Luciano Juan V, D'Amico Francesco, Feliu-Soler Albert, McCracken Lance M, Aguado Jaume, Peñarrubia-María María T, Knapp Martin, Serrano-Blanco Antoni, García-Campayo Javier
Institut de Recerca Sant Joan de Déu, Esplugues de Llobregat, Spain; Teaching, Research and Innovation Unit, Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, St. Boi de Llobregat, Spain; Network for Prevention and Health Promotion in Primary Care (RedIAPP), Madrid, Spain.
Teaching, Research and Innovation Unit, Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, St. Boi de Llobregat, Spain; Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom.
J Pain. 2017 Jul;18(7):868-880. doi: 10.1016/j.jpain.2017.03.001. Epub 2017 Mar 23.
The aim of this study was to analyze the cost utility of a group-based form of acceptance and commitment therapy (GACT) in patients with fibromyalgia (FM) compared with patients receiving recommended pharmacological treatment (RPT) or on a waiting list (WL). The data were derived from a previously published study, a randomized controlled trial that focused on clinical outcomes. Health economic outcomes included health-related quality of life and health care use at baseline and at 6-month follow-up using the EuroQoL and the Client Service Receipt Inventory, respectively. Analyses included quality-adjusted life years, direct and indirect cost differences, and incremental cost effectiveness ratios. A total of 156 FM patients were randomized (51 GACT, 52 RPT, 53 WL). GACT was related to significantly less direct costs over the 6-month study period compared with both control arms (GACT €824.2 ± 1,062.7 vs RPT €1,730.7 ± 1,656.8 vs WL €2,462.7 ± 2,822.0). Lower direct costs for GACT compared with RPT were due to lower costs from primary care visits and FM-related medications. The incremental cost effectiveness ratios were dominant in the completers' analysis and remained robust in the sensitivity analyses. In conclusion, acceptance and commitment therapy appears to be a cost-effective treatment compared with RPT in patients with FM.
Decision-makers have to prioritize their budget on the treatment option that is the most cost effective for the management of a specific patient group. From government as well as health care perspectives, this study shows that a GACT is more cost effective than pharmacological treatment in management of FM.
本研究的目的是分析团体形式的接受与承诺疗法(GACT)在纤维肌痛(FM)患者中的成本效用,并与接受推荐药物治疗(RPT)或处于等待名单(WL)的患者进行比较。数据来源于之前发表的一项研究,这是一项聚焦于临床结局的随机对照试验。健康经济结局分别包括使用欧洲五维度健康量表(EuroQoL)和客户服务收据清单,在基线和6个月随访时与健康相关的生活质量以及医疗保健利用情况。分析包括质量调整生命年、直接和间接成本差异以及增量成本效益比。总共156名FM患者被随机分组(51名接受GACT,52名接受RPT,53名处于WL)。与两个对照组相比,在6个月的研究期间,GACT的直接成本显著更低(GACT为824.2欧元±1062.7欧元,RPT为1730.7欧元±1656.8欧元,WL为2462.7欧元±2822.0欧元)。与RPT相比,GACT的直接成本更低是由于初级保健就诊和FM相关药物的成本更低。在完成者分析中,增量成本效益比占主导地位,并且在敏感性分析中仍然稳健。总之,与RPT相比,接受与承诺疗法在FM患者中似乎是一种具有成本效益的治疗方法。
决策者必须在对特定患者群体管理最具成本效益的治疗方案上对其预算进行优先排序。从政府以及医疗保健的角度来看,本研究表明在FM的管理中,GACT比药物治疗更具成本效益。