Protocol for the economic evaluation of metacognitive therapy for cardiac rehabilitation participants with symptoms of anxiety and/or depression

Introduction Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is offered to reduce the risk of further cardiac events and to improve patients’ health and quality of life following a cardiac event. Psychological care is a common component of CR as symptoms of depression and/or anxiety are more prevalent in this population, however evidence for the cost-effectiveness of current interventions is limited. Metacognitive therapy (MCT), is a recent treatment development that is effective in treating anxiety and depression in mental health settings and is being evaluated in CR patients. This protocol describes the planned approach to the economic evaluation of MCT for CR patients. Methods and analysis The economic evaluation work will consist of a within-trial analysis and an economic model. The PATHWAY Group MCT study has been prospectively designed to collect comprehensive self-reported resource use and health outcome data, including the EQ-5D, within a randomised controlled trial study design (UK Clinical Trials Gateway). A within-trial economic evaluation and economic model will compare the cost-effectiveness of MCT plus usual care (UC) to UC, from a health and social care perspective in the UK. The within-trial analysis will use intention-to-treat and estimate total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for the trial follow-up. Single imputation will be used to impute missing baseline variables. Multiple imputation will be used to impute values missing at follow-up. Items of resource use will be multiplied by published national healthcare costs. Regression analysis will be used to estimate net costs and net QALYs and these estimates will be bootstrapped to generate 10 000 net pairs of costs and QALYs to inform the probability of cost-effectiveness. A decision analytical economic model will be developed to synthesise trial data with the published literature over a longer time frame. Sensitivity analysis will explore uncertainty. Guidance of the methods for economic models will be followed and dissemination will adhere to reporting guidelines. Ethics and dissemination The economic evaluation includes a within-trial analysis. The trial which included the collection of this data was reviewed and approved by Ethics. Ethics approval was obtained by the Preston Research Ethics Committee (project ID 156862). The modelling analysis is not applicable for Ethics as it will use data from the trial (secondary analysis) and the published literature. Results of the main trial and economic evaluation will be published in the peer-reviewed National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) journals library (Programme Grants for Applied Research), submitted to a peer-reviewed journal and presented at appropriate conferences. Trial registration number ISRCTN74643496; Pre-results.

[1]  P. Bower,et al.  Training to enhance user and carer involvement in mental health-care planning: the EQUIP research programme including a cluster RCT , 2019, Programme Grants for Applied Research.

[2]  Sally J. Singh,et al.  The cost effectiveness of REACH-HF and home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared with the usual medical care for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A decision model-based analysis , 2019, European journal of preventive cardiology.

[3]  A. Mandrusiak,et al.  Cost-Utility Analysis of Home-based Telerehabilitation Compared with Centre-based Rehabilitation in Patients with Heart Failure. , 2019, Heart, lung & circulation.

[4]  N. Morina,et al.  The Efficacy of Metacognitive Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis , 2018, Front. Psychol..

[5]  C. Clements,et al.  Reducing relapse and suicide in bipolar disorder: practical clinical approaches to identifying risk, reducing harm and engaging service users in planning and delivery of care – the PARADES (Psychoeducation, Anxiety, Relapse, Advance Directive Evaluation and Suicidality) programme , 2018, Programme Grants for Applied Research.

[6]  C. Jackson,et al.  Cognitive behavioural therapy in clozapine-resistant schizophrenia (FOCUS): an assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial , 2018, The lancet. Psychiatry.

[7]  A. Wells,et al.  Cost-effectiveness of cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review , 2018, Heart.

[8]  A. Wells,et al.  Improving the effectiveness of psychological interventions for depression and anxiety in the cardiac rehabilitation pathway using group-based metacognitive therapy (PATHWAY Group MCT): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial , 2018, Trials.

[9]  James R Carpenter,et al.  Missing data in trial‐based cost‐effectiveness analysis: An incomplete journey , 2018, Health economics.

[10]  J. Refsgaard,et al.  Shared care versus hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation: a cost-utility analysis based on a randomised controlled trial , 2018, Open Heart.

[11]  Graham Meadows,et al.  Simulation modelling in mental health: A systematic review , 2018, J. Simulation.

[12]  Brendan Mulhern,et al.  Valuing health‐related quality of life: An EQ‐5D‐5L value set for England , 2017, Health economics.

[13]  A. Abu-Hanna,et al.  Clinical and cost-effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation compared to conventional, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation: Results of the FIT@Home study , 2017, European journal of preventive cardiology.

[14]  H. Riper,et al.  Model-Based Economic Evaluation of Treatments for Depression: A Systematic Literature Review , 2017, PharmacoEconomics - Open.

[15]  P. Doherty,et al.  Cost–utility analysis of cardiac rehabilitation after conventional heart valve surgery versus usual care , 2017, European journal of preventive cardiology.

[16]  P. Bower,et al.  Long-term cost-effectiveness of collaborative care (vs usual care) for people with depression and comorbid diabetes or cardiovascular disease: a Markov model informed by the COINCIDE randomised controlled trial , 2016, BMJ Open.

[17]  Karl Claxton,et al.  Unrelated Future Costs and Unrelated Future Benefits: Reflections on NICE Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. , 2016, Health economics.

[18]  J. Holroyd-Leduc,et al.  Measuring Resource Utilization , 2016, Medicine.

[19]  J. Kai,et al.  A randomised controlled trial of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system in primary care against standard treatment for menorrhagia: the ECLIPSE trial. , 2015, Health technology assessment.

[20]  P. Doherty,et al.  Cardiac rehabilitation , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  Karl Claxton,et al.  Methods for the estimation of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. , 2015, Health technology assessment.

[22]  Manuel Gomes,et al.  A Guide to Handling Missing Data in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Conducted Within Randomised Controlled Trials , 2014, PharmacoEconomics.

[23]  A. F. Stern The hospital anxiety and depression scale. , 2014, Occupational medicine.

[24]  N. Morina,et al.  THE EFFICACY OF METACOGNITIVE THERAPY FOR ANXIETY AND DEPRESSION: A META‐ANALYTIC REVIEW , 2014, Depression and anxiety.

[25]  Jon Sussex,et al.  Critique of CHE Research Paper 81: Methods for the Estimation of the NICE Cost Effectiveness Threshold , 2013 .

[26]  M. Drummond,et al.  Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. , 2013, BMJ.

[27]  R. Little,et al.  The prevention and treatment of missing data in clinical trials. , 2012, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  T. Kohlmann,et al.  Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. , 2012, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[29]  Anthony J. Culyer,et al.  The NICE Cost-Effectiveness Threshold , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[30]  Casper J. P. Zhang,et al.  INTERIM SCORING FOR THE EQ-5 D-5 L : MAPPING THE EQ-5 D-5 L TO EQ-5 D-3 L VALUE SETS Methodology , 2011 .

[31]  Adrian Wells,et al.  Metacognitive Therapy for Anxiety and Depression , 2008 .

[32]  H. Cox,et al.  A brief cognitive behavioural preimplantation and rehabilitation programme for patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator improves physical health and reduces psychological morbidity and unplanned readmissions , 2007, Heart.

[33]  A J Mourant,et al.  Home-based cardiac rehabilitation versus hospital-based rehabilitation: a cost effectiveness analysis. , 2007, International journal of cardiology.

[34]  Ian R White,et al.  Adjusting for partially missing baseline measurements in randomized trials , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[35]  H. Hahmann,et al.  Validation of the EuroQol questionnaire in cardiac rehabilitation , 2005, Heart.

[36]  D. Stewart,et al.  Cardiac rehabilitation II: referral and participation. , 2002, General hospital psychiatry.

[37]  Edward R. Watkins,et al.  Attention and emotion: A clinical perspective , 1997 .

[38]  A. Wells,et al.  Modelling cognition in emotional disorder: the S-REF model. , 1996, Behaviour research and therapy.

[39]  A. Wells,et al.  Attention and Emotion: A Clinical Perspective , 1994 .

[40]  R. Snaith,et al.  The Hospital Anxiety And Depression Scale , 2003, Health and quality of life outcomes.