Skip to main content

Research Repository

Advanced Search

Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural and personalized exercise interventions for reducing fatigue in inflammatory rheumatic diseases

Chong, Huey Yi; McNamee, Paul; Bachmair, Eva Maria; Martin, Kathryn; Aucott, Lorna; Dhaun, Neeraj; Dures, Emma; Emsley, Richard; Gray, Stuart; Kidd, Elizabeth; Kumar, Vinod; Lovell, Karina; Maclennan Msc, Graeme; Norrie, John; Paul, Lorna; Packham, Jon; Ralston, Stuart H; Siebert, Stefan; Wearden, Alison; Macfarlane Phd, Gary; Basu, Neil

Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behavioural and personalized exercise interventions for reducing fatigue in inflammatory rheumatic diseases Thumbnail


Authors

Huey Yi Chong

Paul McNamee

Eva Maria Bachmair

Kathryn Martin

Lorna Aucott

Neeraj Dhaun

Emma Dures Emma2.Dures@uwe.ac.uk
Professor in Rheumatology and Self-management

Richard Emsley

Stuart Gray

Elizabeth Kidd

Vinod Kumar

Karina Lovell

Graeme Maclennan Msc

John Norrie

Lorna Paul

Jon Packham

Stuart H Ralston

Stefan Siebert

Alison Wearden

Gary Macfarlane Phd

Neil Basu



Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness of a cognitive behavioural approach (CBA) or a personalized exercise programme (PEP), alongside usual care (UC), in patients with inflammatory rheumatic diseases who report chronic, moderate to severe fatigue. METHODS: A within-trial cost-utility analysis was conducted using individual patient data collected within a multicentre, three-arm randomized controlled trial over a 56-week period. The primary economic analysis was conducted from the UK National Health Service (NHS) perspective. Uncertainty was explored using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: Complete-case analysis showed that, compared with UC, both PEP and CBA were more expensive [adjusted mean cost difference: PEP £569 (95% CI: £464, £665); CBA £845 (95% CI: £717, £993)] and, in the case of PEP, significantly more effective [adjusted mean quality-adjusted life year (QALY) difference: PEP 0.043 (95% CI: 0.019, 0.068); CBA 0.001 (95% CI: -0.022, 0.022)]. These led to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £13 159 for PEP vs UC, and £793 777 for CBA vs UC. Non-parametric bootstrapping showed that, at a threshold value of £20 000 per QALY gained, PEP had a probability of 88% of being cost-effective. In multiple imputation analysis, PEP was associated with significant incremental costs of £428 (95% CI: £324, £511) and a non-significant QALY gain of 0.016 (95% CI: -0.003, 0.035), leading to an ICER of £26 822 vs UC. The estimates from sensitivity analyses were consistent with these results. CONCLUSION: The addition of a PEP alongside UC is likely to provide a cost-effective use of health care resources.

Journal Article Type Article
Acceptance Date Feb 27, 2023
Online Publication Date Apr 5, 2023
Publication Date Dec 31, 2023
Deposit Date Mar 9, 2023
Publicly Available Date Dec 8, 2023
Journal Rheumatology (Oxford, England)
Print ISSN 1462-0324
Electronic ISSN 1462-0332
Publisher Oxford University Press (OUP)
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 62
Issue 12
Pages 3819-3827
DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kead157
Keywords Diseases, Fatigue, Remote delivery, Cost-effectiveness, Cognitive Behavioural, Personalised Exercise, Inflammatory Rheumatic
Public URL https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/10488821

Files






You might also like



Downloadable Citations