Eric L Ross1, Kara Zivin1,2,3,4, Daniel F Maixner1. 1. Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor. 2. Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Michigan School of Public Health, Ann Arbor. 3. Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 4. Center for Clinical Management Research, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor.
Abstract
Importance: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a highly effective treatment for depression but is infrequently used owing to stigma, uncertainty about indications, adverse effects, and perceived high cost. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of ECT compared with pharmacotherapy/psychotherapy for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: A decision analytic model integrating data on clinical efficacy, costs, and quality-of-life effects of ECT compared with pharmacotherapy/psychotherapy was used to simulate depression treatment during a 4-year horizon from a US health care sector perspective. Model input data were drawn from multiple meta-analyses, randomized trials, and observational studies of patients with depression. Where possible, data sources were restricted to US-based studies of nonpsychotic major depression. Data were analyzed between June 2017 and January 2018. Interventions: Six alternative strategies for incorporating ECT into depression treatment (after failure of 0-5 lines of pharmacotherapy/psychotherapy) compared with no ECT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Remission, response, and nonresponse of depression; quality-adjusted life-years; costs in 2013 US dollars; and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year or less were designated cost-effective. Results: Based on the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression trial, we simulated a population with a mean (SD) age of 40.7 (13.2) years, and 62.2% women. Over 4 years, ECT was projected to reduce time with uncontrolled depression from 50% of life-years to 33% to 37% of life-years, with greater improvements when ECT is offered earlier. Mean health care costs were increased by $7300 to $12 000, with greater incremental costs when ECT was offered earlier. In the base case, third-line ECT was cost-effective, with an ICER of $54 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Third-line ECT remained cost-effective in a range of univariate, scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Incorporating all input data uncertainty, we estimate a 74% to 78% likelihood that at least 1 of the ECT strategies is cost-effective and a 56% to 58% likelihood that third-line ECT is the optimal strategy. Conclusions and Relevance: For US patients with treatment-resistant depression, ECT may be an effective and cost-effective treatment option. Although many factors influence the decision to proceed with ECT, these data suggest that, from a health-economic standpoint, ECT should be considered after failure of 2 or more lines of pharmacotherapy/psychotherapy.
Importance: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a highly effective treatment for depression but is infrequently used owing to stigma, uncertainty about indications, adverse effects, and perceived high cost. Objective: To assess the cost-effectiveness of ECT compared with pharmacotherapy/psychotherapy for treatment-resistant major depressive disorder in the United States. Design, Setting, and Participants: A decision analytic model integrating data on clinical efficacy, costs, and quality-of-life effects of ECT compared with pharmacotherapy/psychotherapy was used to simulate depression treatment during a 4-year horizon from a US health care sector perspective. Model input data were drawn from multiple meta-analyses, randomized trials, and observational studies of patients with depression. Where possible, data sources were restricted to US-based studies of nonpsychotic major depression. Data were analyzed between June 2017 and January 2018. Interventions: Six alternative strategies for incorporating ECT into depression treatment (after failure of 0-5 lines of pharmacotherapy/psychotherapy) compared with no ECT. Main Outcomes and Measures: Remission, response, and nonresponse of depression; quality-adjusted life-years; costs in 2013 US dollars; and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Strategies with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year or less were designated cost-effective. Results: Based on the Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression trial, we simulated a population with a mean (SD) age of 40.7 (13.2) years, and 62.2% women. Over 4 years, ECT was projected to reduce time with uncontrolled depression from 50% of life-years to 33% to 37% of life-years, with greater improvements when ECT is offered earlier. Mean health care costs were increased by $7300 to $12 000, with greater incremental costs when ECT was offered earlier. In the base case, third-line ECT was cost-effective, with an ICER of $54 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Third-line ECT remained cost-effective in a range of univariate, scenario, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Incorporating all input data uncertainty, we estimate a 74% to 78% likelihood that at least 1 of the ECT strategies is cost-effective and a 56% to 58% likelihood that third-line ECT is the optimal strategy. Conclusions and Relevance: For US patients with treatment-resistant depression, ECT may be an effective and cost-effective treatment option. Although many factors influence the decision to proceed with ECT, these data suggest that, from a health-economic standpoint, ECT should be considered after failure of 2 or more lines of pharmacotherapy/psychotherapy.
Authors: H A Sackeim; J Prudic; D P Devanand; M S Nobler; S H Lisanby; S Peyser; L Fitzsimons; B J Moody; J Clark Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2000-05
Authors: Sidney H Kennedy; Raymond W Lam; Roger S McIntyre; S Valérie Tourjman; Venkat Bhat; Pierre Blier; Mehrul Hasnain; Fabrice Jollant; Anthony J Levitt; Glenda M MacQueen; Shane J McInerney; Diane McIntosh; Roumen V Milev; Daniel J Müller; Sagar V Parikh; Norma L Pearson; Arun V Ravindran; Rudolf Uher Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 4.356
Authors: Pim Cuijpers; Nicole Vogelzangs; Jos Twisk; Annet Kleiboer; Juan Li; Brenda W Penninx Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: James M Russell; Kevin Hawkins; Ronald J Ozminkowski; Lucinda Orsini; William H Crown; Sean Kennedy; Stan Finkelstein; Ernst Berndt; A John Rush Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Søren D Østergaard; Maria S Speed; Charles H Kellner; Martina Mueller; Shawn M McClintock; Mustafa M Husain; Georgios Petrides; William V McCall; Sarah H Lisanby Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2020-05-23 Impact factor: 4.839
Authors: Takahiro Soda; Declan M McLoughlin; Scott R Clark; Leif Oltedal; Ute Kessler; Jan Haavik; Chad Bousman; Daniel J Smith; Miquel Bioque; Caitlin C Clements; Colleen Loo; Fidel Vila-Rodriguez; Alessandra Minelli; Brian J Mickey; Roumen Milev; Anna R Docherty; Julie Langan Martin; Eric D Achtyes; Volker Arolt; Ronny Redlich; Udo Dannlowski; Narcis Cardoner; Emily Clare; Nick Craddock; Arianna Di Florio; Monika Dmitrzak-Weglarz; Liz Forty; Katherine Gordon-Smith; Mustafa Husain; Wendy M Ingram; Lisa Jones; Ian Jones; Mario Juruena; George Kirov; Mikael Landén; Daniel J Müller; Axel Nordensköld; Erik Pålsson; Meethu Paul; Agnieszka Permoda; Bartlomiej Pliszka; Jamie Rea; Klaus O Schubert; Joshua A Sonnen; Virginia Soria; Will Stageman; Akihiro Takamiya; Mikel Urretavizacaya; Stuart Watson; Maxim Zavorotny; Allan H Young; Eduard Vieta; Janusz K Rybakowski; Massimo Gennarelli; Peter P Zandi; Patrick F Sullivan; Bernhard T Baune Journal: Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 5.270
Authors: Kyle P Fitzgibbon; Donna Plett; Brian C F Chan; Rebecca Hancock-Howard; Peter C Coyte; Daniel M Blumberger Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2019-12-05 Impact factor: 4.356