Dataset Information

Cost-utility analysis of a multicomponent intervention for fibromyalgia syndrome in primary care versus usual clinical practice: study protocol for an economic evaluation of a randomised control trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) imposes a high cost on society. The significant economic burden from the use of healthcare and, especially, social resources is a spur to revising the usual clinical care (UCC) and to improving treatment strategies. FMS has a deleterious effect on the quality of life (QOL) and productivity, which considerably increase the indirect costs to society. This study reports an economic evaluation comparing the cost and health benefits in a multicomponent intervention programme and UCC of patients with FMS who attend primary healthcare centres of the Gerència Territorial Terres de L'Ebre region of Catalonia, Spain. This article is linked to the pre-results of a randomised control trial study on the implementation of this intervention programme (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04049006).

Method and analysis

A cost-utility analysis will be conducted from a societal perspective. Quality-adjusted life years will be calculated from the results of the SF-36 questionnaire, a QOL measurement instrument. Direct and indirect healthcare costs will be obtained from official prices and reports published by the Spanish Public Health Administration and the National Statistics Institute. The incremental cost-utility ratio will be estimated to compare the two healthcare practices. Deterministic sensitivity analysis will also be used to compare different cost scenarios, modifying the items with the highest weight in the cost composition.

Ethics and dissemination

The Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the IDIAPJGol Institute approved this study on 25 April 2018 (code P18/068) in accordance with the Helsinki/Tokyo Declaration. Information will be provided orally and in writing to participants, and their informed consent will be required. Participant anonymity will be guaranteed. The dissemination strategy includes publications in scientific journals and presentations in local and national media and at academic conferences. Trial registration number: NCT04049006; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Arfuch VM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7925862 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the health-economic costs and benefits of a guided eHealth intervention (E-health module embedded in Collaborative Occupational healthcare (ECO)) encouraging sick-listed employees to a faster return to work. DESIGN:A two-armed cluster randomised trial with occupational physicians (OPs) (n=62), clustered and randomised by region into an experimental and a control group, to conduct a health-economic investment appraisal. Online self-reported data were collected from employees at baseline, after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. SETTING:Occupational health care in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:Employees from small-sized and medium-sized companies (?18 years), sick-listed between 4 and 26 weeks with (symptoms of) common mental disorders visiting their OP. INTERVENTIONS:In the intervention group, employees (N=131) received an eHealth module aimed at changing cognitions regarding return to work, while OPs were supported by a decision aid for treatment and referral options. Employees in the control condition (N=89) received usual sickness guidance. OUTCOMES MEASURES:Net benefits and return on investment based on absenteeism, presenteeism, health care use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS:From the employer's perspective, the incremental net benefits were €3187 per employee over a single year, representing a return of investment of €11 per invested Euro, with a break-even point at 6 months. The economic case was also favourable from the employee's perspective, partly because of QALY health gains. The intervention was costing €234 per employee from a health service financier's perspective. The incremental net benefits from a social perspective were €4210. This amount dropped to €3559 in the sensitivity analysis trimming the 5% highest costs. CONCLUSIONS:The data suggest that the ECO intervention offers good value for money for virtually all stakeholders involved, because initial investments were more than recouped within a single year. The sometimes wide 95% CIs suggest that the costs and benefits are not always very precise estimates and real benefits could vary considerably. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NTR2108; Results.

Project description:ObjectiveTen Top Tips (10TT) is a primary care-led behavioural intervention which aims to help adults reduce and manage their weight by following 10 weight loss tips. The intervention promotes habit formation to encourage long-term behavioural changes. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 10TT in general practice from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.DesignAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside an individually randomised controlled trial.Setting14 general practitioner practices in England.ParticipantsAll patients were aged ≥18 years, with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. A total of 537 patients were recruited; 270 received the usual care offered by their practices and 267 received the 10TT intervention.Outcomes measuresHealth service use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were measured over 2 years. Analysis was conducted in terms of incremental net monetary benefits (NMBs), using non-parametric bootstrapping and multiple imputation.ResultsOver a 2-year time horizon, the mean costs and QALYs per patient in the 10TT group were £1889 (95% CI £1522 to £2566) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.44 to 1.58). The mean costs and QALYs for usual care were £1925 (95% CI £1599 to £2251) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.45 to 1.57), respectively. This generated a mean cost difference of -£36 (95% CI -£512 to £441) and a mean QALY difference of 0.001 (95% CI -0.080 to 0.082). The incremental NMB for 10TT versus usual care was £49 (95% CI -£1709 to £1800) at a maximum willingness to pay for a QALY of £20 000. 10TT had a 52% probability of being cost-effective at this threshold.ConclusionsCosts and QALYs for 10TT were not significantly different from usual care and therefore 10TT is as cost-effective as usual care. There was no evidence to recommend nor advice against offering 10TT to obese patients in general practices based on cost-effectiveness considerations.Trial registration numberISRCTN16347068; Post-results.

Project description:ObjectiveTo undertake a cost-utility analysis of a motivational multicomponent lifestyle-modification intervention in a community setting (the Healthy Eating Lifestyle Programme (HELP)) compared with enhanced standard care.DesignCost-utility analysis alongside a randomised controlled trial.SettingCommunity settings in Greater London, England.Participants174 young people with obesity aged 12-19 years.InterventionsIntervention participants received 12 one-to-one sessions across 6?months, addressing lifestyle behaviours and focusing on motivation to change and self-esteem rather than weight change, delivered by trained graduate health workers in community settings. Control participants received a single 1-hour one-to-one nurse-delivered session providing didactic weight-management advice.Main outcome measuresMean costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per participant over a 1-year period using resource use data and utility values collected during the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated and non-parametric bootstrapping was conducted to generate a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC).ResultsMean intervention costs per participant were £918 for HELP and £68 for enhanced standard care. There were no significant differences between the two groups in mean resource use per participant for any type of healthcare contact. Adjusted costs were significantly higher in the intervention group (mean incremental costs for HELP vs enhanced standard care £1003 (95% CI £837 to £1168)). There were no differences in adjusted QALYs between groups (mean QALYs gained 0.008 (95% CI -0.031 to 0.046)). The ICER of the HELP versus enhanced standard care was £120?630 per QALY gained. The CEAC shows that the probability that HELP was cost-effective relative to the enhanced standard care was 0.002 or 0.046, at a threshold of £20?000 or £30?000 per QALY gained.ConclusionsWe did not find evidence that HELP was more effective than a single educational session in improving quality of life in a sample of adolescents with obesity. HELP was associated with higher costs, mainly due to the extra costs of delivering the intervention and therefore is not cost-effective.Trial registration numberISRCTN9984011.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The EUDAIMON study focuses on fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS), a prevalent chronic condition characterized by pain, fatigue, cognitive problems and distress. According to recent reviews and meta-analyses, Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) is a promising therapeutic approach for patients with FMS. The measurement of biomarkers as part of the analysis of MBSR effects would help to identify the neurobiological underpinnings of MBSR and increase our knowledge of FMS pathophysiology. The main objectives of this 12-month RCT are: firstly, to examine the effectiveness and cost-utility for FMS patients of MBSR as an add-on to treatment as usual (TAU) versus TAU?+?the psychoeducational programme FibroQoL, and versus TAU only; secondly, to examine pre-post differences in brain structure and function, as well as levels of specific inflammatory markers in the three study arms and; thirdly, to analyse the role of some psychological variables as mediators of 12-month clinical outcomes. METHODS:Effectiveness, cost-utility, and neurobiological analyses performed alongside a 12-month RCT. The participants will be 180 adult patients with FMS recruited at the Sant Joan de Déu hospital (St. Boi de Llobregat, Spain), randomly allocated to one of the three study arms: TAU?+?MBSR vs. TAU?+?FibroQol vs. TAU. A comprehensive assessment to collect functional, quality of life, distress, costs, and psychological variables will be conducted pre-, post-intervention, and at 12-month post-intervention. Fifty per cent of study participants will be evaluated at pre- and post-treatment using Voxel-Based Morphometry, Diffusion Tensor Imaging, pseudo-continuous Arterial Spin Labeling, and resting state fMRI. A cytokine multiplex kit of high-sensitivity will be applied (cytokines IL-6, IL-8, IL-10?+?high-sensitivity CRP test). DISCUSSION:The findings obtained from this RCT will indicate whether MBSR is potentially cost-effective for FMS and contribute to knowledge of any brain and inflammatory changes associated with MBSR in FMS patients. Specifically, we will determine whether there are morphometric and functional changes associated with participation in MBSR in brain regions related to meta-awareness, body awareness, memory consolidation-reconsolidation, emotion regulation and in networks postulated to underpin the sensory-discriminative, cognitive-evaluative and affective-motivational aspects of the pain experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT02561416 . Registered 23 September 2015.