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

Cost-effectiveness and threshold analysis of deep brain stimulation vs. treatment-as-usual for treatment-resistant depression

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) affects approximately 2.8 million people in the U.S. with estimated annual healthcare costs of $43.8 billion. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is currently an investigational intervention for TRD. We used a decision-analytic model to compare cost-effectiveness of DBS to treatment-as-usual (TAU) for TRD. Because this therapy is not FDA approved or in common use, our goal was to establish an effectiveness threshold that trials would need to demonstrate for this therapy to be cost-effective. Remission and complication rates were determined from review of relevant studies. We used published utility scores to reflect quality of life after treatment. Medicare reimbursement rates and health economics data were used to approximate costs. We performed Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER; USD/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) at a 5-year time horizon. Cost-effectiveness was defined using willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $100,000/QALY and $50,000/QALY for moderate and definitive cost-effectiveness, respectively. We included 274 patients across 16 studies from 2009-2021 who underwent DBS for TRD and had ≥12 months follow-up in our model inputs. From a healthcare sector perspective, DBS using non-rechargeable devices (DBS-pc) would require 55% and 85% remission, while DBS using rechargeable devices (DBS-rc) would require 11% and 19% remission for moderate and definitive cost-effectiveness, respectively. From a societal perspective, DBS-pc would require 35% and 46% remission, while DBS-rc would require 8% and 10% remission for moderate and definitive cost-effectiveness, respectively. DBS-pc will unlikely be cost-effective at any time horizon without transformative improvements in battery longevity. If remission rates ≥8-19% are achieved, DBS-rc will likely be more cost-effective than TAU for TRD, with further increasing cost-effectiveness beyond 5 years.

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.

Study protocol for evaluating the clinical efficacy and neurobiological correlates of sequential treatment with tDCS primed iTBS and ECT in treatment-resistant depression

Background: Treatment-resistant depression is a burdensome condition. Intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is considered a treatment option in early course of resistance with a proportion of such patients responding to it. Preliminary evidence suggests a role of priming iTBS stimulation with preconditioning using cathodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). This protocol describes a double-blind randomized sham-controlled study to evaluate the clinical efficacy and tolerability of tDCS-primed iTBS in the treatment of resistant depression. Non-responders to this trial will be offered open-label electroconvulsive therapy. All participants will undergo neurobiological investigations that will enable the identification of potential response predictors and mechanisms. Methods: Three hundred and fifty consenting patients with treatment resistant depression will be randomly assigned to receive 20–30 daily sessions of true-tDCS or sham-tDCS primed iTBS over left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex at three study centers. After this blinded sham-controlled trial, non-responders to the intervention will be offered open-label true ECT. Clinical assessments, neurocognitive assessments and multimodal investigations (magnetic resonance imaging, electroencephalography, heart rate variability, investigative transcranial magnetic stimulation-transcranial direct current stimulation, gene polymorphisms) will be conducted at baseline and repeated after the end of the trial, as well as open-label ECT course. The trial will evaluate the improvement in depressive symptoms (Hamilton depression rating scale) between the two groups as the primary outcome measure.

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.

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).

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.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for People With Treatment-Resistant Depression: A Health Technology Assessment

BACKGROUND

Major depression is one of the most diagnosed mental illnesses in Canada. Generally, people are treated successfully with antidepressants or psychotherapy, but some people do not respond to these treatments (called treatment-resistant depression [TRD]). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) delivers magnetic pulses to stimulate the areas of the brain associated with mood regulation. Several modalities of rTMS exist (e.g., high frequency rTMS, intermittent theta burst stimulation [iTBS], deep transcranial magnetic stimulation). We conducted a health technology assessment of rTMS for people with TRD, which included an evaluation of effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness, the budget impact of publicly funding rTMS, and patient preferences and values.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search of the clinical evidence. We assessed the risk of bias of each included study using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool and Cochrane Risk of Bias for Randomized Controlled Trials and the quality of the body of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria. We performed a systematic economic literature search and conducted a cost-utility analysis with a 3-year horizon from a public payer perspective. We also analyzed the 5-year budget impact of publicly funding rTMS for people with TRD in Ontario. To assess the potential value of rTMS, we spoke with people who have TRD. Seven rTMS modalities were considered: low-frequency (1 Hz) stimulation, high-frequency (10-20 Hz) stimulation, unilateral stimulation, bilateral stimulation, iTBS, continuous theta burst stimulation, and deep transcranial magnetic stimulation.

RESULTS

We included 58 primary studies, 9 systematic reviews, and 1 network meta-analysis in the clinical evidence review. Most rTMS modalities were more effective than sham treatment for all outcomes (GRADE: Moderate to High). All rTMS modalities were similar to one another in response and remission rates (GRADE: not reported) and were similar to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in response and remission rates (GRADE: Moderate). Moreover, in both the reference case and scenario analyses, two rTMS modalities (rTMS or iTBS), followed by ECT when patients did not respond to initial treatment, were less expensive and more effective than ECT alone. They were cost-effective compared with pharmacotherapy alone at a willingness-to-pay amount of $50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The annual budget impact of publicly funding rTMS would range from $9.3 million in year 1 to $15.76 million in year 5, for a total of $63.2 million over the next 5 years. People with TRD we spoke with reported that their experiences were generally favourable, and their attitudes toward rTMS were positive. Similarly, psychiatrists had positive attitudes toward and acceptance of rTMS. Our quantitative literature review on preferences revealed some gaps in psychiatrists' knowledge of rTMS, which could have been influenced by their level of training on rTMS.

CONCLUSIONS

Most rTMS modalities are likely more effective than sham rTMS on all outcomes. All rTMS modalities are similar to ECT and to one another in response and remission rates. Compared with ECT alone, two rTMS modalities (high-frequency rTMS and iTBS), followed by ECT when necessary in a stepped care pathway, were less costly and more effective for managing adults with TRD. These types of rTMS (high-frequency rTMS and iTBS) were cost-effective compared with pharmacotherapy alone at a willingness-to-pay amount of $50,000 per QALY. Publicly funding rTMS (high-frequency rTMS and iTBS) for the treatment of adults with TRD in Ontario over the next 5 years would add $63.2 million in total costs. People with TRD had positive experiences and attitudes toward rTMS.

Cost-effectiveness of guideline-based stepped and collaborative care versus treatment as usual for patients with depression - a cluster-randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Depression is associated with major patient burden. Its treatment requires complex and collaborative approaches. A stepped care model based on the German National Clinical Practice Guideline "Unipolar Depression" has been shown to be effective. In this study we assess the cost-effectiveness of this guideline based stepped care model versus treatment as usual in depression.

METHODS

This prospective cluster-randomized controlled trial included 737 depressive adult patients. Primary care practices were randomized to an intervention (IG) or a control group (CG). The intervention consisted of a four-level stepped care model. The CG received treatment as usual. A cost-utility analysis from the societal perspective with a time horizon of 12 months was performed. We used quality-adjusted life years (QALY) based on the EQ-5D-3L as effect measure. Resource utilization was assessed by patient questionnaires. Missing values were imputed by 'multiple imputation using chained equations' based on predictive mean matching. We calculated adjusted group differences in costs and effects as well as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. To describe the statistical and decision uncertainty cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed based on net-benefit regressions with bootstrapped standard errors (1000 replications). The complete sample and subgroups based on depression severity were considered.

RESULTS

We found no statically significant differences in costs and effects between IG and CG. The incremental total societal costs (+€5016; 95%-CI: [-€259;€10,290) and effects (+ 0.008 QALY; 95%-CI: [- 0.030; 0.046]) were higher in the IG in comparison to the CG. Significantly higher costs were found in the IG for outpatient physician services and psychiatrist services in comparison to the CG. Significantly higher total costs and productivity losses in the IG in comparison to the CG were found in the group with severe depression. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for the IG in comparison to the CG were unfavourable (complete sample: €627.000/QALY gained; mild depression: dominated; moderately severe depression: €645.154/QALY gained; severe depression: €2082,714/QALY gained) and the probability of cost-effectiveness of the intervention was low, except for the group with moderate depression (ICER: dominance; 70% for willingness-to-pay threshold of €50,000/QALY gained).

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence for cost-effectiveness of the intervention in comparison to treatment as usual.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT, NCT01731717 . Registered 22 November 2012 - Retrospectively registered.