Eric L Ross1, Djøra I Soeteman1. 1. Department of Psychiatry, McLean Hospital, Belmont, Massachusetts (Ross); Department of Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital (Ross), Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School (Ross), and Center for Health Decision Science, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, all in Boston (Soeteman).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of esketamine, a novel intranasally dosed antidepressant, for patients in the United States with treatment-resistant depression. METHODS: A decision-analytic model parameterized with efficacy data from phase 3 randomized trials of esketamine was used to simulate the effects of treatment with esketamine versus oral antidepressants over a 5-year horizon, from both societal and health care sector perspectives. Outcomes included remission and response of depression, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for esketamine. Value-based prices were calculated, defined as the per-dose price at which esketamine would become cost-effective given cost-effectiveness thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, and $150,000/QALY. Uncertainty in these outcomes was assessed with probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Key model parameters included the efficacy of esketamine versus oral antidepressants (relative risk of 1.39 for remission; 1.32 for response) and the monthly cost of esketamine ($5,572 for month 1; $1,699-$2,244 thereafter). RESULTS: Over 5 years, esketamine was projected to increase time in remission from 25.3% to 31.1% of life-years, resulting in a gain of 0.07 QALYs. Esketamine increased societal costs by $16,617 and health care sector costs by $16,995. Base case ICERs were $237,111/QALY (societal) and $242,496/QALY (health care sector). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a greater than 95% likelihood that esketamine's ICER would be above $150,000/QALY. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $150,000/QALY, esketamine's value-based price was approximately $140/dose (versus a current price of $240/dose). CONCLUSIONS: Esketamine is unlikely to be cost-effective for management of treatment-resistant depression in the United States unless its price falls by more than 40%.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of esketamine, a novel intranasally dosed antidepressant, for patients in the United States with treatment-resistant depression. METHODS: A decision-analytic model parameterized with efficacy data from phase 3 randomized trials of esketamine was used to simulate the effects of treatment with esketamine versus oral antidepressants over a 5-year horizon, from both societal and health care sector perspectives. Outcomes included remission and response of depression, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for esketamine. Value-based prices were calculated, defined as the per-dose price at which esketamine would become cost-effective given cost-effectiveness thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, and $150,000/QALY. Uncertainty in these outcomes was assessed with probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Key model parameters included the efficacy of esketamine versus oral antidepressants (relative risk of 1.39 for remission; 1.32 for response) and the monthly cost of esketamine ($5,572 for month 1; $1,699-$2,244 thereafter). RESULTS: Over 5 years, esketamine was projected to increase time in remission from 25.3% to 31.1% of life-years, resulting in a gain of 0.07 QALYs. Esketamine increased societal costs by $16,617 and health care sector costs by $16,995. Base case ICERs were $237,111/QALY (societal) and $242,496/QALY (health care sector). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a greater than 95% likelihood that esketamine's ICER would be above $150,000/QALY. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $150,000/QALY, esketamine's value-based price was approximately $140/dose (versus a current price of $240/dose). CONCLUSIONS: Esketamine is unlikely to be cost-effective for management of treatment-resistant depression in the United States unless its price falls by more than 40%.
Authors: A John Rush; Madhukar H Trivedi; Stephen R Wisniewski; Andrew A Nierenberg; Jonathan W Stewart; Diane Warden; George Niederehe; Michael E Thase; Philip W Lavori; Barry D Lebowitz; Patrick J McGrath; Jerrold F Rosenbaum; Harold A Sackeim; David J Kupfer; James Luther; Maurizio Fava Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Ann Marie Navar; Benjamin Taylor; Hillary Mulder; Eugene Fievitz; Keri L Monda; Anna Fievitz; Juan F Maya; J Antonio G López; Eric D Peterson Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-11-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Tony B Amos; Neeta Tandon; Patrick Lefebvre; Dominic Pilon; Rhiannon L Kamstra; Irina Pivneva; Paul E Greenberg Journal: J Clin Psychiatry Date: 2018 Mar/Apr Impact factor: 4.384
Authors: Gang Li; Daniel Fife; Grace Wang; John J Sheehan; Robert Bodén; Lena Brandt; Philip Brenner; Johan Reutfors; Allitia DiBernardo Journal: Ann Gen Psychiatry Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Sanne Y Smith-Apeldoorn; Jolien K E Veraart; Henricus G Ruhé; Marije Aan Het Rot; Jeanine Kamphuis; Marrit K de Boer; Robert A Schoevers Journal: BJPsych Open Date: 2021-12-06
Authors: Sanne Y Smith-Apeldoorn; Maurice Vischjager; Jolien Ke Veraart; Jeanine Kamphuis; Marije Aan Het Rot; Robert A Schoevers Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 4.562