Kyle P Fitzgibbon1, Donna Plett1, Brian C F Chan2, Rebecca Hancock-Howard1, Peter C Coyte1, Daniel M Blumberger3,4. 1. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. KITE, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Temerty Centre for Therapeutic Brain Intervention, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
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.
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.
Entities:
Keywords:
cost–benefit analysis; depressive disorder; depressive disorders; electroconvulsive therapy; health care costs; transcranial magnetic stimulation; treatment-resistant
Authors: Sarah K Emond; Daniel A Ollendorf; Jennifer A Colby; Sarah Jane Reed; Steven D Pearson Journal: Postgrad Med Date: 2013-11 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Asli Demirtas-Tatlidede; Dawn Mechanic-Hamilton; Daniel Z Press; Chester Pearlman; William M Stern; Mark Thall; Alvaro Pascual-Leone Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2008-06 Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Antal Zemplényi; Judit Józwiak-Hagymásy; Sándor Kovács; Dalma Erdősi; Imre Boncz; Tamás Tényi; Péter Osváth; Viktor Voros Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 4.144
Authors: Iris Dalhuisen; Filip Smit; Jan Spijker; Iris van Oostrom; Eric van Exel; Hans van Mierlo; Dieuwertje de Waardt; Martijn Arns; Indira Tendolkar; Philip van Eijndhoven Journal: BMC Psychiatry Date: 2022-02-05 Impact factor: 3.630