TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical and cost-effectiveness of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy for insomnia in primary care (HABIT)
T2 - a pragmatic, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial
AU - Kyle, Simon D
AU - Siriwardena, A Niroshan
AU - Espie, Colin A
AU - Yang, Yaling
AU - Petrou, Stavros
AU - Ogburn, Emma
AU - Begum, Nargis
AU - Maurer, Leonie F
AU - Robinson, Barbara
AU - Gardner, Caroline
AU - Lee, Victoria
AU - Armstrong, Stephanie
AU - Pattinson, Julie
AU - Mort, Sam
AU - Temple, Eleanor
AU - Harris, Victoria
AU - Yu, Ly-Mee
AU - Bower, Peter
AU - Aveyard, Paul
N1 - Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
PY - 2023/9/16
Y1 - 2023/9/16
N2 - Background: Insomnia is prevalent and distressing but access to the first-line treatment, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), is extremely limited. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of sleep restriction therapy, a key component of CBT, which has the potential to be widely implemented. Methods: We did a pragmatic, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial of sleep restriction therapy versus sleep hygiene. Adults with insomnia disorder were recruited from 35 general practices across England and randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-based randomisation programme to either four sessions of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy plus a sleep hygiene booklet or a sleep hygiene booklet only. There was no restriction on usual care for either group. Outcomes were assessed at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was self-reported insomnia severity at 6 months measured with the insomnia severity index (ISI). The primary analysis included participants according to their allocated group and who contributed at least one outcome measurement. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN42499563). Findings: Between Aug 29, 2018, and March 23, 2020 we randomly assigned 642 participants to sleep restriction therapy (n=321) or sleep hygiene (n=321). Mean age was 55·4 years (range 19–88), with 489 (76·2%) participants being female and 153 (23·8%) being male. 580 (90·3%) participants provided data for at least one outcome measurement. At 6 months, mean ISI score was 10·9 (SD 5·5) for sleep restriction therapy and 13·9 (5·2) for sleep hygiene (adjusted mean difference –3·05, 95% CI –3·83 to –2·28; p<0·0001; Cohen's d –0·74), indicating that participants in the sleep restriction therapy group reported lower insomnia severity than the sleep hygiene group. The incremental cost per QALY gained was £2076, giving a 95·3% probability that treatment was cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000. Eight participants in each group had serious adverse events, none of which were judged to be related to intervention. Interpretation: Brief nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care reduces insomnia symptoms, is likely to be cost-effective, and has the potential to be widely implemented as a first-line treatment for insomnia disorder. Funding: The National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
AB - Background: Insomnia is prevalent and distressing but access to the first-line treatment, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), is extremely limited. We aimed to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of sleep restriction therapy, a key component of CBT, which has the potential to be widely implemented. Methods: We did a pragmatic, superiority, open-label, randomised controlled trial of sleep restriction therapy versus sleep hygiene. Adults with insomnia disorder were recruited from 35 general practices across England and randomly assigned (1:1) using a web-based randomisation programme to either four sessions of nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy plus a sleep hygiene booklet or a sleep hygiene booklet only. There was no restriction on usual care for either group. Outcomes were assessed at 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was self-reported insomnia severity at 6 months measured with the insomnia severity index (ISI). The primary analysis included participants according to their allocated group and who contributed at least one outcome measurement. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from the UK National Health Service and personal social services perspective and expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. The trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN42499563). Findings: Between Aug 29, 2018, and March 23, 2020 we randomly assigned 642 participants to sleep restriction therapy (n=321) or sleep hygiene (n=321). Mean age was 55·4 years (range 19–88), with 489 (76·2%) participants being female and 153 (23·8%) being male. 580 (90·3%) participants provided data for at least one outcome measurement. At 6 months, mean ISI score was 10·9 (SD 5·5) for sleep restriction therapy and 13·9 (5·2) for sleep hygiene (adjusted mean difference –3·05, 95% CI –3·83 to –2·28; p<0·0001; Cohen's d –0·74), indicating that participants in the sleep restriction therapy group reported lower insomnia severity than the sleep hygiene group. The incremental cost per QALY gained was £2076, giving a 95·3% probability that treatment was cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000. Eight participants in each group had serious adverse events, none of which were judged to be related to intervention. Interpretation: Brief nurse-delivered sleep restriction therapy in primary care reduces insomnia symptoms, is likely to be cost-effective, and has the potential to be widely implemented as a first-line treatment for insomnia disorder. Funding: The National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
KW - Adult
KW - Humans
KW - Male
KW - Female
KW - Young Adult
KW - Middle Aged
KW - Aged
KW - Aged, 80 and over
KW - Cost-Benefit Analysis
KW - Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders/therapy
KW - Treatment Outcome
KW - State Medicine
KW - Habits
KW - Primary Health Care
KW - Sleep
KW - Quality of Life
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85168591517&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00683-9
DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00683-9
M3 - Article
C2 - 37573859
SN - 0140-6736
VL - 402
SP - 975
EP - 987
JO - Lancet (London, England)
JF - Lancet (London, England)
IS - 10406
ER -