Systematic review highlights the cost-effectiveness of CBT-I and pharmacotherapy in insomnia, suggesting implications for healthcare systems.
Insomnia and hypersomnia are sleep conditions associated with significant costs to the healthcare system and society. This study aimed to review the cost-effectiveness evidence of interventions for insomnia and hypersomnia, including psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy, and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), across the age spectrum. A systematic search (from inception to 18th February 2025) was conducted in electronic databases (Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Econlit and Embase) and Health Technology Assessment websites. Full economic evaluations and return-on-investment analyses were included if they focused on treatments targeting insomnia or hypersomnia in people aged ≥12 years. The Drummond checklist was used to evaluate the quality of eligible studies. Narrative synthesis was applied to extract study characteristics and economic evaluation outcomes. Twenty-eight studies met the pre-defined criteria, including 26 for adults and older adults with insomnia, two for adolescents with insomnia, and no studies were found for hypersomnia treatment. Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) and pharmacotherapy were likely to be cost-effective interventions for insomnia compared to inactive controls. Digital CBT-I was found to generate healthcare and societal cost savings when compared to face-to-face CBT-I or pharmacotherapy. The cost-effectiveness of CAM interventions is under-researched and remains unclear. Among insomnia interventions, CBT-I has the strongest cost-effectiveness credentials. Future studies should focus on hypersomnia, adolescent insomnia, and comorbid insomnia and related conditions. CRD42022343067.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Le et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: