Standard Standard

Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive compulsive disorder: the Obsessive Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET). / Lovell, Karina; Bower, Peter; Gellatly, Judith et al.
In: Health Technology Assessment, Vol. 21, No. 37, 04.07.2017, p. 1-164.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

HarvardHarvard

Lovell, K, Bower, P, Gellatly, J, Byford, S, Bee, PE, McMillan, D, Arundel, CE, Gilbody, SM, Gega, L, Hardy, G, Reynolds, S, Barkham, M, Mottram, P, Lidbetter, N, Pedley, R, Molle, J, Peckham, EJ, Knopp-Hoffer, J, Price, O, Connell, J, Heslin, M, Foley, C, Plummer, F & Roberts, C 2017, 'Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive compulsive disorder: the Obsessive Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET)', Health Technology Assessment, vol. 21, no. 37, pp. 1-164. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta21370

APA

Lovell, K., Bower, P., Gellatly, J., Byford, S., Bee, P. E., McMillan, D., Arundel, C. E., Gilbody, S. M., Gega, L., Hardy, G., Reynolds, S., Barkham, M., Mottram, P., Lidbetter, N., Pedley, R., Molle, J., Peckham, E. J., Knopp-Hoffer, J., Price, O., ... Roberts, C. (2017). Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive compulsive disorder: the Obsessive Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET). Health Technology Assessment, 21(37), 1-164. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta21370

CBE

MLA

VancouverVancouver

Author

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive compulsive disorder: the Obsessive Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET)

AU - Lovell, Karina

AU - Bower, Peter

AU - Gellatly, Judith

AU - Byford, Sarah

AU - Bee, Penny E.

AU - McMillan, Dean

AU - Arundel, Catherine Ellen

AU - Gilbody, Simon Martin

AU - Gega, Lina

AU - Hardy, Gillian

AU - Reynolds, Shirley

AU - Barkham, Michael

AU - Mottram, Patricia

AU - Lidbetter, Nicola

AU - Pedley, Rebecca

AU - Molle, Jo

AU - Peckham, Emily Jane

AU - Knopp-Hoffer, Jasmin

AU - Price, Owen

AU - Connell, Janice

AU - Heslin, Margaret

AU - Foley, Christopher

AU - Plummer, Faye

AU - Roberts, Christopher

N1 - © Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2017. This work was produced by Lovell et al.

PY - 2017/7/4

Y1 - 2017/7/4

N2 - Background: The Obsessive-Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial emerged from a research recommendation in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) guidelines, which specified the need to evaluate cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) treatment intensity formats. Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two low-intensity CBT interventions [supported computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy (cCBT) and guided self-help]: (1) compared with waiting list for high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 3 months; and (2) plus high-intensity CBT compared with waiting list plus high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 12 months. To determine patient and professional acceptability of low-intensity CBT interventions. Design: A three-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Setting: Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services and primary/secondary care mental health services in 15 NHS trusts. Participants: Patients aged ≥ 18 years meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition criteria for OCD, on a waiting list for high-intensity CBT and scoring ≥ 16 on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale Interventions: Participants were randomised to (1) supported cCBT, (2) guided self-help or (3) a waiting list for high-intensity CBT. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was OCD symptoms using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale - Observer Rated. Results: Patients were recruited from 14 NHS trusts between February 2011 and May 2014. Follow-up data collection was complete by May 2015. There were 475 patients randomised: supported cCBT (n = 158); guided self-help (n = 158) and waiting list for high-intensity CBT (n = 159). Two patients were excluded post randomisation (one supported cCBT and one waiting list for high-intensity CBT); therefore, data were analysed for 473 patients. In the short term, prior to accessing high-intensity CBT, guided self-help demonstrated statistically significant benefits over waiting list, but these benefits did not meet the prespecified criterion for clinical significance [adjusted mean difference -1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.27 to -0.55; p = 0.006]. Supported cCBT did not demonstrate any significant benefit (adjusted mean difference -0.71, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.70). In the longer term, access to guided self-help and supported cCBT, prior to high-intensity CBT, did not lead to differences in outcomes compared with access to highintensity CBT alone. Access to guided self-help and supported cCBT led to significant reductions in the uptake of high-intensity CBT; this did not seem to compromise patient outcomes at 12 months. Taking a decision-making approach, which focuses on which decision has a higher probability of being cost-effective, rather than the statistical significance of the results, there was little evidence that supported cCBT and guided self-help are cost-effective at the 3-month follow-up compared with a waiting list. However, by the 12-month follow-up, data suggested a greater probability of guided self-help being cost-effective than a waiting list from the health- and social-care perspective (60%) and the societal perspective (80%), and of supported cCBT being cost-effective compared with a waiting list from both perspectives (70%). Qualitative interviews found that guided self-help was more acceptable to patients than supported cCBT. Professionals acknowledged the advantages of low intensity interventions at a population level. No adverse events occurred during the trial that were deemed to be suspected or unexpected serious events. Limitations: A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the high level of access to high-intensity CBT during the waiting list period. Conclusions: Although low-intensity interventions are not associated with clinically significant improvements in OCD symptoms, economic analysis over 12 months suggests that low-intensity interventions are cost-effective and may have an important role in OCD care pathways. Further research to enhance the clinical effectiveness of these interventions may be warranted, alongside research on how best to incorporate them into care pathways.

AB - Background: The Obsessive-Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial emerged from a research recommendation in National Institute for Health and Care Excellence obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) guidelines, which specified the need to evaluate cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) treatment intensity formats. Objectives: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two low-intensity CBT interventions [supported computerised cognitive-behavioural therapy (cCBT) and guided self-help]: (1) compared with waiting list for high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 3 months; and (2) plus high-intensity CBT compared with waiting list plus high-intensity CBT in adults with OCD at 12 months. To determine patient and professional acceptability of low-intensity CBT interventions. Design: A three-arm, multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Setting: Improving Access to Psychological Therapies services and primary/secondary care mental health services in 15 NHS trusts. Participants: Patients aged ≥ 18 years meeting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition criteria for OCD, on a waiting list for high-intensity CBT and scoring ≥ 16 on the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale Interventions: Participants were randomised to (1) supported cCBT, (2) guided self-help or (3) a waiting list for high-intensity CBT. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was OCD symptoms using the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale - Observer Rated. Results: Patients were recruited from 14 NHS trusts between February 2011 and May 2014. Follow-up data collection was complete by May 2015. There were 475 patients randomised: supported cCBT (n = 158); guided self-help (n = 158) and waiting list for high-intensity CBT (n = 159). Two patients were excluded post randomisation (one supported cCBT and one waiting list for high-intensity CBT); therefore, data were analysed for 473 patients. In the short term, prior to accessing high-intensity CBT, guided self-help demonstrated statistically significant benefits over waiting list, but these benefits did not meet the prespecified criterion for clinical significance [adjusted mean difference -1.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.27 to -0.55; p = 0.006]. Supported cCBT did not demonstrate any significant benefit (adjusted mean difference -0.71, 95% CI -2.12 to 0.70). In the longer term, access to guided self-help and supported cCBT, prior to high-intensity CBT, did not lead to differences in outcomes compared with access to highintensity CBT alone. Access to guided self-help and supported cCBT led to significant reductions in the uptake of high-intensity CBT; this did not seem to compromise patient outcomes at 12 months. Taking a decision-making approach, which focuses on which decision has a higher probability of being cost-effective, rather than the statistical significance of the results, there was little evidence that supported cCBT and guided self-help are cost-effective at the 3-month follow-up compared with a waiting list. However, by the 12-month follow-up, data suggested a greater probability of guided self-help being cost-effective than a waiting list from the health- and social-care perspective (60%) and the societal perspective (80%), and of supported cCBT being cost-effective compared with a waiting list from both perspectives (70%). Qualitative interviews found that guided self-help was more acceptable to patients than supported cCBT. Professionals acknowledged the advantages of low intensity interventions at a population level. No adverse events occurred during the trial that were deemed to be suspected or unexpected serious events. Limitations: A significant issue in the interpretation of the results concerns the high level of access to high-intensity CBT during the waiting list period. Conclusions: Although low-intensity interventions are not associated with clinically significant improvements in OCD symptoms, economic analysis over 12 months suggests that low-intensity interventions are cost-effective and may have an important role in OCD care pathways. Further research to enhance the clinical effectiveness of these interventions may be warranted, alongside research on how best to incorporate them into care pathways.

KW - Adolescent

KW - Adult

KW - Aged

KW - Cognitive Behavioral Therapy/economics

KW - Cost-Benefit Analysis

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Internet/statistics & numerical data

KW - Male

KW - Mental Health

KW - Mental Health Services/organization & administration

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder/therapy

KW - Quality-Adjusted Life Years

KW - Self-Management/methods

KW - Software

KW - State Medicine/economics

KW - Telemedicine/economics

KW - United Kingdom

KW - Waiting Lists

KW - Young Adult

U2 - 10.3310/hta21370

DO - 10.3310/hta21370

M3 - Article

VL - 21

SP - 1

EP - 164

JO - Health Technology Assessment

JF - Health Technology Assessment

SN - 1366-5278

IS - 37

ER -