatment strategies compared to CAU for patients with refractory epilepsy. However, results for DBS were heavily impacted by assumptions made to extrapolate nonresponse from the original trial. More stringent assumptions regarding nonresponse resulted in an ICER just above an acceptable willingness to pay threshold. Given the uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of DBS and the large impact of assumptions related to nonresponse, further empirical research is needed to reduce uncertainty.

(Cost)-effectiveness and implementation of integrated community-based care for patients with severe mental illness: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: As severe mental illness (SMI) is associated with a high disease burden and persistent nature, patients with SMI are often subjected to long-term mental healthcare and are in need of additional social support services. Community-based care and support services are organized via different providers and institutions, which are often lacking structural communication, resulting in a fragmented approach. To improve the efficiency of care provision and optimize patient wellbeing, an integrated multi-agency approach to community-based mental health and social services has been developed and implemented. AIM: To present a research protocol describing the evaluation of flexible assertive community teams integrated with social services in terms of effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and implementation. METHODS/DESIGN: A quasi-experimental study will be conducted using prospective and retrospective observational data in patients with severe mental illness. Patients receiving care from three teams, consisting of flexible assertive community treatment and separately provided social support services (care as usual), will be compared to patients receiving care from two teams integrating these mental and social services into a single team. The study will consist of three parts: 1) an effectiveness evaluation, 2) a health-economic evaluation, and 3) a process implementation evaluation. To assess (cost-)effectiveness, both real-world aggregated and individual patient data will be collected using informed consent, and analysed using a longitudinal mixed model. The economic evaluation will consist of a cost-utility analysis and a cost-effectiveness analysis. For the process and implementation evaluation a mixed method design will be used to describe if the integrated teams have been implemented as planned, if its predefined goals are achieved, and what the experiences are of its team members. DISCUSSION: The integration of health and social services is expected to allow for a more holistic and recovery oriented treatment approach, whilst improving the allocation of scarce resources. This study aims to identify and describe these effects using a mixed-method approach, and support decision-making in the structural implementation of integrating mental and social services.

ZMILE, a multicomponent self-management intervention for adults with epilepsy: Rationale and description of the intervention.

OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we aim to provide a comprehensive description of the multicomponent self-management intervention for adults with epilepsy, ZMILE. RATIONALE OR THEORY: Acquiring self-management skills has been shown to play a vital role in enabling patients with epilepsy overcoming (health-related) struggles in daily life and coping with limitations their condition poses on them. ZMILE is a course consisting of education (to increase concordance to treatment), goal-setting (proactive coping), and self-monitoring. RESOURCES NEEDED: The course is guided by two nurse practitioners and each patient is allowed to bring one family member or friend. Self-monitoring plays an important role and can be done through e-Health tools or written diaries. PROCESSES INVOLVED: During and after the course, patients are required to work toward a personally defined goal using a five-step approach by means of pro-active coping. Moreover, patients are expected to use self-monitoring tools to reflect on their own behavior and identify ways to optimize medication intake when required. QUANTIFICATION: ZMILE is provided in an outpatient setting over five weekly group sessions and one booster session. From the start, patients are encouraged to set individual goals. Each group session will have a different theme but part of every session is reflecting on personal goals and to learn from eachother. CONCLUSIONS: The ZMILE-intervention has been evaluated and may be a promising intervention in terms of effectiveness and feasibility for adults with epilepsy, relatives, and professionals. We present the adapted version which can be implemented in clinical practice.

Exercise enhances: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial on aerobic exercise as depression treatment augmentation.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a considerable public health concern. In spite of evidence-based treatments for MDD, many patients do not improve and relapse is common. Therefore, improving treatment outcomes is much needed and adjunct exercise treatment may have great potential. Exercise was shown to be effective as monotherapy for depression and as augmentation strategy, with evidence for increasing neuroplasticity. Data on the cost-effectiveness and the long-term effects of adjunct exercise treatment are missing. Similarly, the cognitive pathways toward remission are not well understood. METHODS: The present study is designed as a multicenter randomized superiority trial in two parallel groups with follow-up assessments up to 15 months. Currently depressed outpatients (N = 120) are randomized to guideline concordant Standard Care (gcSC) alone or gcSC with adjunct exercise treatment for 12 weeks. Randomization is stratified by gender and setting, using a four, six, and eight block design. Exercise treatment is offered in accordance with the NICE guidelines and empirical evidence, consisting of one supervised and two at-home exercise sessions per week at moderate intensity. We expect that gcSC with adjunct exercise treatment is more (cost-)effective in decreasing depressive symptoms compared to gcSC alone. Moreover, we will investigate the effect of adjunct exercise treatment on other health-related outcomes (i.e. functioning, fitness, physical activity, health-related quality of life, and motivation and energy). In addition, the mechanisms of change will be studied by exploring any change in rumination, self-esteem, and memory bias as possible mediators between exercise treatment and depression outcomes. DISCUSSION: The present trial aims to inform the scientific and clinical community about the (cost-)effectiveness and psychosocial mechanisms of change of adjunct exercise treatment when implemented in the mental health service setting. Results of the present study may improve treatment outcomes in MDD and facilitate implementation of prescriptive exercise treatment in outpatient settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered within the Netherlands Trial Register (code: NL8432 , date: 6th March, 2020).

Implementing interventions to reduce work-related stress among health-care workers: an investment appraisal from the employer's perspective.

PURPOSE: The Stress-Prevention@Work implementation strategy has been demonstrated to be successful in reducing stress in employees. Now, we assess the economic return-on-investment to see if it would make for a favourable business case for employers. METHODS: Data were collected from 303 health-care workers assigned to either a waitlisted control condition (142 employees in 15 teams) or to Stress-Prevention@Work (161 employees in 15 teams). Main outcome was productivity losses measured using the Trimbos and iMTA Cost questionnaire in Psychiatry. Measurements were taken at baseline, 6, and 12 months post-baseline. RESULTS: The per-employee costs of the strategy were €50. Net monetary benefits were the benefits (i.e., improved productivity) minus the costs (i.e., intervention costs) and were the main outcome of this investment appraisal. Per-employee net benefits amounted to €2981 on average, which was an almost 60-fold payout of the initial investment of €50. There was a 96.7% likelihood for the modest investment of €50 to be offset by cost savings within 1 year. Moreover, a net benefit of at least €1000 still has a likelihood of 88.2%. CONCLUSIONS: In general, there was a high likelihood that Stress-Prevention@Work offers an appealing business case from the perspective of employers, but the employer should factor in the additional per-employee costs of the stress-reducing interventions. Still, if these additional costs were as high as €2981, then costs and benefits would break even. This study was registered in the Netherlands National Trial Register, trial code: NTR5527.

Cost-effectiveness and Cost-utility of the Adherence Improving Self-management Strategy in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Care: A Trial-based Economic Evaluation.

Background: Several promising human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) treatment adherence interventions have been identified, but data about their cost-effectiveness are lacking. This study examines the trial-based cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the proven-effective Adherence Improving Self-Management Strategy (AIMS), from a societal perspective, with a 15-month time horizon. Methods: Treatment-naive and treatment-experienced patients at risk for viral rebound were randomized to treatment as usual (TAU) or AIMS in a multicenter randomized controlled trial in the Netherlands. AIMS is a nurse-led, 1-on-1 self-management intervention incorporating feedback from electronic medication monitors, delivered during routine clinical visits. Main outcomes were costs per reduction in log10 viral load, treatment failure (2 consecutive detectable viral loads), and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Results: Two hundred twenty-three patients were randomized. From a societal perspective, AIMS was slightly more expensive than TAU but also more effective, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €549 per reduction in log10 viral load and €1659 per percentage decrease in treatment failure. In terms of QALYs, AIMS resulted in higher costs but more QALYs compared to TAU, which resulted in an ICER of €27759 per QALY gained. From a healthcare perspective, AIMS dominated TAU. Additional sensitivity analyses addressing key limitations of the base case analyses also suggested that AIMS dominates TAU. Conclusions: Base case analyses suggests that over a period of 15 months, AIMS may be costlier, but also more effective than TAU. All additional analyses suggest that AIMS is cheaper and more effective than TAU. This trial-based economic evaluation confirms and complements a model-based economic evaluation with a lifetime horizon showing that AIMS is cost-effective. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01429142.

Quality of life and psychological dysfunction in traumatized and nontraumatized patients with psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES).

OBJECTIVES: Psychogenic nonepileptic seizures (PNES) have the appearance of epileptic seizures, yet show no epileptiform discharges in the brain. The quality of life (QOL) in patients with PNES is reportedly low and trauma eems to be a relevant risk factor. The objective of this study was to examine the difference between measures of (epilepsy-specific) QOL (Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory; QOLIE-31p) and psychological dysfunction (trauma symptom inventory; TSI) between patients with diagnosed PNES with self-reported trauma and those without self-reported trauma. METHODS: Patients whose PNES diagnoses were through video-electroencephalogram (EEG) monitoring at the Northeast Regional Epilepsy Group between 2008 and 2018 were included. Patients who reported to have a history of psychological trauma and those who did not were assigned to separate groups. Scores from the TSI and QOLIE-31p were compared by using multivariate analysis of covariance. RESULTS: The total sample was comprised of 217 adult patients, 148 of which self-reported as having experienced psychological trauma in the past and 69 who did not report any psychological trauma. Traumatized patients significantly differed in terms of QOL and TSI from nontraumatized patients. Traumatized patients were demonstrated to have lower scores on the subdomain "energy" of the QOLIE-31p and the total QOLIE-31p score compared to the nontraumatized group. Similarly, the traumatized group had significantly higher scores on nearly all TSI subscales with the exception of suicidality, sexual disturbances, and somatization. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated significant differences between patients with PNES who have been psychologically traumatized and those who have not. In particular, patients with a history of psychological trauma present greater psychopathology and would possibly benefit from rapid identification and referral to trauma-based therapy. In turn, this may result in a reduction of disease burden, increase QOL, and a reduction in healthcare costs resulting from diagnostic delays and implementation of less targeted treatments.

Effectiveness of a multicomponent self-management intervention for adults with epilepsy (ZMILE study): A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the ZMILE study was to compare the effectiveness of a multicomponent self-management intervention (MCI) with care as usual (CAU) in adult patients with epilepsy (PWE) over a six-month period. METHODS: Participants (PWE & relative) were randomized into intervention or CAU groups. Self-report questionnaires were used to measure disease-specific self-efficacy as the primary outcome measure and general self-efficacy, adherence, seizure severity, emotional functioning, quality of life, proactive coping, and side-effects of antiepileptic drugs (AED) as secondary outcome measures. Instruments used at baseline and during a six-month follow-up period were the following: disease-specific self-efficacy (Epilepsy Self-Efficacy Scale [ESES], General Self-Efficacy Scale [GSES]); adherence (Medication Adherence Scale [MARS] and Medication Event Monitoring System [MEMS]); seizure severity (National Hospital Seizure Severity Scale [NHS3]); emotional well-being (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]); quality of life (Quality of Life in Epilepsy [QOLIE-31P]); proactive coping (Utrecht Proactive Coping Competence [UPCC]); and side-effects of antiepileptic drugs [SIDAED]. Multilevel analyses were performed, and baseline differences were corrected by inclusion of covariates in the analyses. RESULTS: In total, 102 PWE were included in the study, 52 of whom were in the intervention group. On the SIDAED and on three of the quality of life subscales QOLIE-31P, a significant difference was found (p<0.05) in the intervention group. Self-efficacy, however, showed no significant differences between the MCI and the CAU groups. None of the other outcome measures showed any significant difference between the two groups. SIGNIFICANCE: Although we found no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome measure, disease-specific self-efficacy, this MCI could prove promising, since we found improvement in some domains of quality of life in epilepsy scale and a decrease in AED side-effects in the MCI group compared with the CAU group.

Complaint-Directed Mini-Interventions for Depressive Symptoms: A Health Economic Evaluation of Unguided Web-Based Self-Help Interventions Based on a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression prevention and early intervention have become a top priority in the Netherlands, but with considerable room for improvement. To address this, Web-based complaint-directed mini-interventions (CDMIs) were developed. These brief and low-threshold interventions focus on psychological stress, sleep problems, and worry, because these complaints are highly prevalent, are demonstrably associated with depression, and have substantial economic impact. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this economic evaluation was to examine the added value of Web-based, unguided, self-help CDMIs compared with a wait-listed control group with unrestricted access to usual care from both a societal and a health care perspective. METHODS: This health economic evaluation was embedded in a randomized controlled trial. The study entailed 2 arms, in which 3 Web-based CDMIs were compared with a no-intervention waiting-list control group (which received the intervention after 3 months). We conducted measurements at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome was the rate of responders to treatment on depressive symptoms as measured by the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (IDS-SR). We estimated change in quality of life by calculating effect sizes (Cohen d) for individual pre- and posttreatment IDS-SR scores using a conversion factor to map a change in standardized effect size onto a corresponding change in utility. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios using bootstraps (5000 times) of seemingly unrelated regression equations and constructed cost-effectiveness acceptability curves for the costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. RESULTS: Of 329 study participants, we randomly assigned 165 to the CDMI group. At 3 months, the rate of responders to treatment was 13.9% (23/165) in the CDMI group and 7.3% (12/164) in the control group. At 3 months, participants in the CDMI group gained 0.15 QALYs compared with baseline, whereas participants in the control group gained 0.03 QALYs. Average total costs per patient at 3 months were €2094 for the CDMI group and €2230 for the control group (excluding baseline costs). Bootstrapped seemingly unrelated regression equations models resulted in a dominant incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ie, lower costs and a higher rate of responders to treatment) for the CDMI group compared with the control group at 3 months, with the same result for the costs per QALY gained. Various sensitivity analyses attested to the robustness of the findings of the main analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Brief and low-threshold Web-based, unguided, self-help CDMIs have the potential to be a cost-effective addition to usual care for adults with mild to moderate depressive symptoms. The CDMIs improved health status, while reducing participant health care costs, and hence dominated the care-as-usual control condition. As intervention costs were relatively low, and the internet is readily available in the Western world, we believe CDMIs can be easily implemented on a large scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR4612; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=4612 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6n4PVYddM).

Economic Evaluation of an Internet-Based Preventive Cognitive Therapy With Minimal Therapist Support for Recurrent Depression: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is highly recurrent and has a significant disease burden. Although the effectiveness of internet-based interventions has been established for the treatment of acute MDD, little is known about their cost effectiveness, especially in recurrent MDD. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to evaluate the cost effectiveness and cost utility of an internet-based relapse prevention program (mobile cognitive therapy, M-CT). METHODS: The economic evaluation was performed alongside a single-blind parallel group randomized controlled trial. Participants were recruited via media, general practitioners, and mental health care institutions. In total, 288 remitted individuals with a history of recurrent depression were eligible, of whom 264 were randomly allocated to M-CT with minimal therapist support added to treatment as usual (TAU) or TAU alone. M-CT comprised 8 online lessons, and participants were advised to complete 1 lesson per week. The economic evaluation was performed from a societal perspective with a 24-month time horizon. The health outcomes were number of depression-free days according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, (DSM-IV) criteria assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV axis I disorders by blinded interviewers after 3, 12, and 24 months. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were self-assessed with the three level version of the EuroQol Five Dimensional Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L). Costs were assessed with the Trimbos and Institute for Medical Technology Assessment Questionnaire on Costs Associated with Psychiatric Illness (TiC-P). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were displayed to assess the probability that M-CT is cost effective compared to TAU. RESULTS: Mean total costs over 24 months were €8298 (US $9415) for M-CT and €7296 (US $8278) for TAU. No statistically significant differences were found between M-CT and TAU regarding depression-free days and QALYs (P=.37 and P=.92, respectively). The incremental costs were €179 (US $203) per depression-free day and €230,816 (US $261,875) per QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curves suggested that for depression-free days, high investments have to be made to reach an acceptable probability that M-CT is cost effective compared to TAU. Regarding QALYs, considerable investments have to be made but the probability that M-CT is cost effective compared to TAU does not rise above 40%. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that adding M-CT to TAU is not effective and cost effective compared to TAU alone. Adherence rates were similar to other studies and therefore do not explain this finding. The participants scarcely booked additional therapist support, resulting in 17.3 minutes of mean total therapist support. More studies are needed to examine the cost effectiveness of internet-based interventions with respect to long-term outcomes and the role and optimal dosage of therapist support. Overall, more research is needed on scalable and cost-effective interventions that can reduce the burden of recurrent MDD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR2503; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=2503 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/73aBn41r3).

An economic evaluation of a multicomponent self-management intervention for adults with epilepsy (ZMILE study).

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this (trial-based) economic evaluation was, from a societal perspective, to compare the cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent self-management intervention (MCI) with care as usual (CAU) in adult patients with epilepsy over a 12-month period. METHODS: In a randomized-controlled trial, participants were randomized into intervention or CAU group. Adherence, self-efficacy (Epilepsy Self-Efficacy Scale [ESES]), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), healthcare costs, production losses, and patient and family costs were assessed at baseline and during the 12-month study period. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (i.e., cost per increased adherence, self-efficacy, or QALY), and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 102 patients were included in the study, of whom 52 were in the intervention group. Adherence rates over 6 months were 63.7% for the CAU group and 75.9% for the intervention group. Adherence, ESES, and quality of life did not differ significantly between groups. An ICER of €54 per point increase in ESES score at 6 months and €1,105 per point increase at 12-month follow-up was found. The intervention resulted in an ICER of €88 per percentage of adherence increase at 6 months. ICERs of €8,272 and €15,144 per QALY gained were found at 6- and 12-month follow-up, respectively. SIGNIFICANCE: Although no statistically significant difference was found after baseline adjustments, cost-effectiveness estimates for MCI appear promising. As rules of inference are arbitrary, it has been argued that decisions should be based only on the net benefits, irrespective of whether differences are statistically significant. Hence, the MCI may be a cost-effective addition to the current standard care for adults with epilepsy.

A systematic review of economic evaluations of treatments for patients with epilepsy.

The increasing number of treatment options and the high costs associated with epilepsy have fostered the development of economic evaluations in epilepsy. It is important to examine the availability and quality of these economic evaluations and to identify potential research gaps. As well as looking at both pharmacologic (antiepileptic drugs [AEDs]) and nonpharmacologic (e.g., epilepsy surgery, ketogenic diet, vagus nerve stimulation) therapies, this review examines the methodologic quality of the full economic evaluations included. Literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), Econlit, Web of Science, and CEA Registry. In addition, Cochrane Reviews, Cochrane DARE and Cochrane Health Technology Assessment Databases were used. To identify relevant studies, predefined clinical search strategies were combined with a search filter designed to identify health economic studies. Specific search strategies were devised for the following topics: (1) AEDs, (2) patients with cognitive deficits, (3) elderly patients, (4) epilepsy surgery, (5) ketogenic diet, (6) vagus nerve stimulation, and (7) treatment of (non)convulsive status epilepticus. A total of 40 publications were included in this review, 29 (73%) of which were articles about pharmacologic interventions. Mean quality score of all articles on the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC)-extended was 81.8%, the lowest quality score being 21.05%, whereas five studies had a score of 100%. Looking at the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), the average quality score was 77.0%, the lowest being 22.7%, and four studies rated as 100%. There was a substantial difference in methodology in all included articles, which hampered the attempt to combine information meaningfully. Overall, the methodologic quality was acceptable; however, some studies performed significantly worse than others. The heterogeneity between the studies stresses the need to define a reference case (e.g., how should an economic evaluation within epilepsy be performed) and to derive consensus on what constitutes "standard optimal care."

Process evaluation of a multi-component self-management intervention for adults with epilepsy (ZMILE study).

BACKGROUND: People with epilepsy need to monitor and manage their symptoms. They, as well as their relatives, have to deal with the psychological burden, reflected in a reduced quality of life. Support in self-management can be of importance. We have developed a multi-component self-management intervention for patients and their relatives (MCI). This eight-week group intervention is conducted by nurse practitioners and consists of six two-hour sessions. The main components are: 1) providing self-management education, 2) stimulating proactive coping and goal-setting and 3) facilitating peer and social support. This study is a process evaluation to establish the feasibility, fidelity and acceptability of the intervention by assessing performance according to protocol, attendance and adherence, and the opinion of patients, relatives and facilitators about the intervention. METHOD: Study population consists of 52 patients with epilepsy living in the community (e.g. at home), 37 relatives and six facilitators. In this prospective mixed methods study, data were gathered using questionnaires for patients and relatives, registration forms for facilitators and by carrying out semi-structured group interviews with patients, relatives and facilitators. RESULTS: Patients and relatives attended a mean of 5.2 sessions. Forty-seven (90%) patients and 32 (86.5%) relatives attended at least five sessions. The mean group size was 8.1 (SD=1.3; range 6-10). All elements of the intervention were offered to participants, except for one e-Health tool which was only available at the start of the study. Overall, the sessions were considered useful by patients, their relatives and facilitators. The participation of a relative (social support) and sharing ideas and feelings about having epilepsy with peers (peer support) were rated as important aspects. CONCLUSION: This process evaluation revealed that the MCI was largely performed according to protocol, attendance rate was high, and participants and facilitators had, on the whole, a favourable opinion about the MCI, and would recommend it to others with epilepsy and their relatives. Overall, the adherence of patients and relatives was high. The MCI is considered feasible according to patients, relatives and facilitators. Implementation is recommended if the intervention proves to be effective.

A Review of the Theoretical Basis, Effects, and Cost Effectiveness of Online Smoking Cessation Interventions in the Netherlands: A Mixed-Methods Approach.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is a worldwide public health problem. In 2015, 26.3% of the Dutch population aged 18 years and older smoked, 74.4% of them daily. More and more people have access to the Internet worldwide; approximately 94% of the Dutch population have online access. Internet-based smoking cessation interventions (online cessation interventions) provide an opportunity to tackle the scourge of tobacco. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this paper was to provide an overview of online cessation interventions in the Netherlands, while exploring their effectivity, cost effectiveness, and theoretical basis. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used to identify Dutch online cessation interventions, using (1) a scientific literature search, (2) a grey literature search, and (3) expert input. For the scientific literature, the Cochrane review was used and updated by two independent researchers (n=651 identified studies), screening titles, abstracts, and then full-text studies between 2013 and 2016 (CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE). For the grey literature, the researchers conducted a Google search (n=100 websites), screening for titles and first pages. Including expert input, this resulted in six interventions identified in the scientific literature and 39 interventions via the grey literature. Extracted data included effectiveness, cost effectiveness, theoretical factors, and behavior change techniques used. RESULTS: Overall, many interventions (45 identified) were offered. Of the 45 that we identified, only six that were included in trials provided data on effectiveness. Four of these were shown to be effective and cost effective. In the scientific literature, 83% (5/6) of these interventions included changing attitudes, providing social support, increasing self-efficacy, motivating smokers to make concrete action plans to prepare their attempts to quit and to cope with challenges, supporting identity change and advising on changing routines, coping, and medication use. In all, 50% (3/6) of the interventions included a reward for abstinence. Interventions identified in the grey literature were less consistent, with inclusion of each theoretical factor ranging from 31% to 67% and of each behavior change technique ranging from 28% to 54%. CONCLUSIONS: Although the Internet may provide the opportunity to offer various smoking cessation programs, the user is left bewildered as far as efficacy is concerned, as most of these data are not available nor offered to the smokers. Clear regulations about the effectiveness of these interventions need to be devised to avoid disappointment and failed quitting attempts. Thus, there is a need for policy regulations to regulate the proliferation of these interventions and to foster their quality in the Netherlands.

An economic evaluation of the ketogenic diet versus care as usual in children and adolescents with intractable epilepsy: An interim analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into the cost-effectiveness of the ketogenic (KD) diet compared with care as usual (CAU) in children and adolescents with intractable epilepsy, we conducted an economic evaluation from a societal perspective, alongside a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Participants from a tertiary epilepsy center were randomized into KD (intervention) group or CAU (control) group. Seizure frequency, quality adjusted life years (QALYs), health care costs, production losses of parents and patient, and family costs were assessed at baseline and during a 4-month study period and compared between the intervention and control groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (i.e., cost per QALY and cost per responder), and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were calculated and presented. RESULTS: In total, 48 children were included in the analyses of this study (26 KD group). At 4 months, 50% of the participants in the KD group had a seizure reduction ≥50% from baseline, compared with 18.2 of the participants in the CAU group. The mean costs per patient in the CAU group were €15,245 compared to €20,986 per patient in the KD group, resulting in an ICER of €18,044 per responder. We failed, however, to measure any benefits in terms of QALYs and therefore, the cost per QALY rise high above any acceptable ceiling ratio. It might be that the quality of life instruments used in this study were not sufficiently sensitive to detect changes, or it might be that being a clinical responder is not sufficient to improve a patient's quality of life. Univariate and multivariate sensitivity analyses and nonparametric bootstrapping were performed and demonstrated the robustness of our results. SIGNIFICANCE: The results show that the KD reduces seizure frequency. The study did not find any improvements in quality of life and, therefore, unfavorable cost per QALY ratio's resulted.

Are people with epilepsy using eHealth-tools?

INTRODUCTION: Self-management for people with epilepsy (PWE) should lead to shared decision-making and thus to adherence to the treatment plan. eHealth is an important way of supporting PWE in their self-management. METHOD: In this survey, we used a mixed method to explore the following: 1) which factors were monitored by PWE and how (using pen and paper or eHealth-tools), 2) how many PWE own a computer or smartphone, and 3) how do they perceive the use of eHealth. A consecutive series of 1000 PWE attending the outpatient clinic of a tertiary epilepsy center were asked to fill in a questionnaire. RESULTS: In comparison with the general population, fewer PWE owned a computer or smartphone. They were, however, more likely to self-monitor their health than other patients suffering from a chronic condition. Although PWE did not use eHealth-tools often, they perceived it as a user-friendly tool, promoting health behavior as well as adherence. On the other hand, problems with privacy and the perception that not everyone is able to use eHealth were considered as disadvantages by PWE. Promoting self-care was perceived as both an advantage and a disadvantage. It was seen as an advantage when PWE mentioned the option of eHealth-tools in order to gain insight into one's epilepsy. At the same time, it was seen as a disadvantage because it confronts PWE with their disease, which causes emotional stress. CONCLUSION: The high level of self-monitoring combined with a low usage of eHealth-tools seems to indicate that there is a need for a more tailored approach to stimulate the use of eHealth-tools by PWE. Further research should focus on this aspect, e.g., what PWE need in order to make more use of eHealth-tools in their self-care.