ElectroConvulsive therapy Cognitive Assessment (ECCA) tool: A new instrument to monitor cognitive function in patients undergoing ECT.

BACKGROUND: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is a well-established treatment for severe depression but may result in adverse cognitive effects. Available cognitive screening instruments are nonspecific to the cognitive deficits associated with ECT. An ECT-cognitive assessment tool which can be easily administered was developed and validated in a clinical setting. METHODS: One hundred and thirty-six participants were enrolled. The ElectroConvulsive therapy Cognitive Assessment (ECCA) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) were administered prospectively to 55 participants with major depressive disorder (MDD) undergoing ECT at three time points: pre-treatment, before the sixth treatment and one-week post-treatment. The psychometric properties of the total and domain scores were evaluated at all three time points. Forty demographically comparable participants with MDD who did not receive ECT, and 41 healthy, age-matched controls were evaluated at a single time point. RESULTS: ECCA and MoCA scores were not statistically different at baseline. Prior to the sixth and final ECT session, total ECCA scores were significantly lower than the MoCA total scores. The ECCA domains of subjective memory, informant-assessed memory, attention, autobiographical memory and delayed verbal recall were significantly lower post-ECT compared to pre-ECT. LIMITATIONS: The ECCA was compared only to the MoCA rather than to a more comprehensive neuropsychological testing. This limitation reflected the real-life clinical burden of performing full neuropsychological testing at three time points during the treatment course. CONCLUSIONS: The ECCA is a brief, reliable, bedside cognitive screening assessment tool that may be useful to monitor cognitive function in patients treated with ECT. The test can be downloaded from fuquacenter.org/ecca.

Cost-effectiveness of Electroconvulsive Therapy vs Pharmacotherapy/Psychotherapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression in the United States.

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.