Cost-effectiveness of Interventions for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

Abstract

Introduction Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) has profound quality of life and economic consequences for individuals, their family, formal services and wider society. Little is known about which therapeutic interventions are more cost-effective. Objective A systematic review was carried out to identify and critically appraise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of CFS/ME interventions. Methods The review protocol was prespecified (PROSPERO: CRD42018118731). Searches were carried out across two databases—MEDLINE (1946–2020) and EMBASE (1974–2020). Additional studies were identified by searching reference lists. Only peer-reviewed journal articles of full economic evaluations examining CFS/ME interventions were included. Trial- and/or model-based economic evaluations were eligible. Data extraction and screening were carried out independently by two reviewers. The methodological quality of the economic evaluation and trial were assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria checklist (CHEC-list) and Risk of Bias-2 (RoB-2) tool, respectively. A narrative synthesis was used to summarise the economic evidence for interventions for adults and children in primary and secondary care settings. Results Ten economic evaluations, all based on data derived from randomised controlled trials, met our eligibility criteria. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was evaluated across five studies, making it the most commonly evaluated intervention. There was evidence from three trials to support CBT as a cost-effective treatment option for adults; however, findings on CBT were not uniform, suggesting that cost-effectiveness may be context-specific. A wide array of other interventions were evaluated in adults, including limited evidence from two trials supporting the cost effectiveness of graded exercise therapy (GET). Just one study assessed intervention options for children. Our review highlighted the importance of informal care costs and productivity losses in the evaluation of CFS/ME interventions. Conclusions We identified a limited patchwork of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions for CFS/ME. Evidence supports CBT as a cost-effective treatment option for adults; however, cost-effectiveness may depend on the duration and frequency of sessions. Limited evidence supports the cost effectiveness of GET. Key weaknesses in the literature included small sample sizes and short duration of follow-up. Further research is needed on pharmacological interventions and therapies for children. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40258-021-00635-7.

Does whole-body vibration training have a positive effect on balance and walking function in patients with stroke? A meta-analysis

“…If I 2 < 50%, it indicates that there was slight heterogeneity between the studies, and the fixed effect model was used for analysis. If I 2 ≥ 50%, there was heterogeneity in the study, and the random effect model was used for analysis ( Cochrane et al, 2021 ). The α value was set at 0.05 and Stata 12.0 software was used to conduct the publication bias analysis and sensitivity analysis of Begg’s test for the studies with more than 5 included outcome indicators.…”

Benefits, risks, and cost-effectiveness of COVID-19 self-tests from a consumer’s perspective

“…For patients with long COVID syndrome, I used a preference weight for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome, which shows many overlaps with the long COVID syndrome [ 36 ]. To this end, I determined the average of the minimum and maximum preference weight on adult patients (based on the EQ-5D) that were reported in a systematic review on the cost-effectiveness of interventions on the chronic fatigue syndrome [ 27 ]. The range of values was tested in a sensitivity analysis.…”

Effects of the different Tai Chi exercise cycles on patients with essential hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Two independent reviewers, ZY and YY, used the Cochrane Collaboration tool to examine the risk of bias for the included studies (24,25), and cross-checking was conducted. A literature quality grade was performed according to the Jadad Scale.…”