Neurostimulation therapies in major depressive disorder: A decision-analytic model

Patient-Informed Value Elements in Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Major Depressive Disorder Treatment: A Literature Review and Synthesis

OBJECTIVES

Prior work identified 6 key value elements (attributes of treatment and desired outcomes) for individuals living with major depressive disorder (MDD) in managing their condition: mode of treatment, time to treatment helpfulness, MDD relief, quality of work, interaction with others, and affordability. The objective of our study was to identify whether previous cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) for MDD treatment addressed any of these value elements. A secondary objective was to identify whether any study engaged patients, family members, and caregivers in the model development process.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature review to identify published model-based CEAs. We compared the elements of the published studies with the MDD patient value elements elicited in prior work to identify gaps and areas for future research.

RESULTS

Of 86 published CEAs, we found that 7 included patient out-of-pocket costs, and 32 included measures of productivity, which were both priorities for individuals with MDD. We found that only 2 studies elicited measures from patients for their model, and 2 studies engaged patients in the modeling process.

CONCLUSIONS

Published CEA models for MDD treatment do not regularly include value elements that are a priority for this patient population nor do they include patients in their modeling process. Flexible models that can accommodate elements consistent with patient experience are needed, and a multistakeholder engagement approach would help accomplish this.

Revisiting the effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in depression, again

Following on from the publication of the Royal Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry Mood Disorder Clinical Practice Guidelines (2020) and criticisms of how these aberrantly addressed repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment of depression, questions have continued to be raised in the journal about this treatment by a small group of authors, whose views we contend do not reflect the broad acceptance of this treatment nationally and internationally. In fact, the evidence supporting the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in depression is unambiguous and substantial, consisting of an extensive series of clinical trials supported by multiple meta-analyses, network meta-analysis and umbrella reviews. Importantly, the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in depression has also been subject to a series of health economic analyses. These indicate that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is a cost-effective therapy and have been used in some jurisdictions, including Australia, in support of public funding. An argument has been made that offering repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment may delay potentially effective pharmacotherapy. In fact, there is considerably greater danger of the opposite happening. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is as, if not more effective, than antidepressant medication after two unsuccessful medication trials and should be a consideration for all patients under these circumstances where available. There is no meaningful ongoing debate about the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in depression - it is a safe, effective and cost-effective treatment.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation may be a cost-effective alternative to antidepressant therapy after two treatment failures in patients with major depressive disorder

BACKGROUND

The cost-effectiveness of treatment strategies for patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) who have not responded to two adequate treatments with antidepressants (TRD) are still unclear. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of add-on repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) compared with standard treatment.

METHODS

A Markov-model simulated clinical events over one year from the perspective of healthcare payer. Third- and fourth-line treatment pathways (augmentation, antidepressant switch or combination, and Electro-Convulsive Therapy (ECT)) were defined based on medical practice guidelines. Transition probabilities were derived from a recent meta-analysis and scientific publications. Resource utilization and cost estimates were based on the patient-level database of a large university hospital.

RESULTS

Incremental Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and costs were 0.053 and 785 €, respectively, corresponding to an Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of 14,670 € per QALY. The difference in cost between standard treatment and rTMS is explained by the rTMS sessions used in acute (€660) and maintenance (€57/month) treatments, partly offset by lower hospital costs due to higher remission rates in the rTMS arm. Key parameters driving the ICER were incremental utility of remission, unit cost of rTMS treatment and remission rate. At a threshold of €22,243 add-on rTMS is a cost-effective alternative to pharmacotherapy. Evidence on long-term effectiveness is not yet available, so results are estimated for a one-year period.

CONCLUSION

Not only does rTMS treatment have beneficial clinical effects compared with drug therapy in TRD, but it also appears to offer good value-for-money, especially in centres with larger numbers of patients where unit costs can be kept low.