TY - JOUR

T1 - Cost-effectiveness of deep brain stimulation versus treatment as usual for obsessive-compulsive disorder

AU - Ooms, Pieter

AU - Blankers, Matthijs

AU - Figee, Martijn

AU - Bergfeld, Isidoor O

AU - van den Munckhof, Pepijn

AU - Schuurman, P Richard

AU - Denys, D.

N1 - Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - BACKGROUND: Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is effective for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but requires expensive medical procedures. To date, no study has examined the cost-effectiveness of DBS for OCD.OBJECTIVE: To perform the first economic evaluation of DBS for therapy refractory OCD.METHODS: We conducted a 2-year prospective, open cost-effectiveness study, comparing DBS (n = 17) with treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 11), with cost per Quality-Adjusted-Life-Year (QALY) as outcome measure. Apart from the base-case, or primary analysis, we conducted two practice-based scenarios: (1) standard care scenario, without research and innovation costs, and (2) rechargeable scenario, in which we assume the use of a rechargeable battery. Base-case and both scenarios were extrapolated to four years to estimate long-term cost-effectiveness.RESULTS: Compared to TAU, DBS provides an additional 0.26 QALY (SD = 0.16). Median cost per QALY gained is estimated at €141,446 for base-case, €115,916 for standard care and €65,394 for the rechargeable scenario. Extending the time-horizon to four years results in a median cost per QALY of €80,313 for base-case, €69,287 for standard care, and turned out to be cost-saving at €4678 per QALY for the rechargeable scenario. Assuming a willingness to pay threshold of €80,000/QALY, DBS, under base-case and standard care had 25% and 35% probability of being more cost-effective than TAU. With the rechargeable scenario and in all scenarios extrapolated to four years, the probability of cost-effectiveness was equal or higher than TAU.CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates DBS for OCD is cost-effective in the long-term, especially when rechargeable batteries are taken into account.

AB - BACKGROUND: Deep Brain Stimulation (DBS) is effective for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but requires expensive medical procedures. To date, no study has examined the cost-effectiveness of DBS for OCD.OBJECTIVE: To perform the first economic evaluation of DBS for therapy refractory OCD.METHODS: We conducted a 2-year prospective, open cost-effectiveness study, comparing DBS (n = 17) with treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 11), with cost per Quality-Adjusted-Life-Year (QALY) as outcome measure. Apart from the base-case, or primary analysis, we conducted two practice-based scenarios: (1) standard care scenario, without research and innovation costs, and (2) rechargeable scenario, in which we assume the use of a rechargeable battery. Base-case and both scenarios were extrapolated to four years to estimate long-term cost-effectiveness.RESULTS: Compared to TAU, DBS provides an additional 0.26 QALY (SD = 0.16). Median cost per QALY gained is estimated at €141,446 for base-case, €115,916 for standard care and €65,394 for the rechargeable scenario. Extending the time-horizon to four years results in a median cost per QALY of €80,313 for base-case, €69,287 for standard care, and turned out to be cost-saving at €4678 per QALY for the rechargeable scenario. Assuming a willingness to pay threshold of €80,000/QALY, DBS, under base-case and standard care had 25% and 35% probability of being more cost-effective than TAU. With the rechargeable scenario and in all scenarios extrapolated to four years, the probability of cost-effectiveness was equal or higher than TAU.CONCLUSIONS: This study indicates DBS for OCD is cost-effective in the long-term, especially when rechargeable batteries are taken into account.

KW - Journal Article

U2 - 10.1016/j.brs.2017.04.120

DO - 10.1016/j.brs.2017.04.120

M3 - Article

C2 - 28457837

VL - 10

SP - 836

EP - 842

JO - Brain Stimulation

JF - Brain Stimulation

SN - 1935-861X

ER -