McCrone, Paul, Sharpe, Michael, Chalder, Trudie et al. · PloS one · 2012 · DOI
This study compared the cost and benefit of four different treatments for ME/CFS: specialist medical care alone, cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), graded exercise therapy (GET), and adaptive pacing therapy (APT). Researchers found that CBT was the most cost-effective option, meaning it provided good health improvements relative to its cost, while APT was the least cost-effective. The study looked at both healthcare costs and broader societal costs like lost work time.
Understanding treatment cost-effectiveness helps patients, clinicians, and healthcare systems allocate resources efficiently when treating ME/CFS. This is one of the few rigorous health economic evaluations in ME/CFS, providing evidence-based guidance on which interventions offer the best value relative to their costs.
This analysis does not prove that CBT or GET cause clinically meaningful symptom improvement in all ME/CFS patients—it shows they were more cost-effective relative to specialist care in this particular trial population. The study does not establish whether the modest improvements in fatigue and function justify the therapies for individual patients, as cost-effectiveness depends on subjective judgments about what society should pay per unit of health gain. Long-term durability and sustainability of cost savings beyond the trial period remain unclear.
About the PEM badge: “PEM required” means post-exertional malaise was an explicit required diagnostic criterion for participant inclusion in this study — not that PEM was studied, observed, or discussed. Studies using criteria that do not require PEM (e.g. Fukuda, Oxford) are tagged “PEM not required”. How the atlas works →
Spotted an error in this entry? Report it →