Cost-utility of cognitive behavioral therapy versus U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommended drugs and usual care in the treatment of patients with fibromyalgia: an economic evaluation alongside a 6-month randomized controlled trial

Abstract

IntroductionCognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended pharmacologic treatments (RPTs; pregabalin, duloxetine, and milnacipran) are effective treatment options for fibromyalgia (FM) syndrome and are currently recommended by clinical guidelines. We compared the cost-utility from the healthcare and societal perspectives of CBT versus RPT (combination of pregabalin + duloxetine) and usual care (TAU) groups in the treatment of FM.MethodsThe economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 6-month, multicenter, randomized, blinded, parallel group, controlled trial. In total, 168 FM patients from 41 general practices in Zaragoza (Spain) were randomized to CBT (n = 57), RPT (n = 56), or TAU (n = 55). The main outcome measures were Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs, assessed by using the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire) and improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL, assessed by using EuroQoL-5D visual analogue scale, EQ-VAS). The costs of healthcare use were estimated from patient self-reports (Client Service Receipt Inventory). Cost-utility was assessed by using the net-benefit approach and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs).ResultsOn average, the total costs per patient in the CBT group (1,847€) were significantly lower than those in patients receiving RPT (3,664€) or TAU (3,124€). Patients receiving CBT reported a higher quality of life (QALYs and EQ-VAS scores); the differences between groups were significant only for EQ-VAS. From a complete case-analysis approach (base case), the point estimates of the cost-effectiveness ratios resulted in dominance for the CBT group in all of the comparisons performed, by using both QALYs and EQ-VAS as outcomes. These findings were confirmed by bootstrap analyses, net-benefit curves, and CEACs. Two additional sensitivity analyses (intention-to-treat analysis and per-protocol analysis) indicated that the results were robust. The comparison of RPT with TAU yielded no clear preference for either treatment when using QALYs, although RPT was determined to be more cost-effective than TAU when evaluating EQ-VAS.ConclusionsBecause of lower costs, CBT is the most cost-effective treatment for adult FM patients. Implementation in routine medical care would require policymakers to develop more-widespread public access to trained and experienced therapists in group-based forms of CBT.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN10804772. Registered 29 September 2008.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13075-014-0451-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Approach as a key for success: Reduced avoidance behaviour mediates the effect of exposure therapy for fibromyalgia

“…92,93 Additionally, there is little evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of CBT for FM. [94][95][96][97]…”

Cost-Utility of Group Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Fibromyalgia Versus Recommended Drugs: An Economic Analysis Alongside a 6-Month Randomized Controlled Trial Conducted in Spain (EFFIGACT Study)

“…The cost-effectiveness analysis indicated that when 1 additional point improvement was gained on the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, an amount of €40 was saved. Future studies should address the cost-effectiveness of ACT for chronic pain patients compared to classical treatment options, such as CBT 19 or psycho-education 22 .…”

Is There Evidence for any Truly Effective Therapy in Fibromyalgia?

“…A combination of pregabalin or SNRIs as pharmacological interventions and multicomponent therapy, aerobic exercise and CBT as nonpharmacological interventions was recommended as the most promising for the management of FM. An economic model found that CBT was the most cost-effective treatment for adult FM patients [21].…”