Cost-effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological interventions for generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder

Transcription

1 Cost-effectiveness of psychological and pharmacological interventions for generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder Louise Heuzenroeder, Marie Donnelly, Michelle M. Haby, Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Ruth Rossell, Rob Carter, Gavin Andrews, Theo Vos Objective: To assess from a health sector perspective the incremental cost-effectiveness of interventions for generalized anxiety disorder (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs]) and panic disorder (CBT, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs] and tricyclic antidepressants [TCAs]). Method: The health benefit is measured as a reduction in disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), based on effect size calculations from meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. An assessment on second stage filters ( equity, strength of evidence, feasibility and acceptability to stakeholders ) is also undertaken to incorporate additional factors that impact on resource allocation decisions. Costs and benefits are calculated for a period of one year for the eligible population (prevalent cases of generalized anxiety disorder/panic disorder identified in the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, extrapolated to the Australian population in the year 2000 for those aged 18 years and older). Simulation modelling techniques are used to present 95% uncertainty intervals (UI) around the incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: Compared to current practice, CBT by a psychologist on a public salary is the most cost-effective intervention for both generalized anxiety disorder (A$6900/DALY saved; 95% UI A$4000 to A$12 000) and panic disorder (A$6800/DALY saved; 95% UI A$2900 to A$15 000). Cognitive behavioural therapy results in a greater total health benefit than the drug interventions for both anxiety disorders, although equity and feasibility concerns for CBT interventions are also greater. Conclusions: Cognitive behavioural therapy is the most effective and cost-effective intervention for generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder. However, its implementation would require policy change to enable more widespread access to a sufficient number of trained therapists for the treatment of anxiety disorders. Key words: antidepressive agents, anxiety disorders, cognitive behaviour therapy, cost effectiveness, meta-analysis. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2004; 38: Marie Donnelly, Project Officer; Michelle Haby, Epidemiologist (Correspondence); Theo Vos, Senior Epidemiologist Health Surveillance and Evaluation Section, Public Health, Department of Human Services, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. michelle.haby@dhs.vic.gov.au Louise Heuzenroeder, Research Fellow Victorian Public Health Training Scheme, Department of Human Services, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Research Fellow; Rob Carter, Deputy Director Program Evaluation Unit, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Ruth Rossell, Researcher; Gavin Andrews, Director CRUfAD, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia Received 29 August 2003; revised 20 April 2004; accepted 21 April 2004.

2 L. HEUZENROEDER, M. DONNELLY, M.M. HABY, C. MIHALOPOULOS, R. ROSSELL, R. CARTER, G. ANDREWS, T. VOS 603 Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) contributes significantly to the burden of disease, ranking twelfth in women and twenty-fourth in men as a cause of morbidity in Australia [1]. Panic disorder (PD) is less common than GAD, but the most common diagnosis among people seeking treatment for an anxiety problem [2]. Using the ICD-10 definitions [3], the National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHW) [4] gives a 12-month prevalence estimate of 3.0% for GAD and 1.4% for panic disorder (defined as panic disorder with or without agoraphobia). Treatment guidelines [5] suggest the primary treatments for GAD should be non-pharmacological. Where pharmacological intervention is required, they recommend the antidepressant venlafaxine (a serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor [SNRI]) or buspirone. However, buspirone is rarely prescribed in Australia. Benzodiazepines are recommended for acute exacerbations [5], but are not considered here as there is inadequate evidence to support long-term use. However, note that the national BEACH program [6] tells us that 44% of GP encounters for anxiety result in a prescription for benzodiazepines (additional analysis of BEACH data: April 2000 to March 2001). While the guidelines specifically recommend venlafaxine, the Cochrane review Antidepressants for GAD found that venlafaxine, paroxetine (a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor [SSRI]) and imipramine (a tricyclic antidepressant [TCA]) have comparable efficacy compared to placebo [7]. The Cochrane review measures efficacy using dichotomous outcome measures. The current analysis relies on continuous outcome measures reporting means and standard deviations to calculate efficacy. Therefore, many RCTs referred to in the Cochrane review are excluded [8 14]. Neither paroxetine nor venlafaxine are listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) for GAD [15]. Imipramine is listed without restrictions. For PD, clinical practice guidelines recommend cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) as the most consistently efficacious treatment and the treatment that should be attempted initially [5]. Some people with panic disorder may require additional pharmacological treatment, or may not respond to CBT. In this case, the Therapeutic Guidelines [5] recommend SSRIs, and then benzodiazepines, TCAs and irreversible non-selective monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs). By contrast, guidelines by the Royal Australian College of Physicians recommend TCAs before benzodiazapines and SSRIs [16], noting that medication with benzodiazapines may result in dependence and long-term adverse effects, and that evidence for treating panic with MAOIs is currently insufficient. Paroxetine is the only SSRI listed on the PBS for PD, and imipramine is the only TCA that is listed without restrictions for PD [15]. The interventions analyzed for PD in this report are CBT, SSRIs (paroxetine) and TCAs (imipramine). The aim of this study is to assess the incremental costeffectiveness of CBT and SNRIs for the treatment of GAD and CBT, SSRIs and TCAs for PD, for those aged 18 years and older. The analysis of interventions for GAD and PD contribute to the state and Commonwealth government-funded Assessing Cost-Effectiveness Mental Health (ACE-MH) project, in which economic evaluations are performed for a range of interventions for mental disorders, using common methods [17]. Method The ICER is calculated as the cost (A$) per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) saved. The population eligible for the interventions are adults (aged 18 years and older) with ICD-10 defined GAD/PD in the Australian population in the year 2000 who sought health care for their mental health disorder but would not have received evidence-based medicine (EBM) under current practice. All interventions involve the provision of treatments for which there is evidence of efficacy. These analyses are performed from the perspective of the health care sector; therefore, both government and patient expenses for services and pharmaceuticals are included. As the tracking of costs and benefits is for one year, discounting is not applied. The interventions Cognitive behavioural therapy (for GAD and PD): The CBT interventions are modelled as 12 one-hour consultations plus one general practitioner (GP) consultation for referral to one of four different providers: psychologists and psychiatrists, either working privately or on a publicly funded salary. Serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors venlafaxine (for GAD): The SNRI intervention modelled is 12 months of venlafaxine (at 75 mg or 150 mg per day) plus doctor consultations. The inclusion of both doses reflects current practice, based on data from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. We assume the effect size for each dose is the same. This is because our meta-analysis of two RCTs [18,19] revealed similar effect sizes (0.42 for 75 mg and 0.46 for 150 mg) and overlapping confidence intervals for each dose; hence, outcomes of each dose from both trials were combined to produce a single effect size of 0.44 (95% CI = ). The number of doctor consultations is assumed to be nine per year for all drug interventions: weekly visits for the first month, monthly visits for the next two months and three-monthly visits thereafter. We derive the proportion of consumers consulting with a GP or referred to a psychiatrist for treatment from the NSMHW, assuming this reflects current practice (approximately 10% referred to a psychiatrist, 90% managed by a GP [4]). For those consulting a psychiatrist, a GP visit for referral is also included. Serotonin reuptake inhibitors paroxetine (for PD): The dose modelled is 40 mg per day, as recommended in the therapeutic guidelines; it is also the average dose in the RCTs on which effect size and

3 604 INTERVENTIONS FOR ANXIETY DISORDERS adherence are based. In PD approximately 26% of patients are referred to a psychiatrist and 74% are managed by GPs. Tricyclic antidepressants imipramine (for PD): A dose of 225 mg per day of imipramine is modelled the average dose used in the RCTs on which the effect size is based. Current practice Current practice for the treatment of GAD and PD is determined from the NSMHW by identifying service utilization patterns for those with the disorder who consulted health services for a mental health problem. All prevalent cases of GAD and PD in the year 2000 are included. Consulting is defined as seeking care for a mental health problem during the past 12 months from a general practitioner, psychiatrist, psychologist, physician, surgeon, social worker, mental health team worker or an admission to hospital [4]. It is assumed that those consulting are receiving EBM if they have had three or more consultations with a GP, psychiatrist or psychologist plus CBT and/or drug treatment. Of those with GAD, 55% consulted; these were further split into treatment with EBM (27%) or non-ebm (28%). Those who consulted and received non-ebm under current practice each averaged 2.5 GP consultations, 0.2 psychiatrist consultations and 0.6 psychologist consultations within the past 12 months. For PD, 65% consulted, with 47% receiving EBM and 19% receiving non-ebm. Those who consulted and received non-ebm under current practice each averaged 2.8 GP consultations, 0.3 psychiatrist consultations and 1.8 psychologist consultations within the past 12 months. Assessment of benefit Benefits are assessed by a two-stage process. In the first stage, DALYs are employed to estimate the health benefit from the interventions. The second stage involves the assessment of issues that either influence the degree of confidence that can be placed in the ICERs (such as the level of available evidence), or broader issues that need to be taken into account in decision-making about resource allocation (such as equity and acceptability to stakeholders). Stage one: measurement of the health gain The health benefit is measured in DALYs. There is no evidence in the literature that SNRIs, SSRIs, TCAs or CBT can cause or prevent death, so only a change in the years lived with disability (YLD) component of the DALY is modelled. YLD for the current practice comparator The one-year prevalence estimates from the NSMHW [4,20] are prevalent cases of GAD and prevalent cases of PD in Australia (Table 1). Because GAD and panic disorder are chronic conditions with periods of remission and relapse evident for up to 20 years [21 23], the interventions will not be producing health gain at all times. Therefore, the health gain is multiplied by the proportion of time symptomatic, which is estimated from the NSMHW as the current prevalence (symptomatic in the past 2 weeks for GAD, and past 4 weeks for PD) divided by the prevalence in the past 12 months. The percentage of time symptomatic over 12 months is estimated to be 63% for GAD and 48% for PD. The disability weights (DWs) used to calculate YLDs are based on the Dutch weights. The DWs for GAD are 0.17 for mild and moderate cases, and 0.60 for severe cases. Those for PD are 0.16 for mild and moderate, and 0.69 for severe [24]. Composite DWs were calculated separately for those who did not consult, those who consulted and received EBM, and those who consulted and received non-ebm. We determine the spread of severity of the disorders using the NSMHW, assuming this reflects the spread of severity in the Australian population. Severity is classified using the Mental Component Score (MCS) of the SF-12, which has a mean population value of 50 and a standard deviation (SD) of 10. We classify cases into: severe disability (>2.5 SD below the mean, i.e. MCS < 25); moderate disability (> SD below the mean, i.e. MCS = ); and mild disability (> SD below the mean, i.e. MCS = ). The proportion of cases in each severity category is multiplied by the appropriate DW for the category to get an average DW for those in each group. The resulting baseline DWs for GAD are: consulted = 0.22; consulted and received non-ebm = 0.20; and did not consult = For panic disorder, these are: consulted = 0.28; consulted and received non-ebm = 0.21; and did not consult = Note that the higher baseline disability weight in the population consulting for anxiety disorders is merely a result of the fact that more severely affected individuals are more likely to seek care. Determining the reduction in YLD with treatment The reduction in disability severity is modelled using the effect size and both the conversion factor method and the survey severity method to translate the effect size into a reduction in the DW. For the conversion factor method we multiply the effect size by the DW conversion factor for panic disorder/agoraphobia. This conversion factor is an average change in the DALY disability weights for the equivalent of a standard deviation change in severity for the particular mental disorder [25]. For the survey severity method the effect size is applied directly to the Mental Component Score, which was used to determine the average DW at baseline. The severity of respondents is then reclassified and a new average DW calculated. The difference in average DW is the change attributed to treatment [17]. The effect size for PD interventions is derived from a meta-analysis that reports effect sizes for CBT, SSRIs and TCAs [16]. The effect size for TCAs (0.61) differed markedly from a previous meta-analysis (0.47) [26], so we decided to pool results from RCTs in both metaanalyses to obtain an overall effect size (Table 1). For cases not adherent with treatment, no reduction in DW has been modelled (although they do incur costs of the treatment provided). Meta-analysis for GAD For the meta-analysis of RCTs for GAD, the inclusion criteria were subjects aged 18 years and older, a DSM-III-R or DSM-IV diagnosis of GAD [27], and reporting of continuous measures (with both means and standard deviations). Five small RCTs (total intervention n = 84 participants) met the inclusion criteria for CBT [28 32] and two larger RCTs (total intervention n = 435) met the inclusion criteria for venlafaxine [18,19].

4 L. HEUZENROEDER, M. DONNELLY, M.M. HABY, C. MIHALOPOULOS, R. ROSSELL, R. CARTER, G. ANDREWS, T. VOS 605 Table 1. Critical parameter values, uncertainty distributions and sources of information for determining health benefits and costs Parameter Values Uncertainty Information source and assumptions distribution Prevalence and current practice Prevalence of GAD 1-year: 3.03%, SE 0.2% Proportion who consulted and received non- EBM under current practice (GAD) 1-month: 1.99%, SE 0.2% 1-year prevalence of GAD and symptomatic in the past 2 weeks: 1.92%, SE 0.2% Prevalence of PD 1-year: 1.34%, SE 0.12% 1-month: 0.65%, SE 0.01% Proportion who consulted and received non- EBM under current practice (PD) Normal NSMHWB [4] 28.2%, SE 2.8% Normal NSMHWB [4] Normal NSMHWB [4] 18.6%, SE 0.13% Normal NSMHWB [4] Health benefit Effect size (GAD interventions) Venlafaxine: min 0.28, mean 0.44, max 0.60 CBT: min 0.45, mean 0.77, max 1.09 Effect size (PD interventions) SSRIs: min 0.17, mean 0.32, max 0.47 TCAs: min 0.20, mean 0.53, max 0.85 CBT: min. 0.41, mean 0.66, max 0.91 Triangular RCTs of Venlafaxine [18,19] and CBT [28 32]. Minimum and maximum values are from 95% CI. Triangular For CBT and SSRIs [16]: For TCAs: RCTs from the meta-analyses of interventions for panic disorder [16,26] Disability weight conversion factor (GAD & PD) min 0.104, max Uniform Sanderson et al. [25]. The minimum is from the Time Trade Off method and the maximum is from the Visual Analogue Scale Reduction in the disability weight for GAD using Venlafaxine: min 0.03, mean 0.06, max 0.08 Triangular Methods detailed in Haby et al. [17] the survey severity method CBT: min 0.06, mean 0.10, max 0.12 Reduction in the disability weight for PD using SSRIs: min 0.05, mean 0.06, max 0.09 Triangular Methods detailed in Haby et al. [17] the survey severity method TCAs: min 0.05, mean 0.09, max 0.16 CBT: min 0.08, mean 0.11, max 0.16 Adherence with GAD interventions: Venlafaxine: min 50%, max 73% CBT: min 50%, max 95% Adherence with PD interventions SSRIs: min 50%, max 67% TCAs: min 50%, max 69% CBT: min 50%, max 85% Uniform Minimum value is an estimate. Maximum values are based on adherence with the intervention in RCTs of Venlafaxine [18,19] and CBT [28 32] Uniform Minimum value is an estimate. Maximum values are based on Consultations Number of daily patient contacts By public psychologist: min 5, mean 6, max 7 Triangular Estimate based on consultation Costs Variation factor around cost of consultations with public psychologist and public psychiatrist (cost to government) and private psychologist (cost to patient) By public psychiatrist per session: min 2.5, mean 3, max 3.5 adherence with the intervention in RCTs in the meta-analyses for panic disorder [16,26] mean 1, SE 0.1 Normal Unit costs and sources of data are shown in Table 2. These costs are assumed to vary together, i.e. in the same direction. On-costs for public psychologist or public min 25, mean 30, max 35 Triangular On-costs include direct salary costs and corporate costs psychiatrist (%) Cost of non-ebm variation factor min 0.5, mean 1, max 1.5 Triangular Estimate In a uniform distribution every value in the specified range has an equal probability of being chosen in each iteration of the simulation. In a triangular distribution, the greatest probability of being chosen is the value representing the top of the triangle (i.e. the mean value shown in column 2), while the probability of other values being chosen tapers off towards the extremes of the base of the triangle (i.e. the minimum and maximum values); assumptions made for prevalence and current practice estimates would affect the total number eligible for the intervention and hence total costs and benefit but have no effect on the cost-effectiveness ratio.

5 606 INTERVENTIONS FOR ANXIETY DISORDERS We first calculate an effect size for each study by averaging across relevant continuous outcome measures related to anxiety and depression and health-related quality of life. Within each study, the effect size (standardized mean difference) is calculated using Hedges g and pooled across studies using the random effects method of DerSimonian and Laird [33]. The intervention effect sizes (for GAD and PD) are presented in Table 1. Adherence It was assumed that the completion rate of the treatment group in the RCTs for GAD [18,19,28 32] and panic [16,26] reflects the best possible adherence with treatment. No longitudinal studies measuring adherence to the interventions were available for GAD or PD, so a minimum rate of 50% was used in the uncertainty analysis (Table 1). This was done to better reflect what could be expected under routine health service conditions where results may vary due to the effect of comorbidity, the motivation of clinicians and patients, the availability of skilled clinicians and the capacity to vary the intervention to suit the needs of the patient. Stage two: the second stage filter criteria The filters chosen for assessment in the ACE study were: strength of evidence, equity feasibility and acceptability to stakeholders. The filters are described in Table 2. Assessment of costs Unit costs and data sources are shown in Table 3. Costs that would have been incurred under current practice are subtracted from the intervention (and nonadherence) costs to obtain the incremental cost. Health-care seeking behaviour for those not adherent with treatment is unknown; as a consequence, the cost of nonadherence must be estimated. It is assumed that the cost of nonadherence is (on average) the same as the cost of non-ebm. The cost of nonadherence is important to the ICER because those who do not adhere to treatment would be expected to incur some cost but receive no health benefit. Uncertainty analysis Simulation modelling techniques are used to allow the presentation of an uncertainty range around the health benefits, costs and ICERS (Table 1) software [35] was used to conduct Monte Carlo simulations, which allow multiple recalculations of a spreadsheet, each time choosing a value from the specified distribution for each input variable (shown in Table 1). We use 2000 iterations for each of the two methods for translating effect size into a change in the DW (i.e. the conversion factor method and the survey severity method). Thus, the final results (Tables 4,5) are based on the iterations. Median values were calculated because results are not normally distributed. The ranges presented can be interpreted as the range within which the true result lies with 95% certainty. Results Cognitive behavioural therapy provided by a public psychologist is the most cost-effective intervention for treating both GAD and PD. Treatment of GAD with venlafaxine provides a similar ICER as CBT by other providers (Table 4). Tricyclic antidepressants are the second most cost-effective option for panic disorder, followed by CBT by other providers and SSRIs (Table 5). Within a 95% uncertainty range, all of the intervention options have ICERs not greater than A$ for GAD and A$ for PD. For both GAD and PD, the major contributors to uncertainty around the ICERs for all interventions (CBT, SNRI, SSRI and TCAs) are: the effect size; the reduction in disability weight; and (for CBT only) the variation factor around the cost of consulting private psychologists, private psychiatrists and general practitioners. The results of the second-filter criteria assessment are presented in Table 6. A main outcome was the elucidation of issues surrounding the availability and distribution of an adequate workforce for CBT interventions. The drug interventions are likely to be more feasible, although possibly less acceptable, due to concerns about side-effects. Table 2. The second stage filter criteria Strength of evidence: We used the NHMRC Designation of levels of evidence but also highlight potential threats to the quality of the evidence by identifying possible biases and issues that affect the generalisability of the evidence. Based on the level and quality of evidence we categorized the strength of the evidence of effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) as: sufficient, limited or inconclusive [17]. This criterion is also addressed in the uncertainty modelling. For example, if the evidence on effectiveness is weak, large uncertainty is put around the size of the impact measure. Equity: This criterion addressed the capacity of the intervention to affect inequity in the distribution of the mental disorder, as well as highlighting issues that may affect access to, or utilization of, the intervention. The special needs groups considered include those with a lower socio-economic status, non-english speaking background, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders or rural/remote residence. Feasibility: This criterion addressed issues such as the availability of an appropriate workforce with appropriate training to conduct the intervention, whether the intervention could be implemented under current institutional arrangements, and ease of implementation. Acceptability to stakeholders: This criterion referred to the anticipated acceptability of the proposed interventions to the various stakeholders affected by the intervention. Stakeholders include consumers and their family/carers, clinicians, policy makers, the general community and third-party funders.

6 L. HEUZENROEDER, M. DONNELLY, M.M. HABY, C. MIHALOPOULOS, R. ROSSELL, R. CARTER, G. ANDREWS, T. VOS 607 Table 3. Summary of unit cost information, data sources and assumptions Element costed Cost to govt (A$) Cost to patient (A$) Source Assumptions 1 month supply of $48.67 $9.99 PBS data from DHA Patients take their medicine as prescribed. venlafaxine 1 month supply of $67.55 $19.24 paroxetine 1 month supply of $32.60 $19.00 imipramine 1 GP visit of $39.51 $1.87 MBS data from DHA MBS item 36 for initial visit and/or for referral/diagnosis mins 1 GP visit of < 20 mins $21.88 $2.21 MBS data from DHA MBS item 23 for second and subsequent visits for SNRI intervention and for non-ebm 1 psychiatrist visit of min $ $16.47 MBS data from DHA MBS item 306 for CBT, non-ebm and for initial visit for SNRI, SSRI and TCA interventions 1 psychiatrist visit of min $56.38 $5.95 MBS data from DHA MBS item 302 subsequent visits for SNRI, SSRI and TCA interventions 1 session of mins with a private psychologist $0 $ APSAPSrecommended fee is A$161 (as of July 2001) but personal communication with the Executive Director suggests the fee most commonly charged is 1 session of 60 mins with a public pscyhologist 1 session of 60 mins with a public psychiatrist $47.05 $0 Base salary from Victorian Hospitals Industrial Association $ $0 Base salary from the Austin & Repatriation Medical Centre Human Resources A$ Grade 3, Year 2 psychologist. Salary effective from 1 July 2000: A$ per week. On-costs of 30% have been added. The psychologist has 6 patient contacts per day with the remainder of the working day used for preparation, administration, professional development, etc. The psychiatrist is paid as a visiting medical officer. An average salary per session has been used from the range: Specialist to Senior Specialist. Salary effective from 1 July 2000: A$ to A$ per session. The psychiatrist has 3 patient contacts per session (of 3.5 h). On-costs of 30% have been added. Based on the wieghted average of the cost for doses 75 mg and 150 mg per day, as determined by the proportion of preseciptions made for each dose. APS, Australian Psychological Society; DHA, Australian Department of Health and Ageing; MBS, Medicare Benefits Schedule; PBS, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme; SNRI, serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor; EBM, evidencebased medicine; SSRI, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; TCA, tricyclic antidepressant. Discussion Economic analysis raises important issues as to what constitutes value-for-money. It is not uncommon for a threshold ICER (or shadow price ) to be set as a guide to assist decision-making. In ACE MH, for example, an ICER of A$ per DALY has been used. However, this should not be over-interpreted or taken out of context. It is important to reflect, for example, on how well the ICER captures the various dimensions of benefit in mental health. The second stage filters are designed to allow the ICERs to be placed within a broader decision context. Cognitive behavioural therapy is a cost-effective intervention for both GAD and PD, particularly when provided by publicly funded psychologists. It is likely ( 73% chance) that the ICERs for all interventions will be below our threshold of A$ per DALY saved. The SNRI for GAD has a similar ICER as CBT (by providers other than public psychologists). However, it has lower efficacy than CBT, resulting in lower total health benefit. For both disorders, the assumption was made that drugs would be obtained on the PBS. However, GAD is not an indication for obtaining venlafaxine on the PBS (although depression, highly comorbid with GAD, is). Additionally, it is possible that some PD patients will purchase other antidepressants not listed on the PBS (such as the SSRIs sertraline or fluvoxamine, or the TCA clomipramine). Had the model costed drug interventions assuming no PBS benefit, overall cost-effectiveness would remain unchanged, although the government would not contribute to payment for drugs.

7 608 INTERVENTIONS FOR ANXIETY DISORDERS Table 4. The incremental benefits, costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of cognitive behaviour therapy and the serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors for the management of generalized anxiety disorder, compared with current practice Private psychologist Public psychologist Private psychiatrist Public psychiatrist SNRI Health benefit YLL YLD 7200 ( ) 7200 ( ) 7200 ( ) 7200 ( ) 3300 ( ) DALYs 7200 ( ) 7200 ( ) 7200 ( ) 7200 ( ) 3300 ( ) Cost (A$ Millions) Government 6.5 ( 11 to 2.2) 59 (42 79) 160 ( ) 170 ( ) 70 (56 87) Patient 150 ( ) 8.9 ( 14 to 5.1) 14 (9.2 19) 8.9 ( 14 to 5.1) 6.5 (3.6 10) Total 140 ( ) 50 (34 69) 170 ( ) 160 ( ) 77 (60 96) ICER (A$ Thousand/DALY) 20 (12 33) 6.9 (4.0 12) 23 (15 38) 23 (14 38) 23 (16 40) Proportion of iterations below A$50,000/ DALY saved Non-incremental cost-effectiveness ratio 28 (17 56) 12 (7 25) 32 (20 63) 31 (19 63) 30 (20 51) (A$ Thousands/DALY) Values are medians. Figures in brackets show the 95% uncertainty interval; YLL, years of life lost; YLD, years lived with disability; DALYs, disability adjusted life years (YLL + YLD); ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; CBT, cognitive behaviour therapy; SNRI, serotonin and noradrenalin reuptake inhibitor; GAD, generalized anxiety disorder; this is the cost of the intervention reduced by the cost of non-ebm not given; calculated from the 4000 iterations generated in the uncertainty analysis for the costeffectiveness ratio; calculated from the DALYs saved and intervention costs, i.e. without the cost savings from non-ebm not given; negative values are savings from the reduction in non-ebm treatments. Cost savings can result from a reduction in total cost of health services and/or from a shifting of costs between providers, i.e. government versus patient. Table 5. The incremental benefits, costs and cost-effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy and antidepressants for the management of panic disorder, compared with current practice CBT Antidepressants Private psychologist Public psychologist Private psychiatrist Public psychiatrist SSRIs TCAs Health benefit YLL YLD 1200 ( ) 1200 ( ) 1200 ( ) 1200 ( ) 590 ( ) 870 ( ) DALYs 1200 ( ) 1200 ( ) 1200 ( ) 1200 ( ) 590 ( ) 870 ( ) Cost (A$ millions) Government 1.9 ( 3.3 to.7) 12 (7.5 17) 32 (24 40) 36 (23 51) 21 (18 24) 13 (10 15) Patient 28.5 (20 40) 4.6 ( 7.5 to 2.5) 0.2 ( ) 4.6 ( 7.5 to 2.5) 1.5 ( ) 1.9 ( ) Total 27 (18 38) 7.0 ( ) 33 (24 41) 31 (20 46) 23 (18 27) 15 (11 19) ICER (A$ Thousand/DALY) 26 (15 45) 6.8 (2.9 14) 27 (19 48) 30 (18 55) 38 (27 89) 17 (9.7 42) Proportion of iterations below 99% 100% 98% 95% 73% 99% A$50 000/DALY saved Non-incremental cost-effectiveness 32 (21 58) 15 (10 29) 36 (23 66) 36 (26 65) 78 (48 147) 30 (18 73) ratio (A$ Thousands/DALY) Values are medians; figures in brackets show the 95% uncertainty interval; YLL, years of life lost; YLD, years lived with disability; DALYs, disability adjusted life years (YLL + YLD); ICER, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; SSRI, serotonin reuptake inhibitor; TCA, tricyclic antidepressant.this is the cost of the intervention reduced by the cost of non-ebm not given; calculated from the 4000 iterations generated in the uncertainty analysis for the ICER; calculated from the DALYs saved and intervention costs, i.e. without the cost savings from non-ebm not given; negative values are savings from the reduction in non-ebm treatments. Cost savings can result from a reduction in total cost of health services and/or from a shifting of costs between providers, i.e. government versus patient.

8 L. HEUZENROEDER, M. DONNELLY, M.M. HABY, C. MIHALOPOULOS, R. ROSSELL, R. CARTER, G. ANDREWS, T. VOS 609 Table 6. Results from assessment of second filters Filter CBT intervention Antidepressants Evidence Sufficient evidence of adequate quality, noting however, that there are: few trials in NESB groups few trials for providers other than psychologists no trials amongst the indigenous population only one trial in children <13 years Sufficient evidence of adequate quality. Equity Feasibility Acceptability Moderate equity concerns require attention, i.e. appropriateness for minority groups (e.g. NESB, indigenous) access for rural/remote consumers and in outer metropolitan areas (computer-based CBT may address this issue) inequity in access if user pays (e.g. for private providers) Possible but challenging to implement in short-term. Issues include: ensuring an adequate workforce, i.e. appropriately trained and accredited providers; adequate distribution ability of health funding to enable adequate access via primary care development of roll-out arrangements (cost-effectiveness assumes steady-state operation) Concerns include: cost to consumers if private providers acceptance of treatment by clinicians and consumers acceptance of a shift towards non-pharmacological treatments No important equity issues for TCAs or SSRIs. However, access concerns for lower socioeconomic groups when venlafaxine is prescribed solely for GAD and therefore not through the PBS. Feasible within current workforce and institutional arrangements. Concerns include: consumer concern about side-effects of drugs where treatment is long-term reluctance by clinicians to prescribe TCAs due to perception of greater side-effects, and pressure to prescribe newer drugs (such as SSRIs) CBT, cognitive behaviour therapy; TCA, tricyclic antidepressant; SSRI, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor; GAD, generalized anxiety disorder; NESB, non-english speaking background. A lack of economic evaluations analyzing interventions for anxiety disorders limits comparison of the results of this analysis. The only economic evaluation comparing interventions for panic disorder was a costbenefit analysis by Otto et al. [36] in the US, with treatment benefits and costs based on a trial undertaken by the authors. Costs were calculated for the services and/or drugs required to maintain for one year a onepoint increase in the Clinician Global Impression of Severity scale. Pharmacotherapy was considerably more expensive (US$1153) than individual CBT (US$646) and particularly group CBT (US$248). The authors concluded that, based on available evidence of cost, acceptability and tolerability, and treatment outcome, CBT should be the initial mode of treatment. However, as this was a non-randomised, non-controlled trial with no uncertainty analysis, the results are not directly comparable with the current study. A recent cost-effectiveness analysis undertaken by Issakidis et al. [37] examines disability averted by providing a mix of optimal therapies to those receiving current therapies for a mix of anxiety disorders. Optimal therapies were actually treatment packages which emphasized CBT as optimum treatment for most patients, but also included pharmacological treatment for around one-third of patients. The cost-effectiveness of stand-alone CBT or pharmacotherapy was not analyzed. Also in contrast to the current study, the comparator was no treatment, so the placebo effect was added to the effect size of these interventions, making the health gains much greater. Therefore, the study results are not comparable with this analysis of specific interventions for GAD/PD. The strengths and limitations of the methods common across the ACE MH project are presented in detail in Haby et al. [17]. As discussed in that introductory paper, the calculation of health gain is the most difficult methodological issue in the ACE MH project. One limiting factor specific to this analysis is the absence of longitudinal community surveys of the Australian population, which would provide a greater understanding of the nature and duration of GAD and PD and associated longterm treatment patterns and health service utilization. The available treatment research fails to measure the effect of comorbidity. People with comorbidities are often excluded and/or the papers do not present the results

9 610 INTERVENTIONS FOR ANXIETY DISORDERS stratified by subgroups according to comorbidity. Therefore, use of these results may not be generalizable to all those with comorbidities. However, the results are likely to be a good reflection of what would happen on average and allow meaningful comparisons between treatments. Particular to GAD, the lack of studies examining the effectiveness of interventions over the long-term makes it impossible to know whether pharmaceutical or psychological interventions are the most appropriate way to manage the chronic nature of this disorder. A recent review of studies exploring long-term pharmacological treatment of GAD concluded that evidence is extremely limited; the few studies identified were methodologically weak, with no placebo control and based on pre- DSM-III-R-defined GAD [38]. By contrast, there is no evidence for long-term gains following drug treatment for PD. In the Gould metaanalysis, which mostly analyzed follow-up trials for imipramine, it was reported that the effect of pharmacological treatments wore off once administration ceased. Moreover, the few available long-term and follow-up studies for SSRIs report an overall worsening of symptoms following the tapering off of medication [39 41]. The GAD and PD literature fails to explore the efficacy of combined pharmaceutical and psychological interventions [42,43]. Factorial design studies are required to estimate the effect of CBT relative to pharmacological interventions alone and in combination with psychological interventions. In addition, there is a clear need for long-term studies comparing SNRIs against similar antidepressants such as the SSRIs (e.g. paroxetine), the older and cheaper TCAs (e.g. imipramine) and buspirone. However, funding would have to come from public sources, as pharmaceutical companies would not be expected to benefit commercially from performing such research. While CBT by a public psychologist was the most cost-effective intervention for both anxiety disorders, the second filter analysis revealed issues that may impact on its implementation. Greater use of publicly funded psychologists will require attention to ensuring an adequate workforce, particularly in outer metropolitan and rural regions. It is important to note here that our costeffectiveness analyses assume steady-state operation so implementation costs are not included in the analyses. Another possibility for the CBT intervention is to fund a mix of providers including other suitably trained health professionals (social workers, nurses, GPs) as currently being piloted in the Better outcomes in mental health care initiative [44]. However, use of providers that are not adequately trained may decrease the effectiveness, and therefore cost-effectiveness, of the intervention. Thus, attention to training and accreditation will be required if similar effectiveness is to be achieved. A change in the cost of accessing different providers will also change the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. We have modelled the same effectiveness for the different providers but different costs, ranging from $47 per session for a psychologist on a public salary to $133 for a private psychiatrist (which includes the Medicare rebate and out-of-pocket cost to the patient). A mix of providers would result in a cost-effectiveness ratio somewhere between that for a public psychologist and that for a private psychiatrist. Access for outer metropolitan and rural regions is an important consideration for most providers but the use of computer-based CBT may overcome this problem if found to be as effective for anxiety disorders as for depression [45]. In comparison to CBT, the health system provides no barriers to accessing drug treatment for GAD or PD, although the fact that drug therapy is more accessible (by both cost and availability of providers) than psychological therapies, could be unacceptable to consumers. However, an exception is venlafaxine for GAD, which is not currently available on the PBS, which presents an equity issue for access to this intervention. Caveat The Assessing Cost-Effectiveness Mental Health (ACE MH) project was jointly funded by the Australian Department of Health and Ageing, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Branch and the Department of Human Services, Mental Health Branch, Victoria in recognition of the importance of research into the costeffectiveness of interventions in mental health treatment and care. This work draws upon, but is also limited by the available research and the assumptions necessary to complete the work. The results of the analyses provide valuable material, likely to contribute to future policy deliberations by all service providers. Conclusions drawn from the economic evaluations should be considered within the context of the second stage filter process, which qualifies the results taking into account issues of equity, feasibility, strength of evidence, and acceptability to stakeholders. This second stage filter process addresses some of the practical considerations required for changes in actual service practice. Acknowledgements Principal investigators for the project are: Theo Vos, Rob Carter and Gavin Andrews. Analyses draw on the

10 L. HEUZENROEDER, M. DONNELLY, M.M. HABY, C. MIHALOPOULOS, R. ROSSELL, R. CARTER, G. ANDREWS, T. VOS 611 National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, for which unit record data was obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) [4] and a revised scoring algorithm to determine ICD-10 and DSM-IV diagnoses was provided by Gavin Andrews. Information contained in this report on current prescribing behaviour of GPs has been drawn from data collected by the General Practice Statistics and Classification Unit, the University of Sydney in collaboration with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [6]. The average cost of various types of medical attendances and the various forms of SSRI were obtained from Medicare Benefits Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme data from the Department of Health and Ageing. We thank Gavin Andrews, Kristy Sanderson, Caroline Hunt and Cath Issakidis for advice on various aspects of the analysis. We thank members of the ACE MH steering committee for their input into the project: David Barton, Graham Burrows (Chair), Sue Caleo, Vaughan Carr, Dermot Casey, Joy Easton, William Hart, Helen Herrman, Barbara Hocking, Assen Jablensky, Anthony Jorm, Lyn Littlefield, Patrick McGorry, John McGrath, Paul Morgan, Lorna Payne, Deb Podbury, Kristy Sanderson, Suzy Saw, Bruce Singh, Bruce Tonge, Ruth Vine, Harvey Whiteford. References 1. Mathers CD, Vos T, Stevenson C. The burden of disease and injury in Australia. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Vanin JR, Vanin SK. Blocking the cycle of panic disorder. Postgraduate Medicine 1999; 105: World Health Organisation. The ICD-10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders: clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva: Switzerland, Australian Bureau of Statistics. Mental health and wellbeing: profile of adults, Australia Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Therapeutic Guidelines Limited. Therapeutic guidelines: psychotropic. 4th edn. Melbourne: Therapeutic Guidelines Limited, Britt H, Miller G, Knox S et al. General practice activity in Australia General Practice Series No. 8. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Kapczinski F, Schmitt R, Lima M. The use of antidepressants for generalized anxiety disorder. In: The Cochrane Library,: Issue 2. Oxford: Update Software. 8. Sheehan DV. Attaining remission in generalized anxiety disorder: venlafaxine extended release comparative data. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2001; 62(Suppl. 19): Gelenberg AJ, Lydiard RB, Rudolph RL, Aguiar L, Haskins JT, Salinas E. Efficacy of venlafaxine extended-release capsules in nondepressed outpatients with generalized anxiety disorder: a 6-month randomized controlled trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 2000; 283: Rickels K, Pollack MH, Sheehan DV, Haskins JT. Efficacy of extended-release venlafaxine in nondepressed outpatients with generalized anxiety disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry 2000; 157: Silverstone PH, Salinas E. Efficacy of venlafaxine extended release in patients with major depressive disorder and comorbid generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2001; 62: Pollack MH, Zaninelli R, Goddard A et al. Paroxetine in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: results of a placebo-controlled, flexible-dosage trial. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2001; 62: Rocca P, Fonzo V, Scotta M, Zanalda E, Ravizza L. Paroxetine efficacy in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1997; 95: Rudolph L, Entsuah R, Chitra R. A meta-analysis of the effects of venlafaxine on anxiety associated with depression. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 1998; 18: Caswell A ed. MIMS Sydney: MediMedia Australia, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists Clinical Practice Guideline Team for Panic Disorder and Agoraphobia. Australian and New Zealand clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of panic disorder and agoraphobia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2003; 37: Haby M, Carter R, Mihalopoulos C, Magnus A, Andrews G, Vos T. Assessing Cost-Effectiveness Mental Health: introduction to the study and methods. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry 2004; 38: Allgulander C, Hackett D, Salinas E. Venlafaxine extended release ER in the treatment of generalised anxiety disorder: twenty-four-week placebo-controlled dose-ranging study. British Journal of Psychiatry 2001; 179: Davidson JR, DuPont RL, Hedges D, Haskins JT. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of venlafaxine extended release and buspirone in outpatients with generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 1999; 60: Australian Bureau of Statistics. Census data 2000: population by age and sex, Australian states and territories. Time series spreadsheet, : Table 9. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Angst J, Vollrath M. The natural history of anxiety disorders. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1991; 84: Keller M. The long-term clinical course of generalised anxiety disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2002; 63(Suppl. 8): Yonkers K, Dyck I, Warwhaw M, Keller M. Factors predicting the clinical course of generalised anxiety disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry 2000; 176: Stouthard M, Essink-Bot M, Bonsel G et al. Disability weights for diseases in the Netherlands. Rotterdam: Department of Public Health, Erasmus University, Sanderson K, Andrews G, Corry J, Lapsley H. Using the effect size to model change in preference values from descriptive health states. Quality of Life Research 2004; 13:in press. 26. Gould RA, Otto MW, Pollack MH. A meta-analysis of treatment outcome for panic disorder. Clinical Psychological Review 1995; 15: American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-IV) 4th edn. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, Borkovec TD, Costello E. Efficacy of applied relaxation and cognitive-behavioral therapy in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1993; 61: Butler G, Fennell M, Robson P, Gelder M. Comparison of behavior therapy and cognitive behavior therapy in the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 1991; 59:

11 612 INTERVENTIONS FOR ANXIETY DISORDERS 30. Durham RC, Murphy T, Allan T, Richard K, Treliving LR, Fenton GW. Cognitive therapy, analytic psychotherapy and anxiety management training for generalised anxiety disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry 1994; 165: Ladouceur R, Dugas M, Freeston M, Gagnon F, Thibodeau N. Efficacy of a cognitive behavioural treatment for generalized anxiety disorder: evaluation in a controlled clinical trial. Journal of Consulting Clinical Psychology 2000; 68: White J, Keenan M. Stress control: a controlled comparative investigation of large group therapy for generalized anxiety disorder. Behavioural Psychotherapy 1992; 20: Deeks J, Altman D, Bradburn M. Statistical methods for examining heterogeneity and combining results from several studies in meta-analysis. In: Egger M, Smith G, Altman D eds. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context, 2nd edn. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001; Drummond M, McGuire A eds. Economic evaluation in health care: merging theory with practice. New York: Oxford University Press, Palisade [computer program] Risk Analysis Add-in for Microsoft Excel, Version 4. Newfield, NY: Palisade Corporation, Otto MW, Pollack M, Maki KM. Empirically supported treatments for panic disorder: costs, benefits and stepped care. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 2000; 68: Issakidis C, Sanderson K, Corry J, Andrews G, Lapsley H. Modelling the population cost-effectiveness of current and evidence based optimal treatment for anxiety disorders. Psychological Medicine 2004; 34: Mahe V, Balogh A. Long-term pharmacological treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 2000; 15: Michelson D, Pollack M, Lydiard RB, Tamura R, Tepner R, Tollefson G. Continuing treatment of panic disorder after acute response: randomised, placebo-controlled trial with fluoxetine. The Fluoxetine Panic Disorder Study Group. British Journal of Psychiatry 1999; 174: Rapaport MH, Wolkow R, Rubin A, Hackett E, Pollack M, Ota KY. Sertraline treatment of panic disorder: results of a long-term study. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 2001; 104: de Beurs E, van Balkom AJ, Van Dyck R, Lange A. Long-term outcome of pharmacological and psychological treatment for panic disorder with agoraphobia: a 2-year naturalistic follow-up. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1999; 99: Lader MH, Bond AJ. Interaction of pharmacological and psychological treatments of anxiety. British Journal of Psychiatry 1998; (Suppl.): Perry S. Combining antidepressants and psychotherapy: rationale and strategies. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 1990; 51(Suppl.): Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Branch. Better outcomes in mental health care initiative. Canberra: Australian Department of Health and Ageing, (Available at: Last accessed 12 November 2003.) 45. Selmi P, Klein M, Greist J, Sorrell S, Erdman H. Computer-administered cognitive-behavioural therapy for depression. American Journal of Psychiatry 1990; 147:51 56.