A pragmatic parallel arm multi-centre randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group-based fatigue management programme (FACETS) for people with multiple sclerosis

Sarah Thomas, Peter W Thomas, Paula Kersten, Rosemary Jones, Colin Green, Alison Nock, Vicky Slingsby, Angela Davies Smith, Roger Baker, Kathleen T Galvin, Charles Hillier, Sarah Thomas, Peter W Thomas, Paula Kersten, Rosemary Jones, Colin Green, Alison Nock, Vicky Slingsby, Angela Davies Smith, Roger Baker, Kathleen T Galvin, Charles Hillier

Abstract

Background: Fatigue is a common and troubling symptom for people with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a six-session group-based programme for managing MS-fatigue (Fatigue: Applying Cognitive behavioural and Energy effectiveness Techniques to lifeStyle (FACETS)).

Methods: Three-centre parallel arm randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation. Patients with MS and significant fatigue were randomised to FACETS plus current local practice (FACETS) or current local practice alone (CLP), using concealed computer-generated randomisation. Participant blinding was not possible. Primary outcomes were fatigue severity (Fatigue Assessment Instrument), self-efficacy (Multiple Sclerosis-Fatigue Self-Efficacy) and disease-specific quality of life (Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29)) at 1 and 4 months postintervention (follow-up 1 and 2). Quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated (EuroQoL 5-Dimensions questionnaire and the Short-form 6-Dimensions questionnaire).

Results: Between May 2008 and November 2009, 164 patients were randomised; primary outcome data were available for 146 (89%). Statistically significant differences favour the intervention group on fatigue self-efficacy at follow-up 1 (mean difference (MD) 9, 95% CI (4 to 14), standardised effect size (SES) 0.54, p=0.001) and follow-up 2 (MD 6, 95% CI (0 to 12), SES 0.36, p=0.05) and fatigue severity at follow-up 2 (MD -0.36, 95% CI (-0.63 to -0.08), SES -0.35, p=0.01) but no differences for MSIS-29 or QALYs. No adverse events reported. Estimated cost per person for FACETS is £453; findings suggest an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £2157 per additional person with a clinically significant improvement in fatigue.

Conclusions: FACETS is effective in reducing fatigue severity and increasing fatigue self-efficacy. However, it is difficult to assess the additional cost in terms of cost-effectiveness (ie, cost per QALY) as improvements in fatigue are not reflected in the QALY outcomes, with no significant differences between FACETS and CLP. The strengths of this trial are its pragmatic nature and high external validity.

Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76517470.

Keywords: INTERVENTIONAL; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; PSYCHOLOGY; QUALITY OF LIFE; RANDOMISED TRIALS.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart showing study participation.

References

    1. Krupp LB, Serafin DJ, Christodoulouu C. Multiple sclerosis-associated fatigue. Expert Rev Neurother 2010;10:1437–47
    1. Branas P, Jordan RE, Fry-Smith A, et al. Treatments for fatigue in multiple sclerosis: a rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Ass 2000;4:1–61
    1. Costello K, Harris C. Differential diagnosis and management of fatigue in multiple sclerosis: considerations for the nurse. J Neurosci Nurs 2003;35:139–48
    1. Grima DT, Torrance GW, Francis G, et al. Cost and health related quality of life consequences of multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler 2000;6:91–8
    1. White CP, White MB, Russell CS. Invisible and visible symptoms of multiple sclerosis: which are more predictive of health distress? J Neurosci Nurs 2008;40:85–95
    1. Bakshi R. Fatigue associated with multiple sclerosis: diagnosis, impact and management. Mult Scler 2003;9:219–27
    1. Mathiowetz VG, Matuska KM, Finlayson ML, et al. One-year follow-up to a randomized controlled trial of an energy conservation course for persons with multiple sclerosis. Int J Rehabil Res 2007;30:305–13
    1. Blikman LJ, Huisstede BM, Koojimans H, et al. Effectiveness of energy conservation treatment in reducing fatigue in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil Published Online First: 11 Feb 2013. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2013.01.025
    1. Lee D, Newell R, Ziegler L, et al. Treatment of fatigue in multiple sclerosis: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Nurs Pract 2008;14:81–93
    1. van Kessel K, Moss-Morris R: Understanding multiple sclerosis fatigue: a synthesis of biological and psychological factors. J Psychosom Res 2006;61:583– 5
    1. van Kessel K, Moss-Morris R, Willoughby E, et al. A Randomized controlled trial of cognitive behavior therapy for multiple sclerosis fatigue. Psychosom Med 2008;70:205–13
    1. Thomas PW, Thomas S, Hillier C, et al. Psychological interventions for multiple sclerosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;1:CD004431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004431.pub2
    1. Thomas S, Thomas PW, Nock A, et al. Development and preliminary evaluation of a cognitive behavioural approach to fatigue management in people with multiple sclerosis. Patient Educ Couns 2010;78;204–10
    1. Thomas PW, Thomas S, Kersten P, et al. Multi-centre parallel arm randomised controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group-based cognitive behavioural approach to managing fatigue in people with multiple sclerosis BMC Neurol 2010;10:43.
    1. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, et al. ; for the CONSORT group Extending the CONSORT Statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2008;148:295–309
    1. Krupp LB, LaRocca NG, Muir-Nash J, et al. The fatigue severity scale. Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Arch Neurol 1989;10:1121–3
    1. NHS Careers. Pay and benefits for AHP staff. (accessed 30 Dec 2012).
    1. Schwartz JE, Jandorf L, Krupp L. The measurement of fatigue: a new instrument. J Psychosom Res 1993;37:753–62
    1. Hobart JC, Riazi A, Lamping D, et al. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: development of a patient-based measure of outcome. Health Technol Assess 2004;8:1–60
    1. Schwartz CE, Coulthard-Morris L, Zeng Q, et al. Measuring self-efficacy in people with multiple sclerosis: a validation study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1996;77:394–8
    1. Hann D, Jacobsen P, Azzarello L, et al. Measurement of fatigue in cancer patients: Development and validation of the Fatigue Symptom Inventory. Qual Life Res 1998;7:301–10
    1. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP: The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Neurol Scand 1983;67:361–70
    1. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form health survey (SF-36):I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–83
    1. Dolan P. Modeling Valuations for EuroQol Health States. Med Care 1997;35:1095–108
    1. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ 2002;21:271–92
    1. Ryan CG, Grant PM, Tigbe WW, et al. The validity and reliability of a novel activity monitor as a measure of walking. Br J Sports Med 2006;40:779–84
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edn Hillsdale: NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988
    1. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003;41:582–92
    1. Goligher EC, Pouchot J, Brant R, et al. Minimal clinically important difference for 7 measures of fatigue in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. J Rheumatol 2008;35:635–42
    1. Bauer DJ, Sterba SK, Hallford DD. Evaluating group based interventions when control participants are ungrouped. Multivar Behav Res 2008;43:210–36
    1. Lane P. Handling drop-out in longitudinal clinical trials: a comparison of the LOCF and MMRM approaches. Pharm Stat 2008;7:93–106
    1. Brazier JE, Ratcliffe J, Salomon A, et al. Measuring and valuing health for economic evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007
    1. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher M. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;4:87–496
    1. Curtis L. Unit costs of health and social care. Personal social services research unit (PSSRU), Canterbury UK: University of Kent, 2010
    1. Department of Health NHS Reference Costs 2009-2010, 2011. (accessed 30 Dec 2012).
    1. CONSORT Statement website (accessed 7 Mar 2013).
    1. Altman DG, Doré CJ. Randomisation and baseline comparisons in clinical trials. Lancet 1990;335:149–53
    1. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Guide to the methods of technology appraisal. London, UK: NICE, June 2008
    1. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee Guidelines for preparing submissions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (Version 4.3). Barton, Australia: Australian Government; Department of Health and Ageing, December 2008
    1. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada, 3rd edn. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2006.
    1. Hemmett L, Holmes J, Barnes M, et al. What drives quality of life in multiple sclerosis? Q J Med 2004;97:671–6
    1. Hobart J, Freeman J, Lamping D, et al. The SF-36 in multiple sclerosis: why assumptions must be tested. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2001;71:363–93
    1. Opara JA, Jaracz K, Brola W. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis. J Med Life 2010;3:352–8
    1. Fisk JD, Brown MG, Sketris IS, et al. A comparison of health utility measures for the evaluation of multiple sclerosis treatments. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005;76:58–63
    1. Hawton A, Green C, Telford C, et al. Using the Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale in treatment decision-making: Mapping from the MSIS-29 version 2 to the EQ-5D and the SF-6D. Value Health 2012;15:1084–91

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe