IntroductionCognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) @entity34 ( @entity34 ; @entity4481 , @entity4480 , and @entity1153 ) are effective treatment options for @entity239 ( @entity239 ) syndrome and are currently recommended by clinical guidelines. We compared the cost-utility from the healthcare and societal perspectives of CBT versus @entity34 (combination of @entity4481  +  @entity4480 ) and usual care (TAU) groups in the treatment of @entity239 .MethodsThe economic evaluation was conducted alongside a 6-month, multicentre, randomised, blinded, parallel group, controlled trial. A total of 168 @entity239 @entity1 from 41 general practices in Zaragoza (Spain) were randomised to CBT (n  =  57), @entity34 (n  =  56) or TAU (n  =  55). The main outcome measures were Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs, assessed using the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire) and improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL, assessed using EuroQoL-5D visual analogue scale, EQ-VAS). The costs of healthcare utilisation were estimated from @entity1 self-reports (Client Service Receipt Inventory). Cost-utility was assessed using the net-benefit approach and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs).ResultsOn average, the total costs per @entity1 in the CBT group (1,847  ) were significantly lower than @entity1 receiving @entity34 (3,664  ) or @entity5624 (3,124  ). @entity1 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, 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 @entity34 versus TAU yielded no clear preference for either treatment when using QALYs, although @entity34 was determined to be more cost-effective than TAU when evaluating EQ-VAS.ConclusionsDue to lower costs, CBT is the most cost-effective treatment for adult @entity239 @entity1 . 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.

Cost-utility of cognitive behavioural therapy versus U.S. food and drug administration recommended drugs and usual care in the treatment of XXXX with @entity239 : an economic evaluation alongside a 6-month randomised controlled trial.

@entity1 :: ('9606', 'Species') :: ['Patients', 'patients', 'patient'] @entity239 :: ('MESH:D005356', 'Disease') :: ['fibromyalgia', 'FM'] @entity1153 :: ('MESH:C048107', 'Chemical') :: ['milnacipran'] @entity5624 :: ('CHEBI:36355', 'Chemical') :: ['TAU'] @entity4480 :: ('MESH:C058218', 'Chemical') :: ['duloxetine'] @entity4481 :: ('MESH:C080245', 'Chemical') :: ['pregabalin'] @entity34 :: ('MESH:D016609', 'Disease') :: ['recommended pharmacological treatments', 'RPT']
@entity1 :: (9606,Species) :: ['patients']
