Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Compared to Electroconvulsive Therapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression in Singapore

Use of Electroconvulsive Therapy Treatment in Adolescents in Singapore

BACKGROUND

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a highly effective treatment for schizophrenia and mood disorders; however, most evidence is derived from the adult population, with less evidence in adolescents. We sought to determine the use of ECT in adolescents in the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) and evaluate the treatment outcome.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective naturalistic analysis of ECT registry data of patients aged from 10 to 19 years from March 2017 to March 2023. Descriptive analysis was used to analyze the demographics and clinical characteristics. Paired t tests were used to compare the change in clinical outcome scores, including the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Clinical Global Impressions Scale - Severity (CGI-S), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) before and after 2 weeks of ECT treatment.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients were included for analysis. There was a significant improvement in BPRS (P < 0.001), MADRS (P = 0.005), and CGI-S (P < 0.001), and the average CGI-I score was 2.275 (SD, 0.81), which is equivalent to "much improved" after 6 sessions of treatment. Of all patients, 48.5% showed significant clinical improvement. There was no significant change in MoCA scores (P = 0.218).

CONCLUSIONS

Our preliminary findings show that ECT is a safe, rapid, and effective treatment for psychotic and mood disorders in adolescents. Further studies with a larger sample size and specific subgroup analysis are needed to establish the effectiveness of ECT and identify predictors of response in this population.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation enhanced by neuronavigation in the treatment of depressive disorder and schizophrenia

This editorial assesses the advancements in neuronavigation enhanced repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for depressive disorder and schizophrenia treatment. Conventional repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation faces challenges due to the intricacies of brain anatomy and patient variability. Neuronavigation offers innovative solutions by integrating neuroimaging with three-dimensional localization to pinpoint brain regions and refine therapeutic targeting. This systematic review of recent literature underscores the enhanced efficacy of neuronavigation in improving treatment outcomes for these disorders. This editorial highlights the pivotal role of neuronavigation in advancing psychiatric care.

Personalised transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant depression, depression with comorbid anxiety and negative symptoms of schizophrenia: a narrative review

ABSTRACT

Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a promising intervention for treatment-resistant psychiatric disorders. However, conventional TMS typically utilises a one-size-fits-all approach when determining stimulation targets. Recent retrospective brain circuit-based analyses using lesion network mapping have suggested that a left dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex target has a higher efficacy for alleviating depression symptoms, a dorsomedial prefrontal cortex target is more effective for anxiety symptoms, and a rostromedial prefrontal cortex target is effective for schizophrenia-associated psychiatric symptoms. Nonetheless, symptom-specific brain circuit targeting has not been tested prospectively. We conducted a narrative review of selected literature to investigate individualised targeting for TMS and discuss potential future directions to elucidate the efficacy of this approach.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for major depression and obsessive-compulsive disorders in Singapore

Introduction

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is used for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (MDD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), but there are few studies on patient outcomes in Southeast Asia. In this study, we describe the clinical profile and outcome of patients with MDD and OCD treated with rTMS in Singapore.

Method

A naturalistic retrospective study of 71 patients (inpatient and outpatient) who received rTMS treatment between June 2018 and April 2023 was conducted. The depressive and obsessive outcome rating scales used were clinician-rated Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS), Clinical Global Impressions-Severity (CGI-S) and self-rated Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21).

Results

Clinician-rated and self-rated mood and general condition improved significantly. MADRS mean score improved from 28.1 (standard deviation [SD] 7.3) to 20.7 (SD 10.1) (P<0.0001) (20.8% response rate/17% remission rate). CGI-S mean 4.6 (SD 0.8) improved to 3.3 (SD 1.2) (P<0.0001). DASS-21 total mean improved from 67.3 (SD 24.6) to 49.6 (SD 28.0) (P<0.0001). Y-BOCS mean score displayed a trend towards improvement from 30.1 (SD 7.5) to 27.2 (SD 6.9) (P=0.799). However, 44.4% of patients with OCD responded with a minimal 20% reduction in baseline Y-BOCS. Moreover, the subgroup of 35.8% of patients with less than 30 rTMS sessions had contributed disproportionately to nonresponse (85.7%). Patients who received rTMS treatment (>30 sessions) had a trend of larger improvement of MADRS score when compared to patients with (≤30 sessions) (9.4 [SD 9.7] versus 3.8 [SD 12.3] [P=0.078]).

Conclusion

Response and remission rates for MDD and OCD suggest patients have a good response to rTMS treatment. Dosing longer rTMS sessions after an acute course helps to maximise effectiveness. Further research to determine predictors of outcome and characterise clinical features of late responders to target treatment more effectively is recommended.

Transcranial magnetic stimulation in psychiatry: A Singapore perspective

The use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for major depressive disorder (MDD) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has not been described in Singapore. Reports on the effectiveness of rTMS in populations outside of Western countries are also limited. Thus, Ye et al.’s study on the naturalistic outcomes of rTMS treatment is important in the Asian context.1 The lifetime prevalence of depression in Singapore is 6.3%.2 It has been estimated that 30%–60% of patients with MDD do not respond to a first-line antidepressant, whereas 40% do not respond to a second-line antidepressant. Treatment resistant depression (TRD) is a term often used when a patient has failed to respond to 2 different antidepressants, with adequate adherence for a duration of 4–8 weeks. Further trials of antidepressant medication result in diminishing response rates and prolonging illness duration.3 Options for TRD include continued trials of different medications—utilising switching, augmentation or combination approaches and using psychotherapy and/or non-invasive neurostimulation techniques, such as rTMS and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). While ECT is recognised as the most effective non-invasive neurostimulation treatment, studies have increasingly demonstrated that rTMS is more cost effective4 and has demonstrated superiority to switching antidepressants.5 In Singapore, the College of Psychiatrists endorsed the use of rTMS for MDD in 2015 and OCD in 2018. The Institute of Mental Health (IMH) has the largest psychiatric rTMS service in Singapore.

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.

Treatment-resistant depression: definition, prevalence, detection, management, and investigational interventions

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is common and associated with multiple serious public health implications. A consensus definition of TRD with demonstrated predictive utility in terms of clinical decision-making and health outcomes does not currently exist. Instead, a plethora of definitions have been proposed, which vary significantly in their conceptual framework. The absence of a consensus definition hampers precise estimates of the prevalence of TRD, and also belies efforts to identify risk factors, prevention opportunities, and effective interventions. In addition, it results in heterogeneity in clinical practice decision-making, adversely affecting quality of care. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have adopted the most used definition of TRD (i.e., inadequate response to a minimum of two antidepressants despite adequacy of the treatment trial and adherence to treatment). It is currently estimated that at least 30% of persons with depression meet this definition. A significant percentage of persons with TRD are actually pseudo-resistant (e.g., due to inadequacy of treatment trials or non-adherence to treatment). Although multiple sociodemographic, clinical, treatment and contextual factors are known to negatively moderate response in persons with depression, very few factors are regarded as predictive of non-response across multiple modalities of treatment. Intravenous ketamine and intranasal esketamine (co-administered with an antidepressant) are established as efficacious in the management of TRD. Some second-generation antipsychotics (e.g., aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, cariprazine, quetiapine XR) are proven effective as adjunctive treatments to antidepressants in partial responders, but only the olanzapine-fluoxetine combination has been studied in FDA-defined TRD. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is established as effective and FDA-approved for individuals with TRD, with accelerated theta-burst TMS also recently showing efficacy. Electroconvulsive therapy is regarded as an effective acute and maintenance intervention in TRD, with preliminary evidence suggesting non-inferiority to acute intravenous ketamine. Evidence for extending antidepressant trial, medication switching and combining antidepressants is mixed. Manual-based psychotherapies are not established as efficacious on their own in TRD, but offer significant symptomatic relief when added to conventional antidepressants. Digital therapeutics are under study and represent a potential future clinical vista in this population.

A century of research on neuromodulation interventions: A scientometric analysis of trends and knowledge maps

Interest in neurostimulation interventions has significantly grown in recent decades, yet a scientometric analysis objectively mapping scientific knowledge and recent trends remains unpublished. Using relevant keywords, we conducted a search in the Web of Science Core Collection on September 23, 2022, retrieving a total of 47,681 documents with 987,979 references. We identified two prominent research trends: 'noninvasive brain stimulation' and 'invasive brain stimulation.' These methods have interconnected over time, forming a cluster focused on evidence synthesis. Noteworthy emerging research trends encompassed 'transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation,' 'DBS/epilepsy in the pediatric population,' 'spinal cord stimulation,' and 'brain-machine interface.' While progress has been made for various neurostimulation interventions, their approval as adjuvant treatments remains limited, and optimal stimulation parameters lack consensus. Enhancing communication between experts of both neurostimulation types and encouraging novel translational research could foster further development. These findings offer valuable insights for funding agencies and research groups, guiding future directions in the field.

Economic evaluation of interventions for treatment-resistant depression: A systematic review

Background

The extraordinarily high prevalence of treatment-resistant depression (TRD), coupled with its high economic burden to both healthcare systems and society, underscore how critical it is that resources are managed optimally to address the significant challenge it presents.

Objective

To review the literature on economic evaluation in TRD systematically, with the aim of informing future studies by identifying key challenges specific to the area, and highlighting good practices.

Methods

A systematic literature search across seven electronic databases was conducted to identify both within-trial and model-based economic evaluations in TRD. Quality of reporting and study design was assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC). A narrative synthesis was conducted.

Results

We identified 31 evaluations, including 11 conducted alongside a clinical trial and 20 model-based evaluations. There was considerable heterogeneity in the definition of treatment-resistant depression, although with a trend for more recent studies to use a definition of inadequate response to two or more antidepressive treatments. A broad range of interventions were considered, including non-pharmacological neuromodulation, pharmacological, psychological, and service-level interventions. Study quality as assessed by CHEC was generally high. Frequently poorly reported items related to discussion of ethical and distributional issues, and model validation. Most evaluations considered comparable core clinical outcomes - encompassing remission, response, and relapse. There was good agreement on the definitions and thresholds for these outcomes, and a relatively small pool of outcome measures were used. Resource criteria used to inform the estimation of direct costs, were reasonably uniform. Predominantly, however, there was a high level of heterogeneity in terms of evaluation design and sophistication, quality of evidence used (particularly health state utility data), time horizon, population considered, and cost perspective.

Conclusion

Economic evidence for interventions in TRD is underdeveloped, particularly so for service-level interventions. Where evidence does exist, it is hampered by inconsistency in study design, methodological quality, and availability of high quality long-term outcomes evidence. This review identifies a number of key considerations and challenges for the design of future economic evaluations. Recommendations for research and suggestions for good practice are made.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=259848&VersionID=1542096, identifier CRD42021259848.

A Promising Approach to Optimizing Sequential Treatment Decisions for Depression: Markov Decision Process

The most appropriate next step in depression treatment after the initial treatment fails is unclear. This study explores the suitability of the Markov decision process for optimizing sequential treatment decisions for depression. We conducted a formal comparison of a Markov decision process approach and mainstream state-transition models as used in health economic decision analysis to clarify differences in the model structure. We performed two reviews: the first to identify existing applications of the Markov decision process in the field of healthcare and the second to identify existing health economic models for depression. We then illustrated the application of a Markov decision process by reformulating an existing health economic model. This provided input for discussing the suitability of a Markov decision process for solving sequential treatment decisions in depression. The Markov decision process and state-transition models differed in terms of flexibility in modeling actions and rewards. In all, 23 applications of a Markov decision process within the context of somatic disease were included, 16 of which concerned sequential treatment decisions. Most existing health economic models relating to depression have a state-transition structure. The example application replicated the health economic model and enabled additional capacity to make dynamic comparisons of more interventions over time than was possible with traditional state-transition models. Markov decision processes have been successfully applied to address sequential treatment-decision problems, although the results have been published mostly in economics journals that are not related to healthcare. One advantage of a Markov decision process compared with state-transition models is that it allows extended action space: the possibility of making dynamic comparisons of different treatments over time. Within the context of depression, although existing state-transition models are too basic to evaluate sequential treatment decisions, the assumptions of a Markov decision process could be satisfied. The Markov decision process could therefore serve as a powerful model for optimizing sequential treatment in depression. This would require a sufficiently elaborate state-transition model at the cohort or patient level.

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 for the Treatment of Resistant Depression: A Scoping Review

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is associated with significant disability, and due to its high prevalence, it results in a substantive socio-economic burden at a global level. TRD is the inability to accomplish and/or achieve remission after an adequate trial of antidepressant treatments. Studies comparing repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and pharmacotherapy have revealed evidence of the therapeutic efficacy of rTMS in TRD. These findings suggest a crucial role for rTMS in the management of TRD. This article aims to conduct a comprehensive scoping review of the current literature concerning the use of rTMS and its therapeutic efficacy as a treatment modality for TRD. PubMed, PsycINFO, Medline, Embase, and Cinahl were used to identify important articles on rTMS for TRD. The search strategy was limited to English articles within the last five years of data publication. Articles were included if they reported on a completed randomized controlled trial (RCT) of rTMS intervention for TRD. The exclusion criteria involved studies with rTMS for the treatment of conditions other than TRD, and study and experimental protocols of rTMS on TRD. In total, 17 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. The search strategy spanned studies published in the last five years, to the date of the data search (14 February 2022). The regional breakdown of the extracted studies was North American (n = 9), European (n = 5), Asian (n = 2) and Australian (n = 1). The applied frequencies of rTMS ranged from 5 Hz to 50 Hz, with stimulation intensities ranging from 80% MT to 120% MT. Overall, 16 out of the 17 studies suggested that rTMS treatment was effective, safe and tolerated in TRD. For patients with TRD, rTMS appears to provide significant benefits through the reduction of depressive symptoms, and while there is progressive evidence in support of the same, more research is needed in order to define standardized protocols of rTMS application in terms of localization, frequency, intensity, and pulse parameters.

The efficacy of non-invasive, non-convulsive electrical neuromodulation on depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The effects of non-invasive, non-convulsive electrical neuromodulation (NINCEN) on depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance are inconsistent in different studies. Previous meta-analyses on transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) and cerebral electrotherapy stimulation (CES) suggested that these methods are effective on depression. However, not all types of NINECN were included; results on anxiety and sleep disturbance were lacking and the influence of different populations and treatment parameters was not completely analyzed. We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, PsycArticles and CINAHL before March 2021 and included published randomized clinical trials of all types of NINCEN for symptoms of depression, anxiety and sleep in clinical and non-clinical populations. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The main outcome was change in the severity of depressive symptoms after NINCEN treatment. A total of 58 studies on NINCEN were included in the meta-analysis. Active tDCS showed a significant effect on depressive symptoms (Hedges' g = 0.544), anxiety (Hedges' g = 0.667) and response rate (odds ratio = 1.9594) compared to sham control. CES also had a significant effect on depression (Hedges' g = 0.654) and anxiety (Hedges' g = 0.711). For all types of NINCEN, active stimulation was significantly effective on depression, anxiety, sleep efficiency, sleep latency, total sleep time, etc. Our results showed that tDCS has significant effects on both depression and anxiety and that these effects are robust for different populations and treatment parameters. The rational expectation of the tDCS effect is 'response' rather than 'remission'. CES also is effective for depression and anxiety, especially in patients with disorders of low severity.

rTMS combined with CBT as a next step in antidepressant non-responders: a study protocol for a randomized comparison with current antidepressant treatment approaches

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is one of the most common psychiatric disorders, however, current treatment options are insufficiently effective for about 35% of patients, resulting in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a form of non-invasive neuromodulation that is effective in treating TRD. Not much is known about the comparative efficacy of rTMS and other treatments and their timing within the treatment algorithm, making it difficult for the treating physician to establish when rTMS is best offered as a treatment option. This study aims to investigate the (cost-)effectiveness of rTMS (in combination with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and continued antidepressant medication), compared to the next step in the treatment algorithm. This will be done in a sample of patients with treatment resistant non-psychotic unipolar depression.

METHODS

In this pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial 132 patients with MDD are randomized to either rTMS or the next pharmacological step within the current treatment protocol (a switch to a tricyclic antidepressant or augmentation with lithium or a second-generation antipsychotic). Both groups also receive CBT. The trial consists of 8 weeks of unblinded treatment followed by follow-up of the cohort at four and 6 months. A subgroup of patients (n = 92) will have an extended follow-up at nine and 12 months to assess effect decay or retention. We expect that rTMS is more (cost-)effective than medication in reducing depressive symptoms in patients with TRD. We will also explore the effects of both treatments on symptoms associated with depression, e.g. anhedonia and rumination, as well as the effect of expectations regarding the treatments on its effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

The present trial aims to inform clinical decision making about whether rTMS should be considered as a treatment option in patients with TRD. The results may improve treatment outcomes in patients with TRD and may facilitate adoption of rTMS in the treatment algorithm for depression and its implementation in clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered within the Netherlands Trial Register (code: NL7628 , date: March 29th 2019).

Optimal parameter determination of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treating treatment-resistant depression: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Many studies have shown the efficacy of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). However, the choice of different parameters has been a challenging issue.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies until June 20, 2022. The treatment efficacy was evaluated by the relative risk (RR) using the pairwise test for response and remission rates. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore the primary outcome differences and to assess the reliability of the results.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven trials comprising 2120 participants with TRD were included. The more efficacious interventions compared to sham controls included high-frequency left followed by low-frequency right sup-threshold (HFL-LFR-sup-rTMS, RR = 5.29, 95% CI: 1.24-22.50), high-frequency left sup-threshold (HFL-sup-rTMS, RR = 2.97, 95% CI: 1.74-5.05), low-frequency right sup-threshold (LFR-sup-rTMS, RR = 2.72, 95% CI: 1.50-4.90), low-frequency right followed by high-frequency left sup-threshold (LFR-HFL-sup-rTMS, RR = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.62-4.53), and high-frequency left sub-threshold (HFL-sub-rTMS, RR = 1.91, 95% CI: 1.18-3.10) rTMS. The estimated relative ranking of treatments suggested that HFL-LFR-sup-rTMS (84.4%) might be the most efficacious among all rTMS strategies. No treatments showed a lower acceptability than the sham control.

LIMITATIONS

Subgroup analysis was not conducted to compare the efficacy of rTMS treatment between bipolar and unipolar depression, and small-study effects possibly introduced bias.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with HFL-LFR-sup-rTMS, HFL-sup-rTMS, LFR-sup-rTMS, LFR-HFL-sup-rTMS, or HFL-sub-rTMS is more efficacious than the sham control. HFL-LFR-sup-rTMS and HFL-sup-rTMS may be the two best among the most efficacious rTMS treatments.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO], identifier [CRD42022334481].

Cost-utility analysis of esketamine and electroconvulsive therapy in adults with treatment-resistant depression

BACKGROUND

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has long been used for treating individuals with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Esketamine has recently emerged as a new treatment for TRD due to its rapid antidepressant effects. To further inform the decision regarding choice of treatment, this paper aims to evaluate whether ECT or esketamine is the more cost-effective option.

METHODS

The cost-effectiveness was derived as cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) using a Markov model from a societal and life-time perspective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated. Health states included different depression and remission states and death. Data to populate the model was derived from randomised controlled trials and other research. Various sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

The base case scenario shows that ECT is cost-effective compared to esketamine and yields more QALYs at a lower cost. The sensitivity analysis shows that ECT is cost-effective in all scenarios and ECT dominates esketamine in 12 scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found that, from a cost-effectiveness point of view, ECT should be the first-hand option for individuals with TRD, when other first line treatments have failed. Considering the lack of economic evaluation of ECT and esketamine, this study is of great value to decision makers.

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

AIM

Neurostimulation techniques are effective treatments for major depressive disorders (MDD). However, the optimal sequence of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) as part of antidepressant treatment algorithm is unclear. We examined the cost-effectiveness of ECT and TMS in MDD.

METHODS

A decision-analytic model was developed to determine total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for 10 strategies. Each strategy comprised four treatment lines with ECT and TMS incorporated as second, third, or fourth line. A scenario analysis that explored the cost-effectiveness of maintenance approach by continuing ECT and TMS after acute treatment was performed.

RESULTS

In the base case, fourth-line TMS after three preceding trials of antidepressants was least costly at US$ 5523 yielding 1.424 QALYs. Compared with this strategy, fourth-line ECT and third-line TMS followed by ECT were cost-effective with ICERs of US$ 7601 per QALY gained and US$ 11 388 per QALY gained, respectively. In the scenario analysis where continuation treatments of ECT and TMS were provided, third-line TMS followed by ECT was cost-effective, with an ICER of US$ 17 198 per QALY gained. Effectiveness of ECT and cost of managing severe depression were influential parameters affecting the cost-effectiveness results.

CONCLUSIONS

In acute treatment of MDD, fourth-line ECT was the most cost-effective strategy. In maintenance treatment, the strategy that incorporated third-line TMS and fourth-line ECT was cost-effective. The overall findings confirmed the value of neurostimulation therapies which should be offered early in the process of managing depression.

Accelerated transcranial magnetic stimulation (aTMS) to treat depression with treatment switching: study protocol of a pilot, randomized, delayed-start trial

Background

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is a technique for stimulating brain activity using a transient magnetic field to induce an electrical current in the brain producing depolarization of focal groups of brain cells. TMS is a protocol approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in routine clinical practice as a treatment for depression. A major limitation of rTMS is the large amount of time taken for a standard protocol (38 min a day for 20–30 working days). The optimal type and duration of TMS are still uncertain, as is the optimal strategy for continuing or changing the type of rTMS if there is a poor initial response.

Objectives

The trial aims to assess whether a 1-week compressed course of left dorsolateral prefrontal (L DLPFC) 5 Hz accelerated rTMS (aTMS) treatment is as effective as an established 4-week course of non-accelerated rTMS and if additional 5 Hz L DLPFC aTMS treatments will be efficacious in non-responders as compared to 1 Hz right DLPFC aTMS treatment.

Methods

A randomized, single-blind, delayed-start trial was planned to commence in Jan 2020. A total of 60 patients will be enrolled from the Institute of Mental Health Singapore within a 2-year period and randomized into the early or delayed-start phase of the trial. The primary outcome of the trial is the improvement of Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating scale at the end of the active treatment phase.

Discussion

If this study protocol proves to be effective, the findings of this trial will be updated to the College of Psychiatrists, Academy of Medicine Singapore, as well as published in a peer-reviewed journal to enhance local and international TMS treatment guidelines.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03941106

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for peripartum depression: systematic review & meta-analysis

Background

Peripartum depression is a common disorder with very high potential hazards for both the patients and their babies. The typical treatment options include antidepressants and electroconvulsive therapy. However, these treatments do not ensure the safety of the fetus. Recently, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation has emerged as a promising treatment for neuropathies as well as depression. Nevertheless, many studies excluded pregnant women. This systematic review was conducted to confirm whether repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation was a suitable treatment option for peripartum depression.

Methods

We performed a systematic review that followed the PRISMA guidelines. We searched for studies in the MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases published until the end of September 2020. Eleven studies were selected for the systematic review, and five studies were selected for quantitative synthesis. Data analysis was conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 3 software. The effect size was analyzed using the standardized mean difference, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was determined by the generic inverse variance estimation method.

Results

The therapeutic effect size of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for peripartum depression was 1.394 (95% CI: 0.944–1.843), and the sensitivity analysis effect size was 1.074 (95% CI: 0.689–1.459), indicating a significant effect. The side effect size of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for peripartum depression was 0.346 (95% CI: 0.214–0.506), a meaningful result. There were no severe side effects to the mothers or fetuses.

Conclusions

From various perspectives, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation can be considered an alternative treatment to treat peripartum depression to avoid exposure of fetuses to drugs and the severe side effects of electroconvulsive therapy. Further research is required to increase confidence in the results.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12884-021-03600-3.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Pain, Headache, and Comorbid Depression: INS-NANS Expert Consensus Panel Review and Recommendation

BACKGROUND

While transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been studied for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, emerging evidence supports its use for pain and headache by stimulating either motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). However, its clinical implementation is hindered due to a lack of consensus in the quality of clinical evidence and treatment recommendation/guideline(s). Thus, working collaboratively, this multinational multidisciplinary expert panel aims to: 1) assess and rate the existing outcome evidence of TMS in various pain/headache conditions; 2) provide TMS treatment recommendation/guidelines for the evaluated conditions and comorbid depression; and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness and technical issues relevant to the long-term clinical implementation of TMS for pain and headache.

METHODS

Seven task groups were formed under the guidance of a 5-member steering committee with four task groups assessing the utilization of TMS in the treatment of Neuropathic Pain (NP), Acute Pain, Primary Headache Disorders, and Posttraumatic Brain Injury related Headaches (PTBI-HA), and remaining three assessing the treatment for both pain and comorbid depression, and the cost-effectiveness and technological issues relevant to the treatment.

RESULTS

The panel rated the overall level of evidence and recommendability for clinical implementation of TMS as: 1) high and extremely/strongly for both NP and PTBI-HA respectively; 2) moderate for postoperative pain and migraine prevention, and recommendable for migraine prevention. While the use of TMS for treating both pain and depression in one setting is clinically and financially sound, more studies are required to fully assess the long-term benefit of the treatment for the two highly comorbid conditions, especially with neuronavigation.

CONCLUSIONS

After extensive literature review, the panel provided recommendations and treatment guidelines for TMS in managing neuropathic pain and headaches. In addition, the panel also recommended more outcome and cost-effectiveness studies to assess the feasibility of the long-term clinical implementation of the treatment.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Electroconvulsive Therapy and Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression in Ontario

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), and combining both treatments in a stepped care pathway for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in Ontario.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis evaluated the lifetime costs and benefits to society of rTMS and ECT as first-line treatments for TRD using a Markov model, which simulates the costs and health benefits of patients over their lifetime. Health states included acute treatment, maintenance treatment, remission, and severe depression. Treatment efficacy and health utility data were extracted and synthesized from randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses evaluating these techniques. Direct costing data were obtained from national and provincial costing databases. Indirect costs were derived from government records. Scenario, threshold, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test robustness of the results.

RESULTS

rTMS dominated ECT, as it was less costly and produced better health outcomes, measured in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), in the base case scenario. rTMS patients gained an average of 0.96 additional QALYs (equivalent to approximately 1 year in perfect health) over their lifetime with costs that were $46,094 less than ECT. rTMS remained dominant in the majority of scenario and threshold analyses. However, results from scenarios in which the model's maximum lifetime allowance of rTMS treatment courses was substantially limited, the dominance of rTMS over ECT was attenuated. The scenario that showed the highest QALY gain (1.19) and the greatest cost-savings ($46,614) was when rTMS nonresponders switched to ECT.

CONCLUSION

From a societal perspective utilizing a lifetime horizon, rTMS is a cost-effective first-line treatment option for TRD relative to ECT, as it is less expensive and produces better health outcomes. The reduced side effect profile and greater patient acceptability of rTMS that allow it to be administered more times than ECT in a patient's lifetime may contribute to its cost-effectiveness.

Cost-utility analysis of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) in non-treatment-resistant depression: the DISCO randomised controlled study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Depression is among the most widespread psychiatric disorders in France. Psychiatric disorders are associated with considerable social costs, amounting to €22.6 billion for treatment and psychotropic medication in 2011. Treatment as usual (TAU), mainly consisting of pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy, is effective for only a third of patients and in most cases fails to prevent treatment resistance and chronicity. Transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) consists in a non-invasive and painless application of low-intensity electric current to the cerebral cortex through the scalp. Having proved effective in depressed patients, it could be used in combination with TAU to great advantage. The objective is to compare, for the first time ever, the cost-utility of tDCS-TAU and of TAU alone for the treatment of a depressive episode that has been refractory to one or two drug treatments.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This paper, based on the DISCO study protocol, focuses on the design of a prospective, randomised, controlled, open-label multicentre economic study to be conducted in France. It will include 214 patients with unipolar or bipolar depression, assigning them to two parallel arms: group A (tDCS-TAU) and group B (TAU alone). The primary outcome is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, that is, the ratio of the difference in cost between each strategy to the difference in their effects. Their effects will be expressed as numbers of quality-adjusted life-years, determined through administration of the EuroQol Five-Dimension questionnaire over a 12-month period to patients (EQ-5D-5L). Expected benefits are the reduction of treatment resistance and suicidal ideation as well as social and professional costs of depression. Should depression-related costs fall significantly, tDCS might be considered an efficient treatment for depression.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol has been approved by a French ethics committee, the CPP--Est IV (Comité de Protection des Personnes-Strasbourg). Data are to be published in peer-reviewed medical journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

RCB 2018-A00474-51; NCT03758105.

A Non-inferiority Framework for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

BACKGROUND

Traditional decision rules have limitations when a new technology is less effective and less costly than a comparator. We propose a new probabilistic decision framework to examine non-inferiority in effectiveness and net monetary benefit (NMB) simultaneously. We illustrate this framework using the example of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for treatment-resistant depression.

METHODS

We modeled the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with the new intervention (rTMS), an active control (ECT), and a placebo control, and we estimated the fraction of effectiveness preserved by the new intervention through probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). We then assessed the probability of cost-effectiveness using a traditional cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and our new decision-making framework. In our new framework, we considered the new intervention cost-effective in each simulation of the PSA if it preserved at least 75 percent of the effectiveness of the active control (thus demonstrating non-inferiority) and had a positive NMB at a given willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP).

RESULTS

rTMS was less effective (i.e., associated with fewer QALYs) and less costly than ECT. The traditional CEAC approach showed that the probabilities of rTMS being cost-effective were 100 percent, 39 percent, and 14 percent at WTPs of $0, $50,000, and $100,000 per QALY gained, respectively. In the new decision framework, the probabilities of rTMS being cost-effective were reduced to 23 percent, 21 percent, and 13 percent at WTPs of $0, $50,000, and $100,000 per QALY, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This new framework provides a different perspective for decision making with considerations of both non-inferiority and WTP thresholds.