Cost-effectiveness and threshold analysis of deep brain stimulation vs. treatment-as-usual for treatment-resistant depression.

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) affects approximately 2.8 million people in the U.S. with estimated annual healthcare costs of $43.8 billion. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is currently an investigational intervention for TRD. We used a decision-analytic model to compare cost-effectiveness of DBS to treatment-as-usual (TAU) for TRD. Because this therapy is not FDA approved or in common use, our goal was to establish an effectiveness threshold that trials would need to demonstrate for this therapy to be cost-effective. Remission and complication rates were determined from review of relevant studies. We used published utility scores to reflect quality of life after treatment. Medicare reimbursement rates and health economics data were used to approximate costs. We performed Monte Carlo (MC) simulations and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER; USD/quality-adjusted life year [QALY]) at a 5-year time horizon. Cost-effectiveness was defined using willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of $100,000/QALY and $50,000/QALY for moderate and definitive cost-effectiveness, respectively. We included 274 patients across 16 studies from 2009-2021 who underwent DBS for TRD and had ≥12 months follow-up in our model inputs. From a healthcare sector perspective, DBS using non-rechargeable devices (DBS-pc) would require 55% and 85% remission, while DBS using rechargeable devices (DBS-rc) would require 11% and 19% remission for moderate and definitive cost-effectiveness, respectively. From a societal perspective, DBS-pc would require 35% and 46% remission, while DBS-rc would require 8% and 10% remission for moderate and definitive cost-effectiveness, respectively. DBS-pc will unlikely be cost-effective at any time horizon without transformative improvements in battery longevity. If remission rates ≥8-19% are achieved, DBS-rc will likely be more cost-effective than TAU for TRD, with further increasing cost-effectiveness beyond 5 years.

Cost-utility analysis of adjunct repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment resistant bipolar depression.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) as an adjunct to standard care from an Australian health sector perspective, compared to standard care alone for adults with treatment-resistant bipolar depression (TRBD). METHODS: An economic model was developed to estimate the cost per disability-adjusted life-year (DALY) averted and quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained for rTMS added to standard care compared to standard care alone, for adults with TRBD. The model simulated the time in three health states (mania, depression, residual) over one year. Response to rTMS was sourced from a meta-analysis, converted to a relative risk and used to modify the time in the depressed state. Uncertainty and sensitivity tested the robustness of results. RESULTS: Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were $72,299 per DALY averted (95 % Uncertainty Interval (UI): $60,915 to $86,668) and $46,623 per QALY gained (95 % UI: $39,676 - $55,161). At a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of $96,000 per DALY averted, the base-case had a 100 % probability of being marginally cost-effective. At a WTP threshold of $64,000 per QALY gained, the base-case had a 100 % probability of being cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses decreasing the number of sessions provided, increasing the disability weight or the time spent in the depression state for standard care improved the ICERs for rTMS. CONCLUSIONS: Dependent on the outcome measure utilised and assumptions, rTMS would be considered a very cost-effective or marginally cost-effective adjunct to standard care for TRBD compared to standard care alone.

Understanding the Relationship Between Depression Symptom Severity and Health Care Costs for Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression.

Objective: To examine whether measures of depression symptom severity could improve understanding of health care costs for patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) or treatment-resistant depression (TRD) from the health plan perspective.Methods: In this retrospective cohort study within an integrated health system, cohorts consisted of 2 mutually exclusive groups: (1) adults with TRD based on a standard treatment algorithm and (2) adults with MDD, but no TRD, identified through ICD-9/10-CM codes. Depression severity was measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Patterns of health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs were compared between the TRD and MDD groups overall and within the groups at different symptom levels. A general linear model with a γ distribution and log link for cost outcomes, logistic regression for binary outcomes, and negative binomial regression for count outcomes were used.Results: Patients with TRD (n = 24,534) had greater comorbidity than those in the MDD group (n = 17,628). Mean age in the TRD group was 52.8 years versus 48.2 for MDD (P < .001). Both groups were predominantly female (TRD: 72.8% vs MDD: 66.9%; P < .001). Overall, the TRD group had greater costs than the MDD group, with 1.23 times (95% CI, 1.21-1.26; P < .001) greater total cost on average over 1 year following index date. Within both groups, those with severe symptoms had greater total mean (SD) costs (TRD: moderate: $12,429 [$23,900] vs severe: $13,344 [$22,895], P < .001; low: $12,220 [$31,864] vs severe: $13,344 [$22,895], P < .001; MDD: moderate: $8,899 [$20,755] vs severe: $10,098 [$22,853]; P < .001; low: $8,752 [$25,800] vs severe: $10,098 [$22,853], P < .001).Conclusions: MDD and TRD impose high costs for health systems, with increasing costs as PHQ-9 symptom severity rises. Better understanding of subgroups with different symptom levels could improve clinical care by helping target interventions.

Cost-effectiveness analyses of augmented cognitive behavioral therapy for pharmacotherapy-resistant depression at secondary mental health care settings.

AIM: Pharmacotherapy is the primary treatment strategy in major depression. However, two-thirds of patients remain depressed after the initial antidepressant treatment. Augmented cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for pharmacotherapy-resistant depression in primary mental health care settings proved effective and cost-effective. Although we reported the clinical effectiveness of augmented CBT in secondary mental health care, its cost-effectiveness has not been evaluated. Therefore, we aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of augmented CBT adjunctive to treatment as usual (TAU) and TAU alone for pharmacotherapy-resistant depression at secondary mental health care settings. METHODS: We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis at 64 weeks, alongside a randomized controlled trial involving 80 patients who sought depression treatment at a university hospital and psychiatric hospital (one each). The cost-effectiveness was assessed by the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) that compared the difference in costs and quality-adjusted life years, and other clinical scales, between the groups. RESULTS: The ICERs were JPY -15 278 322 and 2 026 865 for pharmacotherapy-resistant depression for all samples and those with moderate/severe symptoms at baseline, respectively. The acceptability curve demonstrates a 0.221 and 0.701 probability of the augmented CBT being cost-effective for all samples and moderate/severe depression, respectively, at the threshold of JPY 4.57 million (GBP 30 000). The sensitivity analysis supported the robustness of our results restricting for moderate/severe depression. CONCLUSION: Augmented CBT for pharmacotherapy-resistant depression is not cost-effective for all samples including mild depression. In contrast, it appeared to be cost-effective for the patients currently manifesting moderate/severe symptoms under secondary mental health care.

The Prevalence and National Burden of Treatment-Resistant Depression and Major Depressive Disorder in the United States.

OBJECTIVE: Estimates of prevalence and burden of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) vary widely in the literature. This study evaluated the prevalence and burden of TRD and the share of TRD in the burden of medication-treated major depressive disorder (MDD) using the most commonly accepted definition of TRD and a novel bottom-up approach. METHODS: Prevalence and health care burden of TRD were estimated by synthetizing inputs across 4 similarly designed claims studies in adults covered by Medicare, Medicaid, commercial plans, and the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA). Productivity (absenteeism and presenteeism) and unemployment burden were estimated based on inputs from a study conducted with data from the Kantar National Health and Wellness Survey (NHWS; 2017). A targeted literature search for additional inputs was performed. A cost model was developed to estimate the burden of TRD and medication-treated DSM-5-defined MDD in the United States. Study outcomes were the 12-month prevalence of TRD and the annual health care, productivity, and unemployment burden of TRD and medication-treated MDD in the United States. RESULTS: The estimated 12-month prevalence of medication-treated MDD in the United States was 8.9 million adults, and 2.8 million (30.9%) had TRD. The total annual burden of medication-treated MDD among the US population was $92.7 billion, with $43.8 billion (47.2%) attributable to TRD. The share of TRD was 56.6% ($25.8 billion) of the health care burden, 47.7% ($8.7 billion) of the unemployment burden, and 32.2% ($9.3 billion) of the productivity burden of medication-treated MDD. CONCLUSIONS: TRD is associated with disproportionate health care costs and unemployment, suggesting potentially large economic and societal gains with effective management.

Economic burden of treatment-resistant depression in privately insured US patients with co-occurring anxiety disorder and/or substance use disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the burden of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) among privately insured patients with anxiety disorder and/or substance use disorders (SUD). METHODS: Adults <65 years old were identified in the Optum Health Care Solutions Inc. database (July 2009-March 2017). Among those with major depressive disorder (MDD) and antidepressant use, patients who initiated a third antidepressant (index date) after two regimens at adequate dose and duration were classified in the TRD cohort and patients without evidence of TRD were classified in the non-TRD MDD control cohort. The non-MDD control cohort comprised patients without MDD. In the non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts, the index date was imputed to mimic the distribution of time in the TRD cohort from the first antidepressant to the index date or from the start of eligibility to the index date, respectively. Patients with <6 months of continuous insurance eligibility pre-/post-index, psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and related conditions, dementia, and development disorders, and/or no baseline anxiety disorder and/or SUD were excluded. Patients with TRD were matched 1:1 to patients with non-TRD MDD and patients without MDD, based on exact matching factors (i.e. availability of work loss data) and propensity scores computed based on characteristics measured pre-index. Outcomes, including healthcare resource use (HRU) and costs, work productivity loss and related costs measured per patient per year ≤24 months post-index were compared between matched TRD, non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 3166 patients were identified in the TRD cohort and matched to non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts. Among patients with TRD (mean age 39 years, 60.5% female), 87.3% had an anxiety disorder, 24.1% had SUD. The TRD cohort had higher HRU vs non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts: 0.32 vs 0.20 and 0.14 inpatient admissions, 0.91 vs 0.73 and 0.58 emergency department visits, and 23.8 vs 16.8 and 11.6 outpatient visits, respectively (all p < .01). The TRD cohort had higher healthcare costs ($16,674) vs non-TRD MDD ($10,945) and non-MDD ($6493) cohorts (all p < .01). Among patients with work loss data (N = 310/cohort), patients with TRD had more work loss days (54) and higher work loss-related costs ($13,674) vs patients with non-TRD MDD (32 days; $7131) and without MDD (17 days; $4798; all p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with an anxiety disorder and/or SUD, TRD was associated with higher HRU, healthcare costs, work loss days and work loss-related costs.

A retrospective chart review study to quantify the monthly medical resource use and costs of treating patients with treatment resistant depression in the United Kingdom.

INTRODUCTION: Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a globally prevalent chronic psychiatric illness with a significant disease impact. As many as 30% of patients with MDD do not adequately respond to two therapies and are considered to be treatment resistant. This study aimed to quantify healthcare costs associated with treatment resistant depression (TRD) in the UK. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients with TRD was conducted in primary and secondary care settings over a 2 year period. Data abstracted from medical records of patients included demographics, clinical characteristics and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU; number of consultations, use of Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Teams [CRHTTs], non-drug and drug interventions, and hospitalizations). HCRU per patient per month (28 days) was calculated for three health states: major depressive episode (MDE), remission and recovery. Unit costs were from the British National Formulary (BNF) and the Personal Social Services Research Unit (PSSRU). RESULTS: A total of 295 patients with TRD were recruited between January 2016 and May 2018. The mean age of the total sample was 43.3 years; 60.3% were female. Costs per patient, per 28 days, were highest in the MDE state, with the average cost (£992) mainly driven by consultations, non-drug treatment, hospitalizations and CRHTT, with a considerable fall in costs as patients moved into remission and subsequent recovery. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that antidepressant treatments for TRD that are more effective in reducing the time spent in an MDE health state, and helping patients achieve remission and recovery, are essential for reducing the overall HCRU and costs in patients with TRD. Cost of TRD in the UK Strengths and limitations of this study This observational study of TRD is the first to assess the HCRU impact associated with different predefined health states. Using retrospective data from both primary and secondary care physicians from regions across the UK ensures a representative real-world patient population. One limitation is that the selection of patients is based on criteria that define TRD that rely on physician judgement. Although the study captures direct HCRU costs, the indirect costs of lost productivity and care are not included in the overall burden. This study has defined the current clinical management of patients with TRD in the UK and provides an estimate of the associated HCRU and associated costs.

A retrospective analysis to estimate the healthcare resource utilization and cost associated with treatment-resistant depression in commercially insured US patients.

OBJECTIVE: The economic burden of commercially insured patients in the United States with treatment-resistant depression and patients with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder was compared using data from the Optum Clinformatics™ claims database. METHODS: Patients 18-63 years on antidepressant treatment between 1/1/13 and 9/30/13, who had no treatment claims for depression 6 months before the index date (first antidepressant dispensing), and who had a major depressive disorder or depression diagnosis within 30 days of the index date, were included. Treatment-resistant depression was defined as receiving 3 antidepressant regimens during 1 major depressive disorder episode. Patients with treatment-resistant depression were matched with patients with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder at a 1:4 ratio using propensity score matching. The study consisted of 1-year baseline (pre-index) and 2-year follow-up (post index) periods. Cost outcomes were compared using a generalized linear model. RESULTS: 2,370 treatment-resistant depression and 9,289 non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder patients were included. In year 1 of the follow-up period, compared with non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder, patients with treatment-resistant depression had: more emergency department visits (odds ratio = 1.39, 95% confidence interval = 1.24-1.56); more inpatient hospitalizations (odds ratio = 1.73, 95% confidence interval = 1.46-2.05); longer hospital stays (mean difference vs non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder = 2.86, 95% confidence interval = 0.86-4.86 days); and more total healthcare costs (mean difference vs non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder = US$3,846, 95% confidence interval = $2,855-$4,928). These patterns remained consistent in year 2 of the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Treatment-resistant depression was associated with higher healthcare resource utilization and costs versus non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder in this commercially insured cohort of patients in the United States.

Antidepressant Augmentation: A Review of the Literature and a Review of the Pharmacoeconomic Considerations.

PURPOSE: Antidepressant augmentation strategies for treatment-resistant depression (TRD) are discussed here with an analysis of patient out-of-pocket costs for various medications. The choice of agent ranges from newer atypical antipsychotics (aripiprazole, brexpiprazole, quetiapine) to older agents including buspirone, liothyronine (T3), and lithium. We sought to better understand the differences among these agents to aid in clinical decision making. METHODS: We conducted a focused review of the support for each of the aforementioned agents in antidepressant augmentation. We then compared the approximate out-of-pocket cost for each medication during a typical augmentation trial using the typical prescription costs on ClinCalc.com derived from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. We calculated the cost to achieve response for one patient with TRD based on the number needed to treat (NNT). FINDINGS: We observed significant variance in cost to achieve response based on the NNT derived from our review of each of the medications. For example, the overall out-of-pocket cost for one patient to achieve response with aripiprazole (the costliest generic agent) could cover lithium prescriptions for 4 to 5 patients with TRD to achieve response. Although brexpiprazole was estimated separately because of its brand name cost, we estimated that 324 patients receiving lithium could achieve response for same cost of single patient receiving brexpiprazole. IMPLICATIONS: These findings suggest that among augmentation agents, there are differences in cost that may be highly important in clinical decision making. Other issues of medication monitoring may incur additional costs, and brand name medications offer significantly greater complexity and potential out-of-pocket costs to patients. The use of lithium as a first-line agent for TRD should be considered based on low cost, lowest NNT, and data in support of its efficacy.

Economic Burden of Treatment-Resistant Depression in Privately Insured U.S. Patients with Physical Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the economic burden of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in patients with physical conditions. OBJECTIVE: To assess health care resource utilization (HRU) and costs, work loss days, and related costs in patients with TRD and physical conditions versus patients with the same conditions and non-TRD major depressive disorder (MDD) or without MDD. METHODS: Adults aged < 65 years with MDD treated with antidepressants were identified in the OptumHealth Care Solutions database (July 2009-March 2017). Patients who received a diagnosis of MDD and initiated a third antidepressant regimen (index date) after 2 regimens of adequate dose and duration were defined as having TRD. Patients with non-TRD MDD and without MDD were assigned a random index date. Patients with < 6 months of continuous health plan eligibility pre- or post-index; a diagnosis of psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder/mania, dementia, and developmental disorders; and/or no baseline physical conditions (cardiovascular, metabolic, and respiratory disease or cancer) were excluded. Patients with TRD were matched 1:1 to each of the non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts based on propensity scores. Per patient per year HRU, costs, and work loss outcomes were compared up to 24 months post-index date using negative binominal and ordinary least square regressions. RESULTS: A total of 2,317 patients with TRD (mean age, 47.6 years; 63.1%, female; mean follow-up, 19.7 months) had ≥ 1 co-occurring key physical condition (cardiovascular, 52.5%; metabolic, 48.2%; respiratory, 16.4%; and cancer, 9.5%). Relative to non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts, respectively, patients with TRD had 46% and 235% more inpatient admissions, 28% and 128% more emergency department visits, and 53% and 155% more outpatient visits (all P < 0.05). Health care costs were $22,541 in the TRD cohort, $17,450 in the non-TRD MDD cohort, and $10,047 in the non-MDD cohort, yielding cost differences of $5,091 (vs. non-TRD MDD) and $12,494 (vs. non-MDD; all P < 0.01). In patients with work loss data available (n = 278/cohort), those with TRD had 2.0 and 2.9 times more work loss as well as $8,676 and $10,323 higher work loss costs relative to those with non-TRD MDD and without MDD, respectively (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with physical conditions, those with TRD had higher HRU and health care costs, work loss days, and associated costs compared with non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by Janssen Scientific Affairs (JSA), which was involved in all aspects of the research, including the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report; and the decision to submit the report for publication. Joshi and Daly are employed by JSA. Zhdanava, Pilon, Rossi, Morrison, and Lefebvre are employees of Analysis Group, which received funding from JSA for conducting this study and has received consulting fees from Novartis Pharmaceuticals and GSK, unrelated to this study. Kuvadia is employed by Integrated Resources, which has provided research services to JSA unrelated to this study; Joshi reports past employment by and stock ownership in Johnson & Johnson; Nelson reports advisory board, data and safety monitoring board, and consulting fees from Assurex, Eisai, FSV-7, JSA, Lundbeck, Otsuka, and Sunovion and royalties from UpToDate, unrelated to this study. This work was presented at AMCP Nexus 2019, held in National Harbor, MD, from October 29 to November 1, 2019.

Incremental Health Care Burden of Treatment-Resistant Depression Among Commercial, Medicaid, and Medicare Payers.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared health care use and costs among patients with treatment-resistant versus treatment-responsive depression across Medicaid, Medicare, and commercial payers. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by using Truven Health Analytics' commercial (2006-2017; N=111,544), Medicaid (2007-2017; N=24,036), and Medicare supplemental (2006-2017; N=8,889) claims databases. Participants were adults with major depressive disorder who had received one or more antidepressant treatments. Treatment resistance was defined as failure of two or more antidepressant treatments of adequate dose and duration. Annual use (hospitalizations and outpatient and emergency department [ED] visits) and costs were compared across patients by treatment-resistant status in each payer population. Incremental burden of treatment-resistant depression was estimated with regression analyses. Monthly changes in costs during 1-year follow-up were assessed to understand differential cost trends by treatment-resistant status. RESULTS: In the three payer populations, patients with treatment-resistant depression incurred higher health care utilization than those with treatment-responsive depression (hospitalization, odds ratios [ORs]=1.32-1.76; ED visits, ORs=1.38-1.45; outpatient visits, incident rate ratio=1.29-1.54; p<0.001 for all). Compared with those with treatment-responsive depression, those with treatment resistance incurred higher annual costs (from $4,093 to $8,054 higher; p<0.001). Patients with treatment-resistant depression had higher costs at baseline compared with patients with treatment-responsive depression and incurred higher costs each month throughout follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment-resistant depression imposes a significant health care burden on insurers. Treatment-resistant depression may exist and affect health care burden before a patient is identified as having treatment-resistant depression. Findings underscore the need for effective and timely treatment of treatment-resistant depression.

Cost-utility analysis of curative and maintenance repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for treatment-resistant unipolar depression: a randomized controlled trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Depression is a debilitating and costly disease for our society, especially in the case of treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective adjuvant therapy in treatment-resistant unipolar and non-psychotic depression. It can be applied according to two therapeutic strategies after an initial rTMS cure: a further rTMS cure can be performed at the first sign of relapse or recurrence, or systematic maintenance rTMS (M-rTMS) can be proposed. TMS adjuvant to treatment as usual (TAU) could improve long-term prognosis. However, no controlled study has yet compared the cost-effectiveness of these two additional rTMS therapeutic strategies versus TAU alone. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper focuses on the design of a health-economic, prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study with three parallel arms carried out in France. This study assesses the cost-effectiveness of the adjunctive and maintenance low frequency rTMS on the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex versus TAU alone. A total of 318 patients suffering from a current TRD will be enrolled. The primary endpoint is to investigate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (ratio costs / quality-adjusted life-years [QALY] measured by the Euroqol Five Dimension Questionnaire) over 12 months in a population of patients assigned to one of three arms: systematic M-rTMS for responders (arm A); additional new rTMS cure in case of mood deterioration among responders (arm B); and a placebo arm (arm C) in which responders are allocated in two subgroups: sham systematic M-rTMS and supplementary rTMS course in case of mood deterioration. ICER and QALYs will be compared between arm A or B versus arm C. The secondary endpoints in each three arms will be: ICER at 24 months; the cost-utility ratio analysis at 12 and 24 months; 5-year budget impact analysis; and prognosis factors of rTMS. The following criteria will be compared between arm A or B and arm C: rates of responders; remission and disease-free survival; clinical evolution; tolerance; observance; treatment modifications; hospitalization; suicide attempts; work stoppage; marital / professional statues; and quality of life at 12 and 24 months. DISCUSSION: The purpose of our study is to check the cost-effectiveness of rTMS and we will discuss its economic impact over time. In the case of significant decrease in the depression costs and expenditures associated with a good long-term prognosis (sustained response and remission) and tolerance, rTMS could be considered as an efficient treatment within the armamentarium for resistant unipolar depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03701724. Registered on 10 October 2018. Protocol Amendment Version 2.0 accepted on 29 June 2019.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Electroconvulsive Therapy and Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression in Ontario.

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.

The Effectiveness and Value of Esketamine for the Management of Treatment-Resistant Depression.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, National Institute for Health Care Management, California Health Care Foundation, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, America's Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, AstraZeneca, Allergan, Alnylam, Biogen, Blue Shield of California, Cambia Health Services, CVS Caremark, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthPartners, HealthFirst, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinkrodt Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Agboola, Fazioli, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Touchette reports grants from ICER during the course of this work and personal fees from Monument Analytics, unrelated to this work. Atlas has nothing to disclose.

Dissociating the Clinical Role and Economic Value of Intranasal Esketamine.

DISCLOSURES: No funding supported the writing of this commentary. The author has nothing to disclose.

Descriptive analysis of the economic burden of treatment resistance in a major depressive episode.

Objectives: To assess characteristics and healthcare costs associated with pharmacologically treated episodes of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) in patients with major depressive disorder (MDD).Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with continuous health plan enrollment for ≥12 months before and after a newly observed MDD diagnosis (observed between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015) were included in this retrospective claims-based analysis. A pharmacologically treated episode was defined as beginning at the date of the first MDD diagnosis and ending when a gap of 180 days occurred between MDD diagnoses, or when a gap of 180 days occurred following the end of the antidepressant (AD)/antipsychotic (AP) drug supply. When such a gap occurred, the episode end date was determined to be either the date of the last MDD diagnosis or date of the end of AD/AP drug supply, whichever was later. An episode was considered TRD if ≥3 AD regimens occurred. Episode duration, medication regimens used, and relapse hospitalization were reported for TRD and non-TRD MDD episodes. Total all-cause and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) healthcare costs (in 2016 $) were estimated.Results: Of 48,440 patients identified with ≥1 AD-treated MDD episode, the mean (SD) age was 39 (15) years, and 62% were female. Of all episodes, 7% were TRD, with a mean duration of 571 (285) days vs. 200 (198) days for non-TRD MDD episodes. Mean total all-cause costs were $19,626 ($44,160) for TRD and $7440 ($25,150) for non-TRD MDD episodes.Conclusions: Results show TRD episodes are longer and costlier than non-TRD MDD episodes, and that higher costs are driven by episode duration. Longer episodes imply protracted suffering for patients with TRD and increased burden on caregivers. Effective intervention to shorten TRD episodes may lessen disease burden and reduce costs.

An Evaluation of the Clinical and Economic Burden Among Older Adult Medicare-Covered Beneficiaries With Treatment-Resistant Depression.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical and economic burden of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) among older adult patients with major depressive disorder (MDD) to non-TRD MDD and non-MDD patients. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using 5% Medicare data (January 1, 2012-December 31, 2015) for MDD patients aged ≥65 years who were defined as TRD if they received ≥2 antidepressant treatments in the current episode. MDD patients not meeting TRD criteria were deemed non-TRD MDD; those without an MDD diagnosis were categorized as non-MDD. All were required to have continuous health plan enrollment for ≥6 months pre- and ≥12 months postindex date (index: first antidepressant claim/random [non-MDD]). Three cohorts were matched, and generalized linear and Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare medication use, healthcare resource utilization, costs, and risks of initial hospitalization and readmission ≤30 days postdischarge from initial hospitalization. RESULTS: After matching, 178 patients from each cohort were analyzed. During 12 months of follow-up, TRD patients had higher use of different antidepressants and antipsychotics, higher inpatient and emergency room visits, longer inpatient stays, and higher total healthcare costs ($24,543 versus $16,059, $8,058) than non-TRD MDD and non-MDD cohorts, respectively (all p <0.05). Risk of initial hospitalization was higher in the TRD (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.08-6.23) and non-TRD MDD cohorts (HR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.02-3.25) than the non-MDD cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of MDD among older adult Medicare beneficiaries is substantial, and even greater among those with TRD compared to non-TRD MDD, demonstrating the need for more effective treatments than those currently available.

Burden of treatment-resistant depression in Medicare: A retrospective claims database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have assessed the incremental economic burden of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) versus non-treatment-resistant major depressive disorder (i.e., non-TRD MDD) in commercially-insured and Medicaid-insured patients, but none have focused on Medicare-insured patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess healthcare resource utilization (HRU) and costs of patients with TRD versus non-TRD MDD or without major depressive disorder (MDD; i.e., non-MDD) in a Medicare-insured population. METHODS: Adult patients were retrospectively identified from the Chronic Condition Warehouse de-identified 100% Medicare database (01/2010-12/2016). MDD was defined as ≥1 MDD diagnosis and ≥1 claim for an antidepressant. Patients initiated on a third antidepressant following two antidepressant treatment regimens of adequate dose and duration were considered to have TRD. The index date was defined as the date of the first antidepressant claim for the TRD and non-TRD MDD cohorts, and as a randomly imputed date for the non-MDD cohort. Patients with TRD were matched 1:1 to non-TRD MDD patients and randomly selected non-MDD patients based on propensity scores. Analyses were also performed for a subset of patients aged ≥65. RESULTS: Of 29,543 patients with MDD, 3,225 (10.9%) met the study definition of TRD; 157,611 were included in the non-MDD cohort. Matched patients with TRD and non-TRD MDD were, on average, 58.9 and 59.0 years old, respectively. The TRD cohort had higher per-patient-per-year (PPPY) HRU than the non-TRD MDD (e.g., inpatient visits: incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.36) and non-MDD cohorts (e.g., inpatient visits: IRR = 1.84, all P<0.001). The TRD cohort had significantly higher total PPPY healthcare costs than the non-TRD MDD cohort ($25,517 vs. $20,425, adjusted cost difference = $3,385) and non-MDD cohort ($25,517 vs. $14,542, adjusted cost difference = $4,015, all P<0.001). Similar results were found for the subset of patients ≥65. CONCLUSION: Among Medicare-insured patients, those with TRD had higher HRU and costs compared to those with non-TRD MDD and non-MDD.

Implementation of intermittent theta burst stimulation compared to conventional repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with treatment resistant depression: A cost analysis.

BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an evidence-based treatment for depression that is increasingly implemented in healthcare systems across the world. A new form of rTMS called intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) can be delivered in 3 min and has demonstrated comparable effectiveness to the conventional 37.5 min 10Hz rTMS protocol in patients with depression. OBJECTIVES: To compare the direct treatment costs per course and per remission for iTBS compared to 10Hz rTMS treatment in depression. METHODS: We conducted a cost analysis from a healthcare system perspective using patient-level data from a large randomized non-inferiority trial (THREE-D). Depressed adults 18 to 65 received either 10Hz rTMS or iTBS treatment. Treatment costs were calculated using direct healthcare costs associated with equipment, coils, physician assessments and technician time over the course of treatment. Cost per remission was estimated using the proportion of patients achieving remission following treatment. Deterministic sensitivity analyses and non-parametric bootstrapping was used to estimate uncertainty. RESULTS: From a healthcare system perspective, the average cost per patient was USD$1,108 (SD 166) for a course of iTBS and $1,844 (SD 304) for 10Hz rTMS, with an incremental net savings of $735 (95% CI 688 to 783). The average cost per remission was $3,695 (SD 552) for iTBS and $6,146 (SD 1,015) for 10Hz rTMS, with an average incremental net savings of $2,451 (95% CI 2,293 to 2,610). CONCLUSIONS: The shorter session durations and treatment capacity increase associated with 3 min iTBS translate into significant cost-savings per patient and per remission when compared to 10Hz rTMS.

The humanistic and economic burden of treatment-resistant depression in Europe: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: A patient is considered to suffer from treatment resistant depression (TRD) when consecutive treatment with two products of different pharmacological classes, used for a sufficient length of time at an adequate dose, fail to induce a clinically meaningful effect (inadequate response). The primary aim of the current study was to examine the humanistic and economic burden of TRD in five European countries, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom, by comparing with non-treatment resistant depression (nTRD) and general population respondents. METHODS: The sample for this retrospective observational study was taken from the 2017 National Health and Wellness Survey conducted in five European countries. Demographic and patient characteristics were examined for TRD patients compared to respondents with nTRD and to the general population using chi-square tests or one-way analysis of variance for categorical or continuous variables, respectively. Generalized linear models were performed to examine group differences after adjusting these estimates for confounders. RESULTS: A total 52,060 survey respondents were examined, of which 2686 and 622 were considered to have non-treatment resistant and treatment-resistant depression, respectively. Relative to the general population, nTRD and TRD respondents reported significant decrements in health-related quality of life, including lower adjusted mental (- 12.1 vs. -18.1) and physical (- 2.5 vs. -5.4) component scores of the SF-12v2 and increased adjusted relative risk for work (2.2 vs. 2.7) and activity (1.9 vs. 2.5) impairment (all p < 0.001). Additionally, healthcare resource utilization was significantly higher for TRD patients more so than nTRD, compared to the general population, especially for healthcare professional visits (odds ratio nTRD = 5.4; TRD = 15.9, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, TRD patients had significantly lower quality of life, greater work productivity and activity impairment, and increased healthcare resource utilization as compared with nTRD and general population. The study findings suggest an unmet need exists among TRD patients in Europe.