Tapering Off Benzodiazepines in Long-Term Users
- 82 Downloads
Background: Discontinuation of benzodiazepine usage has never been evaluated in economic terms. This study aimed to compare the relative costs and outcomes of tapering off long-term benzodiazepine use combined with group cognitive behavioural therapy (TO+CBT), tapering off alone (TOA) and usual care.
Method: A randomised controlled trial was conducted, incorporating a costeffectiveness analysis from a societal as well as a pharmaceutical perspective.
The cost of intervention treatment, prescribed drugs, healthcare services, productivity loss, and patients’ costs were measured using drug prescription data and cost diaries. Costs were indexed at 2001 prices. The principal outcome was the proportion of patients able to discontinue benzodiazepine use during the 18-month follow-up. A secondary outcome measure was quality of life (Health Utility Index Mark III [HUI-3] and the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short-Form Health Survey [SF-36]).
Results: A total of 180 patients were randomised to one of TO+CBT (n = 73), TOA (n = 73) or usual care (n = 34). Intervention treatment costs were an average of €172.99 per patient for TO+CBT and €69.50 per patient for TOA. Both treatment conditions significantly reduced benzodiazepine costs during follow-up compared with usual care. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) showed that, for each incremental 1% successful benzodiazepine discontinuation, TO+CBT cost €10.30–62.53 versus usual care, depending on the study perspective. However, TO+CBT was extendedly dominated or was dominated by TOA. This resulted in ICERs of €0.57, €10.21 and €48.92 for TOA versus usual care from the limited pharmaceutical, comprehensive pharmaceutical and societal perspective, respectively.
Conclusions: TO+CBT and TOA both led to a reduction in benzodiazepine costs. However, it remains uncertain which healthcare utilisation has a causal relationship with long-term benzodiazepine consumption or its treatment. Although the ICERs indicated better cost effectiveness for TOA than for TO+CBT, the differences were relatively small. The addition of group CBT to tapering off had no clinical or economic advantages. Extrapolation of our data showed that the investment in TOA was paid back after 19 months when corrected for treatment gain with usual care.
KeywordsUsual Care Group Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Cost Diary Usual Care Control Group Successful Discontinuation
The study was supported by the Dutch Health Care Insurance Council, The Hague, The Netherlands.
The roles each author played in the conduct of the study are as follows.
R.C. Oude Voshaar: critique and revision of design; elaboration of intervention content; recruitment and monitoring of GPs and psychologists; acquisition and analysis of data; drafting the article.
P.F.M. Krabbe: critique and revision of design with respect to QOL; monitoring data acquisition; QOL data analyses; critical revision of article.
W.J.M.J. Gorgels: critique and revision of design; elaboration of intervention content; acquisition and monitoring of GPs; acquisition of data; critical revision of article.
E.M.M. Adang: critique and revision of design with respect to cost effectiveness; monitoring data acquisition; cost-effectiveness data analyses; interpretation of analyses, critical revision of article.
A.J.L.M. van Balkom: acquisition of funding; initial concept and design; elaboration of intervention content; interpretation of analyses, critique and revision of article.
E.H. van de Lisdonk: acquisition of funding; initial concept and design; elaboration of intervention content; interpretation of analyses, critique and revision of article.
F.G. Zitman: acquisition of funding; intial concept and design; elaboration of intervention content; interpretation of analyses; critique and revision of article.
None of the authors have potential conflicts of interest relevant to the contents of the study.
- 4.USA Food and Drug Administration. Prescribing of minor tranquillizers. FDA Drug Bull 1980; 10: 2–3Google Scholar
- 5.Committee on the Review of Medicines. Systematic review of the benzodiazepines. BMJ 1980; 1: 910–912Google Scholar
- 6.Knuistingh-Neven A, de Graaff WJ, Lucassen PLBJ, et al. NHG-standaard Slapeloosheid en slaapmiddelen. Huisarts Wet 1992; 35: 212–219Google Scholar
- 7.Neomagus Gill, Terluin B, Aulbers LPJ, et al. NHG-standaard Angststoornissen. Huisarts Wet 1997; 40: 167–175Google Scholar
- 16.Piepenbrink JF, editor. College voor zorgverzekeringen. Use of benzodiazepines 1993–1998 [in German]. Amstelveen: Geneesmiddelen Informatie Project (GIP-signaal), 2000Google Scholar
- 17.Herings RMC. Drugs as determinants of accidents [in German]. Utrecht: Faculteit Pharmacie, 1994Google Scholar
- 29.Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, et al. Multiplicative multi-attribute utility function for the health utility index mark 3 (HUI3) system: a technical report. Working paper 98-11. Toronto (ON): McMaster University Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, 1998Google Scholar
- 32.Van der Zee KI, Snaderman R. Measuring general health status with the RAND-36. Users manual [in German]. Groningen: Nothern Center of Health Care Research, 1993Google Scholar
- 33.WHO Collaborating Centre for Drugs Statistics Methodology. Guidelines ATC classification and DDD assignment. 1st ed. Oslo: WHO/NCM, 1996Google Scholar
- 34.Oostenbrink JB, Koopmanschap MA, Rutten FFH. Handleiding voor kostenonderzoek, methoden en richtlijnprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg. Amstelveen: College voor zorgverzekeringen, 2000Google Scholar
- 35.Commissie Farmaceutische Hulp van bet College voor zorgverzekekeringen (CVZ). Farmacotherapeutische kompas. Amstelveen: CVZ, 2002: 53–66, 69-81Google Scholar
- 36.CBS statistieken, bron statline [online]. Available from URL:http://www.cbs.nl [Accessed 2002 Aug]Google Scholar
- 39.Van Hulten R, Teeuw KB, Bakker A, et al. Health-related quality of life in current benzodiazepine users and general population controls. In: Blue boy — why not? Studies on benzodiazepine use in a Dutch community [dissertation]. Utrecht: Rolf van Hulten & Stichting Kalamiteit, 1998: 73–88Google Scholar