Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an extended-role general practitioner symptoms clinic (SC), added to usual care (UC) for patients with multiple persistent physical symptoms (sometimes known as medically unexplained symptoms).

Methods

This was a 52-week within-trial cost-utility analysis of a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing SC + UC (n = 178) with UC alone (n = 176), conducted from the primary perspective of the UK National Health Service and personal and social services (PSS). Base-case quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were measured using EQ-5D-5L. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation. Cost-effectiveness results were presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental net monetary benefits. Uncertainty was explored using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (using 1000 nonparametric bootstrapped samples) and sensitivity analysis (including societal costs, using SF-6D and ICECAP-A capability measure for adults outcomes to estimate QALYs and years of full capability, respectively, varying intervention costs, missing data mechanism assumptions).

Results

Multiple imputation analysis showed that compared with UC alone, SC + UC was more expensive (adjusted mean cost difference: 704; 95% CI £605-£807) and more effective (adjusted mean QALY difference: 0.0447; 95% CI 0.0067-0.0826), yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £15 765/QALY, incremental net monetary benefit of £189.22 (95% CI −£573.62 to £948.28) and a 69% probability of the SC + UC intervention arm being cost-effective at a threshold of £20 000 per QALY. Results were robust to most sensitivity analyses but sensitive to missing data assumptions (2 of the 8 scenarios investigated), SF-6D, and ICECAP_A capability measure for adults quality-of-life outcomes.

Conclusions

A symptoms clinic is likely to be a potentially cost-effective treatment for patients with persistent physical symptoms.