Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy with antidepressant treatment in patients with treatment-resistant depression in Japan.

Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) became covered by the National Health Insurance (NHI) in Japan since 2019. Although the evidence of rTMS for TRD is well established, the cost-effectiveness of rTMS versus antidepressants has not been thoroughly analyzed in Japan. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of rTMS for TRD under the NHI system using a microsimulation model to compare the direct costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Model inputs of clinical parameters and the utility were derived from published literature. Cost parameters were estimated from the Japanese Claim Database. The robustness of the analyses was evaluated with sensitivity analysis and scenario analysis. The analysis estimated that rTMS increased effectiveness by 0.101QALYs and total cost by ¥94,370 ($689) compared with antidepressant medications. As a result, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of rTMS was estimated to be ¥935,984 ($6,832)/QALY. In the sensitivity and scenario analyses, ICER did not exceed ¥5 million ($36,496)/QALY as the reference value of the Japanese public cost-effectiveness evaluation system. rTMS therapy for TRD can be a cost-effective treatment strategy compared to antidepressant medication under the NHI system in Japan.

Effectiveness of medical fee revisions for psychotropic polypharmacy in patients with mood disorders in Japan: An interrupted time-series analysis using a nationwide inpatient database.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of medical fee revisions aimed to reduce psychotropic polypharmacy in Japan on the proportion of psychotropic polypharmacy in discharge prescriptions for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) or bipolar disorder (BD) using a nationwide inpatient database. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we used the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database to identify patients with MDD or BD discharged between April 2012 and March 2021. We targeted medical fee revisions in October 2014, April 2016, and April 2018. The major outcome was the monthly proportion of psychotropic polypharmacy in prescription at discharge using the criteria following the April 2018 revision (antidepressants ≥3, antipsychotics ≥3, anxiolytics ≥3, hypnotics ≥3, or sum of anxiolytics and hypnotics ≥4). We performed interrupted time series analyses to evaluate the changes in level and trend between pre- and post-revisions. RESULTS: We identified 63,289 and 33,780 patients with MDD and BD respectively in the entire study period. In both the patient groups, there were significant decreases in the proportion of psychotropic polypharmacy at revision in October 2014, and no significant trend and level change at revision were observed in April 2016 and April 2018, with a few exceptions. CONCLUSIONS: The medical fee revisions aimed to reduce psychotropic polypharmacy in Japan might have had a limited impact on discharge prescriptions for patients with MDD and BD.