Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research · 2025
Cost effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for fatigue in patients with long-term conditions: a systematic literature review.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Davis Sarah, Mon-Yee Mon, Sutton Anthea, Leaviss Joanna, Forsyth Jessica E, Burton Christopher
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for fatigue in patients with chronic conditions in the UK.
METHODS: This systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies aligns with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Data sources: Electronic databases and citation searches. Inclusion criteria: Studies including adults with one or more long-term health condition, either physical or mental. Exclusion criteria: Studies associated with cancer, long-COVID, post-viral fatigue, medically unexplained conditions, developmental disorders and injuries. Assessment: A single reviewer completed a two-stage sifting process.
RESULTS: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. They included patients with either multiple sclerosis or inflammatory rheumatic conditions, and assessed either cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or a personalized exercise program (PEP). CBT was either dominated by usual care or had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over £30,000. PEP dominated CBT, with the ICER for PEP versus usual care ranging from £13,159 to £35,424.
CONCLUSIONS: The economic literature on this topic is much more limited than the clinical effectiveness literature, both in terms of interventions and populations covered. Future research should focus on a de novo economic evaluation to identify interventions with a high potential to be cost-effective across multiple conditions.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42023440141).
METHODS: This systematic review of cost-effectiveness studies aligns with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Data sources: Electronic databases and citation searches. Inclusion criteria: Studies including adults with one or more long-term health condition, either physical or mental. Exclusion criteria: Studies associated with cancer, long-COVID, post-viral fatigue, medically unexplained conditions, developmental disorders and injuries. Assessment: A single reviewer completed a two-stage sifting process.
RESULTS: Four studies met the inclusion criteria. They included patients with either multiple sclerosis or inflammatory rheumatic conditions, and assessed either cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or a personalized exercise program (PEP). CBT was either dominated by usual care or had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over £30,000. PEP dominated CBT, with the ICER for PEP versus usual care ranging from £13,159 to £35,424.
CONCLUSIONS: The economic literature on this topic is much more limited than the clinical effectiveness literature, both in terms of interventions and populations covered. Future research should focus on a de novo economic evaluation to identify interventions with a high potential to be cost-effective across multiple conditions.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42023440141).