Sir,
In their economic evaluations of treatments for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), Severens et al. compared the cost-effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) with those of other interventions, and found that the percentage of CFS patients who improved with CBT performed for 8 months was 31% vs. 9% and 12% for other treatments. Considering that, in one study, 28% of CFS patients treated with low-dose hydrocortisone over just one month virtually recovered, Severens et al. also should have compared the cost-effectiveness of CBT with that of low-dose hydrocortisone.
Treatment with low-dose hydrocortisone for CFS, besides being intuitively far less costly than CBT, is also better-founded clinically than any psychological therapy, because hydrocortisone corrects the hypocortisolism that characterizes at least some CFS patients. Given that ‘frank hypocortisolism’, rather surprisingly, was one of the exclusion criteria for enrolment in the trial of Cleare et al., the percentage of CFS patients who can be effectively treated with low-dose hydrocortisone in day-to-day health care is likely to be higher than the 28% found in that trial.
You can read the rest of this comment here: http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/6/378.long
Comment on: Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. [QJM. 2004]
Source: Baschetti R. Cost-effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. QJM. 2004 Jun;97(6):378-9. http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/6/378.long (Full article)