Contributions
Abstract: EP1423
Type: ePoster
Abstract Category: Clinical aspects of MS - 9 Economic burden
Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Can Do Treatment (CDT) which aims to improve self-efficacy and establish autonomy in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerose (RRMS) and low disability.
Treatment: The CDT, an intensive social cognitive program contains various sessions provided in one weekend to patients and partners by a multidisciplinary team aiming to identify and reduce ''stressors'' which they experience due to RRMS in their daily life.
Methods: The economic evaluation from a societal perspective with a follow up of 6 months was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial evaluating two groups; CDT patients (CDT) and care as usual patients who had the option to receive CDT after the controlled study phase (control). Included costs were medical costs (inpatient and outpatient), cost of productivity losses, informal care and travel costs. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) is expressed in cost on the Multiple Sclerosis Self-Efficacy Scale-Control (MSESS control) and the incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR) in the cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY). Bootstrap analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the robustness of the findings. The costs of (un)prescribed drugs, aids and tools were not taken into account in the current analyses. The final results, including these previously mentioned cost categories will be available for the presentation at the congress.
Results: The two groups of 79 patients showed comparable baseline characteristics. Results from the preliminary analyses suggest that the average total cost difference was not significantly different between the two groups; that the ICER shows higher costs and more effects in the CDT group; and that the ICUR shows higher costs and lower effects for the CDT group. The bootstrap and sensitivity analyses confirm the preliminary base case findings.
Conclusions: These preliminary results of the economic evaluation suggest no cost effectiveness of the CDT. A reduction of intervention costs could improve change of the CDT being cost effective.
Disclosure: This study is funded by the National MS foundation, The Netherlands, Rotterdam and The Netherlands.
Abstract: EP1423
Type: ePoster
Abstract Category: Clinical aspects of MS - 9 Economic burden
Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the Can Do Treatment (CDT) which aims to improve self-efficacy and establish autonomy in patients with relapsing remitting multiple sclerose (RRMS) and low disability.
Treatment: The CDT, an intensive social cognitive program contains various sessions provided in one weekend to patients and partners by a multidisciplinary team aiming to identify and reduce ''stressors'' which they experience due to RRMS in their daily life.
Methods: The economic evaluation from a societal perspective with a follow up of 6 months was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial evaluating two groups; CDT patients (CDT) and care as usual patients who had the option to receive CDT after the controlled study phase (control). Included costs were medical costs (inpatient and outpatient), cost of productivity losses, informal care and travel costs. The incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) is expressed in cost on the Multiple Sclerosis Self-Efficacy Scale-Control (MSESS control) and the incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR) in the cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALY). Bootstrap analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the robustness of the findings. The costs of (un)prescribed drugs, aids and tools were not taken into account in the current analyses. The final results, including these previously mentioned cost categories will be available for the presentation at the congress.
Results: The two groups of 79 patients showed comparable baseline characteristics. Results from the preliminary analyses suggest that the average total cost difference was not significantly different between the two groups; that the ICER shows higher costs and more effects in the CDT group; and that the ICUR shows higher costs and lower effects for the CDT group. The bootstrap and sensitivity analyses confirm the preliminary base case findings.
Conclusions: These preliminary results of the economic evaluation suggest no cost effectiveness of the CDT. A reduction of intervention costs could improve change of the CDT being cost effective.
Disclosure: This study is funded by the National MS foundation, The Netherlands, Rotterdam and The Netherlands.