Economic evaluation of multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment versus cognitive behavioural therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome: A randomized controlled trial

Background

A multi-centre RCT has shown that multidisciplinary rehabilitation treatment (MRT) is more effective in reducing fatigue over the long-term in comparison with cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but evidence on its costeffectiveness is lacking.

Aim

To compare the cost-effectiveness of MRT versus CBT for patients with CFS from a societal perspective.

Methods

A multi-centre randomized controlled trial comparing MRT with CBT was conducted among 122 patients with CFS diagnosed using the 1994 criteria of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and aged between 18 and 60 years. The societal costs (healthcare costs, patient and family costs, and costs for loss of productivity), fatigue severity, quality of life, quality-adjusted life-year (QALY), and cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were measured over a follow-up period of one year. The main outcome of the cost-effectiveness analysis was fatigue measured by the Checklist Individual Strength (CIS). The main outcome of the cost-utility analysis was the QALY based on the EuroQol-5D-3L utilities. Sensitivity analyseswere performed, and uncertainty was calculated using the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and cost-effectiveness planes.

Results

The data of 109 patients (57 MRT and 52 CBT) were analyzed. MRT was significantly more effective in reducing fatigue at 52 weeks. The mean difference in QALY between the treatments was not significant (0.09, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.19). The total societal costs were significantly higher for patients allocated to MRT (a difference of 5,389, 95% CI: 2,488 to 8,091). MRT has a high probability of being the most cost effective, using fatigue as the primary outcome. The ICER is 856 per unit of the CIS fatigue subscale. The results of the cost-utility analysis, using the QALY, indicate that the CBT had a higher likelihood of being more costeffective.

Conclusions

The probability of being more cost-effective is higher for MRT when using fatigue as primary outcome variable. Using QALY as the primary outcome, CBT has the highest probability of being more cost-effective.