Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Routine Screening for Autoimmune Encephalitis in Patients With First-Episode Psychosis in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Autoimmune encephalitis (AE) is a highly treatable neurologic condition that can cause psychosis. Screening for AE is not currently recommended in routine workup for first-episode psychosis (FEP), owing partly to the high cost of testing for AE-associated neuronal autoantibodies.

Methods

This study used a decision-analytic model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of routine serum screening for AE compared with clinically targeted screening in patients with FEP. Model parameters drawn from prior published literature included the prevalence of neuronal autoantibodies in FEP (4.5%), serum autoantibody panel cost (US $291), remission probability with antipsychotics (0.58), and remission probability with immunotherapy for patients diagnosed with AE (0.85). Outcomes included quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), assessed over a 5-year horizon from the US health care sector and societal perspectives. ICER thresholds of $50,000/QALY to $150,000/QALY were used to define cost-effectiveness. The analysis was conducted between June 2018 and January 2020.

Results

Routine screening led to mean QALY gains of 0.008 among all patients and 0.174 among the subgroup of patients with neuronal autoantibodies. Mean costs increased by $780 from a societal perspective and $1,150 from a health care sector perspective, resulting in ICERs of $99,330/QALY and $147,460/QALY, respectively. Incorporating joint input data uncertainty, the likelihood routine screening has an ICER ≤ $150,000/QALY was 55% from a societal perspective and 37% from a health care sector perspective. The model parameter with the greatest contribution to overall uncertainty was the effectiveness of immunotherapy relative to antipsychotics.

Conclusions

Routine screening for AE in patients with FEP may be cost-effective in the United States. As further immunotherapy effectiveness data become available, a more definitive recommendation to perform routine screening could be warranted.

SUBMITTER: Ross EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7919384 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThough olfactory deficits are well-documented in schizophrenia, fewer studies have examined olfactory performance profiles across the psychosis spectrum. The current study examined odor identification, discrimination, and detection threshold performance in first-episode psychosis (FEP) patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder with psychotic features, major depression with psychotic features, and other psychotic conditions.MethodFEP patients (n = 97) and healthy adults (n = 98) completed birhinal assessments of odor identification, discrimination, and detection threshold sensitivity for lyral and citralva. Participants also completed measures of anticipatory pleasure, anhedonia, and empathy. Differences in olfactory performances were assessed between FEP patients and controls and within FEP subgroups. Sex-stratified post hoc analyses were employed for a complete analysis of sex differences. Relationships between self-report measures and olfactory scores were also examined.ResultsIndividuals with psychosis had poorer scores across all olfactory measures when compared to the control group. Within the psychosis cohort, patients with schizophrenia-associated psychosis had poorer odor identification, discrimination, and citralva detection threshold scores relative to controls. In schizophrenia patients, greater olfactory disturbance was associated with increased negative symptomatology, greater self-reported anhedonia, and lower self-reported anticipatory pleasure. Patients with mood-associated psychosis performed comparable to controls though men and women in this cohort showed differential olfactory profiles.ConclusionsThese findings indicate that olfactory deficits extend beyond measures of odor identification in FEP with greater deficits observed in schizophrenia-related subgroups of psychosis. Studies examining whether greater olfactory dysfunction confers greater risk for developing schizophrenia relative to other forms of psychosis are warranted.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough effective treatments are available to address the cognitive deficits experienced by individuals with first-episode psychosis, provision of such treatments within Coordinated Specialty Care (CSC) programs is rare. One factor that may contribute to this is uncertainty about the cost implications of providing cognitive-enhancing treatments within the American mental healthcare system. The aim of this study is to complete a naturalistic evaluation of the cost utility of incorporating two different cognitive-enhancing interventions within an American CSC program.MethodsParticipants included 66, predominately white (75.38%), individuals with first-episode psychosis (19 women and 47 men) with a mean age of 22.71 years. Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost of care were tracked among these individuals during their participation in a CSC program. These data were compared among three groups of participants during their first six months of care: (i) individuals who participated in metacognitive remediation therapy (MCR), (ii) individuals who participated in computerized cognitive remediation (CCR), and (iii) individuals who participated in no cognitive-enhancing intervention.ResultsParticipation in MCR, but not CCR, was associated with larger gains in QALYs than participation in no cognitive-enhancing intervention within a CSC program. Moreover, data support the cost utility of MCR as compared to CCR or no-cognitive enhancing intervention within a CSC program. Conversely, CCR did not appear to be a cost-effective addition to CSC services.ConclusionsOur results highlight the potential cost utility of incorporating MCR within CSC programs for individuals with first-episode psychosis. However, given study limitations, these results should be interpreted cautiously until replicated by large, randomized controlled trials. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01570972, registered April 4, 2012, Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01570972?term=breitborde&draw=2&rank=6 .