J M Joesch1, C D Sherbourne, G Sullivan, M B Stein, M G Craske, P Roy-Byrne. 1. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington School of Medicine and Harborview Center for Healthcare Improvement for Addictions, Mental Illness, and Medically Vulnerable Populations (CHAMMP), Seattle, WA 98104-2499, USA. joesch@uw.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of mental health care requires integrating successful research interventions into 'real-world' practice settings. Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management (CALM) is a treatment-delivery model for anxiety disorders encountered in primary care. CALM offers cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), medication, or both; non-expert care managers assisting primary care clinicians with adherence promotion and medication optimization; computer-assisted CBT delivery; and outcome monitoring. This study describes incremental benefits, costs and net benefits of CALM versus usual care (UC). METHOD: The CALM randomized, controlled effectiveness trial was conducted in 17 primary care clinics in four US cities from 2006 to 2009. Of 1062 eligible patients, 1004 English- or Spanish-speaking patients aged 18-75 years with panic disorder (PD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety disorder (SAD) and/or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with or without major depression were randomized. Anxiety-free days (AFDs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and expenditures for out-patient visits, emergency room (ER) visits, in-patient stays and psychiatric medications were estimated based on blinded telephone assessments at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months. RESULTS: Over 18 months, CALM participants, on average, experienced 57.1 more AFDs [95% confidence interval (CI) 31-83] and $245 additional medical expenses (95% CI $-733 to $1223). The mean incremental net benefit (INB) of CALM versus UC was positive when an AFD was valued ≥$4. For QALYs based on the Short-Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12) and the EuroQol EQ-5D, the mean INB was positive at ≥$5000. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with UC, CALM provides significant benefits with modest increases in health-care expenditures.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Improving the quality of mental health care requires integrating successful research interventions into 'real-world' practice settings. Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management (CALM) is a treatment-delivery model for anxiety disorders encountered in primary care. CALM offers cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), medication, or both; non-expert care managers assisting primary care clinicians with adherence promotion and medication optimization; computer-assisted CBT delivery; and outcome monitoring. This study describes incremental benefits, costs and net benefits of CALM versus usual care (UC). METHOD: The CALM randomized, controlled effectiveness trial was conducted in 17 primary care clinics in four US cities from 2006 to 2009. Of 1062 eligible patients, 1004 English- or Spanish-speaking patients aged 18-75 years with panic disorder (PD), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety disorder (SAD) and/or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with or without major depression were randomized. Anxiety-free days (AFDs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and expenditures for out-patient visits, emergency room (ER) visits, in-patient stays and psychiatric medications were estimated based on blinded telephone assessments at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months. RESULTS: Over 18 months, CALM participants, on average, experienced 57.1 more AFDs [95% confidence interval (CI) 31-83] and $245 additional medical expenses (95% CI $-733 to $1223). The mean incremental net benefit (INB) of CALM versus UC was positive when an AFD was valued ≥$4. For QALYs based on the Short-Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12) and the EuroQol EQ-5D, the mean INB was positive at ≥$5000. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with UC, CALM provides significant benefits with modest increases in health-care expenditures.
Authors: Bruce L Rollman; Bea Herbeck Belnap; Sati Mazumdar; Patricia R Houck; Fang Zhu; William Gardner; Charles F Reynolds; Herbert C Schulberg; M Katherine Shear Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2005-12
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Patricia Berglund; Olga Demler; Robert Jin; Kathleen R Merikangas; Ellen E Walters Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2005-06
Authors: Laura Campbell-Sills; Sonya B Norman; Michelle G Craske; Greer Sullivan; Ariel J Lang; Denise A Chavira; Alexander Bystritsky; Cathy Sherbourne; Peter Roy-Byrne; Murray B Stein Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2008-05-16 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Dina Jankovic; Laura Bojke; David Marshall; Pedro Saramago Goncalves; Rachel Churchill; Hollie Melton; Sally Brabyn; Lina Gega Journal: Appl Health Econ Health Policy Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 2.561
Authors: Bruce L Rollman; Bea Herbeck Belnap; Sati Mazumdar; Kaleab Z Abebe; Jordan F Karp; Eric J Lenze; Herbert C Schulberg Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-10-06 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Lisa S Meredith; David P Eisenman; Bonnie L Green; Stacey Kaltman; Eunice C Wong; Bing Han; Andrea Cassells; Jonathan N Tobin Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-04-18 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Lina Gega; Dina Jankovic; Pedro Saramago; David Marshall; Sarah Dawson; Sally Brabyn; Georgios F Nikolaidis; Hollie Melton; Rachel Churchill; Laura Bojke Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2022-01 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Shelley Reetz; Gregory Clarke; Robin Weersing; Nader Amir; John Dickerson; Frances L Lynch; Michael C Leo; Andreea M Rawlings; Mi H Lee; Sara Gille Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2019-10-22 Impact factor: 3.630
Authors: Frances L Lynch; John F Dickerson; Michelle S Rozenman; Araceli Gonzalez; Karen T G Schwartz; Giovanna Porta; Maureen O'Keeffe-Rosetti; David Brent; V Robin Weersing Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-03-01
Authors: Christian Brettschneider; Jochen Gensichen; Thomas S Hiller; Jörg Breitbart; Ulrike Schumacher; Karoline Lukaschek; Tobias Teismann; Jürgen Margraf; Hans-Helmut König Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 5.128