1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
ME/CFS: A disease at war with itself
We can all agree that ME/CFS is a nasty disease, particularly in its severe form, but there are abundant nasty diseases in the world. What is unique and particularly confounding about our disease is that so much controversy surrounds it, and not only surrounds it, but invades it too.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

A cost effectiveness of the PACE trial

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by user9876, Aug 1, 2012.

  1. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    7,960
    Likes:
    9,930
    England, UK
    So do you mean that there should be an ICER cost per QALY for SMC?
  2. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,611
    Likes:
    5,247
    If one assumes that if somebody hadn't done SMC and costs for such an individual were exactly the same, the healthcare costs of SMC was -£116. So as the average scores improved, SMC would be dominant overdoing nothing.

    Similarly, the societal cost of SMC was -£1914. So as the average scores improved, SMC would be dominant over doing nothing.
  3. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    7,960
    Likes:
    9,930
    England, UK
    Ah, OK, I think I understand that now.

    Thanks for all your help today Dolphin. :thumbsup:

    I think it's time for bed now. :sleep:

    I'll probably dream that I'm being attacked by a mass of evil looking QALYs. :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:
    Dolphin likes this.
  4. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,611
    Likes:
    5,247
    Bob: I wrote an error when I first did this (I was looking at the wrong column). The baseline level is 0.50, not 0.48.
  5. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,611
    Likes:
    5,247
    Imagine, instead, that the healthcare costs of SMC was £500 (over doing nothing). Then, the ICER (healthcare) would be £500 / 0.02 = £25,000 per QALY.*

    *Dividing by a number less than one may be confusing. Another way of thinking of it is that one would need 50 of 0.02 changes to make 1 QALY. So it costs 50 x £500 = £25,000 per QALY.
  6. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    7,960
    Likes:
    9,930
    England, UK
    Dolphin I'm sure that this is a stupid question, but if they don't know the ICER costs per QALY for SMC then how can they compare the cost effectiveness per QALY of CBT/GET with SMC?
  7. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    7,960
    Likes:
    9,930
    England, UK
    I've been thinking about it further...
    QALY for SMC was measured at baseline and 52 weeks, and costs can be compared pre-randomisation and post-randomisation for SMC.
    So costs per QALY could be calculated for SMC, using these sets of data, couldn't they?
  8. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,611
    Likes:
    5,247
    One can make any comparison one likes. One could have a standard regime than involves 10 parts and then have a regime which has the same standard 10 parts plus one more and one coud make calculations passed on whether it is seen as cost effective to add on that extra part. So what they are assuming is everybody should get SMC, is it cost effective to add on CBT or GET. One doesn't need to know the cost of SMC to make such a calculation.
  9. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,611
    Likes:
    5,247
    Yes, that's what I did to get -£116 and -£1914 (the data in the last column of Table 3)

    Dominant means on average it doesn't cost anything to get the QALY.

    But I then gave an example of how one could calculate it if it was a different situation.
  10. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    7,960
    Likes:
    9,930
    England, UK
    I'm not sure that's right Dolphin. The main thrust of the paper is a comparison between SMC and GET/CBT/APT, saying that GET/CBT are more cost effective than SMC.
    In the abstract, it seems to suggest that they know the cost per QALY for SMC:
    "If society is willing to value a QALY at £30,000 there is a ... 7.9% that SMC alone is most cost-effective."

    But I don't understand it all anyway. I'll leave it there for the night.
  11. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,611
    Likes:
    5,247
    You're forgetting that CBT and GET means CBT+SMC and GET+SMC, they are just using shorthand. So if CBT is seen as cost effective, what they are actually saying is CBT+SMC is cost effective (over SMC). There was no group that had CBT but no SMC so they can't make comment on such an option from this data.
  12. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    7,960
    Likes:
    9,930
    England, UK
    It is really confusing, but I don't think that's how they've done it.
    I don't think that's how Table 6 is set out.
    They talk about 'incremental' costs, and I think that means additional costs to SMC costs, not including SMC costs.
    My own calculations were for additional costs (separate from SMC costs), and they worked out very similar to their Table 6 figures, so I think i'm right.
    So I imagined that QALYs were looked at in the same way, but I haven't seen any data for QALYs yet, to work it out.
  13. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,611
    Likes:
    5,247
    I'm not sure how that is different to what I have been saying.
  14. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    7,960
    Likes:
    9,930
    England, UK
    OK, I'm too tired to understand anything now anyway...
    All I really wanted to know is what the costs per QALY for SMC are, to make a comparison with CBT and GET.
    I'll read the paper again tomorrow to see if I can make any more sense of it.

    Thanks again for all your help Dolphin.
  15. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,611
    Likes:
    5,247
    Ok. But remember, all you have figures for is CBT+SMC and GET+SMC (rather than (i) CBT, but no SMC and (ii)GET, but no SMC) so that is what you will be comparing with SMC.
  16. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    7,960
    Likes:
    9,930
    England, UK
    What I meant about Table 6, in my previous post, is that the figures are for CBT only and GET only, not CBT+SMC etc.
    I'm pretty sure about that for all the figures apart from QALYs, but I assume that they are the same.
  17. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,611
    Likes:
    5,247
    The figures in Table 6 are for comparisons between CBT+SMC vs SMC, GET+SMC vs SMC and APT+SMC vs SMC. I'm pretty sure of this.
    If one looks at the conclusion of the paper, it says:
    (my underlining)
  18. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    7,960
    Likes:
    9,930
    England, UK
    I did the calculations earlier, and found them to be for CBT only and GET only, compared with SMC.
    I might be wrong but I'll double-check it tomorrow and send you the details.

    Edit: To clarify, this applies to Table 6. Table 3 is for CBT+SMC and GET+SMC vs SMC alone.
  19. Firestormm

    Firestormm Guest

    Messages:
    5,824
    Likes:
    5,969
    Cornwall England
  20. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    7,960
    Likes:
    9,930
    England, UK
    Edit:
    Please ignore this post. I got very confused about the comparisons that they are making in the paper.
    As Dolphin says, they are comparing CBT+SMC with SMC.


    Table 6 shows the incremental changes for APT/CBT/GET, so the sums in Table 6 do not include changes seen for SMC, but they are a comparison of CBT+SMC vs SMC, and GET+SMC vs SMC, and APT+SMC vs SMC.


    Even if they've used ICER, my rough calcuations don't agree with their analysis...

    By my calculations, SMC is dominant over GET for physical function scores (I haven't looked at fatigue scores yet), so I don't know how they worked out that GET is dominant.
    (My figures aren't exactly accurate, because they've made changes to the number of participants used in Table 6., but I can't see how that could account for the discrepancy between their figures and mine.)


    Costs per person societal for physical function.

    SMC
    Per person societal costs (-1914 x 148) / (148 x 58%) = -£3300 savings per person improved

    GET
    Per person societal costs (-197 x 140) / (140 x 12.6%) = -£1563 savings per person improved, on top of SMC savings

    CBT
    Per person societal costs (-464 x 145) / (145 x 13.4%) = -£3463 savings per person improved, on top of SMC savings.


    Or using Simon's unadjusted figures (to make sure I'm not making major errors):

    SMC
    Per person societal costs (-1933 x 148) / (148 x 58%) = -£3332 savings per person improved

    GET
    Per person societal costs (-244 x 140) / (140 x 12.6%) = -£1937 savings per person improved, on top of SMC savings.

    CBT
    Per person societal costs (-532 x 145) / (145 x 13.4%) = -£3970 savings per person improved, on top of SMC savings.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page