Exposure-based treatments for childhood abuse-related post-traumatic stress disorder in adults: a health-economic evaluation

Background: Prolonged exposure (PE) is an effective treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Objective: This study aimed to analyse the cost-effectiveness of three exposure-based treatments in patients with childhood abuse-related PTSD. Method: A net–benefit analysis was conducted alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with participants (N = 149) randomized to three conditions: PE (n = 48), intensified PE (i-PE, n = 51), and phase-based PE [Skills Training in Affective and Interpersonal Regulation (STAIR) + PE, n = 50]. Assessments took place at baseline (T0), post-treatment (T3), 6 month follow-up (T4), and 12 month follow-up (T5). Costs stemming from healthcare utilization and productivity losses were estimated using the Trimbos/iMTA questionnaire for Costs associated with Psychiatric Illness. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were based on the 5-level EuroQoL 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) using the Dutch tariff. Missing values of costs and utilities were multiply imputed. To compare i-PE to PE and STAIR + PE to PE, pair-wise unequal-variance t-tests were conducted. Net–benefit analysis was used to relate costs to QALYs and to draw acceptability curves. Results: Intervention costs did not differ across the three treatment conditions. Total medical costs, productivity losses, total societal costs, and EQ-5D-5L-based QALYs did not differ between treatment conditions either (all p > .10). At the relevant €50,000/QALY threshold, the probability of one treatment being more cost-effective than another was 32%, 28%, and 40% for PE, i-PE, and STAIR-PE, respectively. Conclusion: Three equally effective treatments were compared and no differences in cost-effectiveness between treatments were found. Therefore, we advocate the implementation and adoption of any of the treatments and endorse shared decision making.