plos.org
Revising Your Manuscript
Best Practices in Research Reporting
Human Subjects Research
Disclosure of Funding Sources
Licenses and Copyright
Complementary Research
Materials, Software and Code Sharing
Ethical Publishing Practice
Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions
Manuscript Review and Publication
Criteria for Publication
Editorial and Peer Review Process
Editor Center
Resources for Editors
Discover a faster, simpler path to publishing in a high-quality journal. PLOS ONE promises fair, rigorous peer review, broad scope, and wide readership – a perfect fit for your research every time.
Learn More Submit Now
Why Publish with PLOS ONE
Staff Editors
Section Editors
Find and Read Articles
Browse Subject Areas
Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.
For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.
Loading metrics
Article metrics are unavailable for recently published articles.
Total Mendeley and Citeulike bookmarks.
Paper's citation count computed by Dimensions.
PLOS views and downloads.
Sum of Facebook, Twitter, Reddit and Wikipedia activity.
Adaptive Pacing, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, Graded Exercise, and Specialist Medical Care for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
Paul McCrone ,
* E-mail: paul.mccrone@kcl.ac.uk
Affiliation Centre for the Economics of Mental and Physical Health, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
Michael Sharpe,
Affiliation University Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Trudie Chalder,
Affiliation Academic Department of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
Martin Knapp,
Affiliations Centre for the Economics of Mental and Physical Health, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, United Kingdom, Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics, London, United Kingdom
Anthony L. Johnson,
Affiliations MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, United Kingdom, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, London, United Kingdom
Kimberley A. Goldsmith,
Affiliation Biostatistics Department, Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
Peter D. White
Affiliation Centre for Psychiatry, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
Paul McCrone,
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
Unsupported assertions or statements
Inflammatory or insulting language
Your comment title: Your comment:
Supported markup tags: ''italic'' '''bold''' '''''bold italic''''' ^^superscript^^ ~~subscript~~
No, I don't have any competing interests to declare
Yes, I have competing interests to declare (enter below):
Your competing interests:
Why should this posting be reviewed?
See also Guidelines for Comments and Corrections.
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
CBT and GET did not significantly reduce employment losses, overall service costs, welfare benefits or other financial payments
Posted by biophile on 08 Aug 2012 at 04:20 GMT
McCrone et al (2012) have published the much-awaited results of the PACE Trial concerning cost-effectiveness, service costs, employment losses, and welfare benefits or other financial payments. Taking center stage was the main conclusion that compared to SMC alone, adjunctive CBT, and to a lesser extent, GET were hypothetically more cost-effective. This was based on cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and calculations derived from self-reports involving quality of life, fatigue, and physical function. Adjunctive APT was not found to be cost-effective. [1]
The MRC press release [2] and other news article headlines [3][4] give optimistic coverage about the (hypothetical) cost-effectiveness of CBT and GET, suggesting that these therapies should become widely available and will even save the economy millions of pounds. [5] However, there has been a glaring omission in this coverage, one which was also relegated to lesser importance in the paper itself. That is, CBT and GET do very little if anything at all to reduce employment losses, overall service costs, and welfare benefits or other financial payments. [1]
Raw values given in Table 3 suggest an 8.0% reduction in total service costs for the SMC group at follow-up and a 10.5% reduction for the CBT group. When controlling for baseline, the authors indicate that there were no statistically significant difference between these two groups, or any groups except CBT vs APT.Furthermore, despite self-reported improvements in QOL, fatigue and physical function, Table 4 shows that welfare benefits or other financial payments actually increased for all groups during the course of the trial. The authors describe the overall increases as slight and concede that there were no statistically significant differences between groups at follow-up, but failed to account for this category of costs during their cost analyses and provide no reason. Such poor outcomes should be a rather sobering revelation for the Department of Work and Pensions (which helped to fund the trial) and for the insurance industry, both which some of the authors have declared working for as consultants. [6]
The improvement in quality of life after therapy appears to be minimal. After controlling for baseline, there were no statistically significant differences between any groups at follow-up except for CBT vs SMC (+0.05 QALY). CBT and GET were "cost-effective" because they are relatively cheap therapies compared to the usual service costs incurred by CFS patients, and result in hypothetical savings in terms of self-reported QOL, fatigue, and physical function. CBT and GET do little if anything to reduce overall service costs and therefore will not save the UK government money, so it is time they look towards alternative approaches such as biomedical research. Is it any surprise that only one week before publication of McCrone et al 2012, that the MRC in the UK announced additional funding in that direction? [7]
[1] McCrone P, Sharpe M, Chalder T, Knapp M, Johnson AL, et al. (2012) Adaptive Pacing, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, Graded Exercise, and Specialist Medical Care for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. PLoS ONE 7(8): e40808. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0040808 http://www.plosone.org/ar...
[2] Two effective treatments for CFS/ME are also cost-effective | 1 August 2012 | http://www.mrc.ac.uk/News...
[3] Chronic fatigue syndrome: Brain training is most cost-effective treatment. | 2 August 2012 Last updated at 01:57 GMT | http://www.bbc.co.uk/news...
[4] Two chronic fatigue syndrome treatments offer good value | John von Radowitz | Thursday 02 August 2012 | http://www.independent.co...
[5] Pacing 'not cost-effective' for CFS | Thursday August 2 2012 | http://www.nhs.uk/news/20...
[6] White PD, Goldsmith KA, Johnson AL, Potts L, Walwyn R, DeCesare JC, Baber HL, Burgess M, Clark LV, Cox DL, Bavinton J, Angus BJ, Murphy G, Murphy M, O'Dowd H, Wilks D, McCrone P, Chalder T, Sharpe M; [PACE trial management group]. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2011 Mar 5;377(9768):823-36. Epub 2011 Feb 18. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60096-2 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.g...
[7] New ME/CFS highlight notice issued by the UK Medical Research Council. | 23 July 2012 | http://www.meassociation....
Competing interests declared: A long-term ME/CFS patient.
report a concern respond to this posting
Related PLOS Articles
has EXPRESSION OF CONCERN
Expression of Concern: Adaptive Pacing, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, Graded Exercise, and Specialist Medical Care for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis
We want your feedback. Do these Subject Areas make sense for this article? Click the target next to the incorrect Subject Area and let us know. Thanks for your help!
Is the Subject Area "Psychotherapy" applicable to this article?
Is the Subject Area "Cost-effectiveness analysis" applicable to this article?
Is the Subject Area "Exercise therapy" applicable to this article?
Is the Subject Area "Fatigue" applicable to this article?
Is the Subject Area "Health economics" applicable to this article?
Critical care and emergency medicine
Is the Subject Area "Critical care and emergency medicine" applicable to this article?
Is the Subject Area "Employment" applicable to this article?
Is the Subject Area "Chronic fatigue syndrome" applicable to this article?
PLOS Computational Biology
PLOS Genetics
PLOS Pathogens
PLOS Climate
PLOS Digital Health
PLOS Global Public Health
PLOS Sustainability and Transformation
PLOS Water
LOCKSS
PLOS is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) corporation, #C2354500, based in San Francisco, California, US