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.

Revisiting the effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in depression, again.

Following on from the publication of the Royal Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry Mood Disorder Clinical Practice Guidelines (2020) and criticisms of how these aberrantly addressed repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment of depression, questions have continued to be raised in the journal about this treatment by a small group of authors, whose views we contend do not reflect the broad acceptance of this treatment nationally and internationally. In fact, the evidence supporting the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in depression is unambiguous and substantial, consisting of an extensive series of clinical trials supported by multiple meta-analyses, network meta-analysis and umbrella reviews. Importantly, the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in depression has also been subject to a series of health economic analyses. These indicate that repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is a cost-effective therapy and have been used in some jurisdictions, including Australia, in support of public funding. An argument has been made that offering repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment may delay potentially effective pharmacotherapy. In fact, there is considerably greater danger of the opposite happening. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is as, if not more effective, than antidepressant medication after two unsuccessful medication trials and should be a consideration for all patients under these circumstances where available. There is no meaningful ongoing debate about the use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in depression - it is a safe, effective and cost-effective treatment.

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.

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Pain, Headache, and Comorbid Depression: INS-NANS Expert Consensus Panel Review and Recommendation.

BACKGROUND: While transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) has been studied for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, emerging evidence supports its use for pain and headache by stimulating either motor cortex (M1) or dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). However, its clinical implementation is hindered due to a lack of consensus in the quality of clinical evidence and treatment recommendation/guideline(s). Thus, working collaboratively, this multinational multidisciplinary expert panel aims to: 1) assess and rate the existing outcome evidence of TMS in various pain/headache conditions; 2) provide TMS treatment recommendation/guidelines for the evaluated conditions and comorbid depression; and 3) assess the cost-effectiveness and technical issues relevant to the long-term clinical implementation of TMS for pain and headache. METHODS: Seven task groups were formed under the guidance of a 5-member steering committee with four task groups assessing the utilization of TMS in the treatment of Neuropathic Pain (NP), Acute Pain, Primary Headache Disorders, and Posttraumatic Brain Injury related Headaches (PTBI-HA), and remaining three assessing the treatment for both pain and comorbid depression, and the cost-effectiveness and technological issues relevant to the treatment. RESULTS: The panel rated the overall level of evidence and recommendability for clinical implementation of TMS as: 1) high and extremely/strongly for both NP and PTBI-HA respectively; 2) moderate for postoperative pain and migraine prevention, and recommendable for migraine prevention. While the use of TMS for treating both pain and depression in one setting is clinically and financially sound, more studies are required to fully assess the long-term benefit of the treatment for the two highly comorbid conditions, especially with neuronavigation. CONCLUSIONS: After extensive literature review, the panel provided recommendations and treatment guidelines for TMS in managing neuropathic pain and headaches. In addition, the panel also recommended more outcome and cost-effectiveness studies to assess the feasibility of the long-term clinical implementation of the treatment.

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.

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.

A Non-inferiority Framework for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Traditional decision rules have limitations when a new technology is less effective and less costly than a comparator. We propose a new probabilistic decision framework to examine non-inferiority in effectiveness and net monetary benefit (NMB) simultaneously. We illustrate this framework using the example of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) and electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) for treatment-resistant depression. METHODS: We modeled the quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with the new intervention (rTMS), an active control (ECT), and a placebo control, and we estimated the fraction of effectiveness preserved by the new intervention through probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA). We then assessed the probability of cost-effectiveness using a traditional cost-effectiveness acceptability curve (CEAC) and our new decision-making framework. In our new framework, we considered the new intervention cost-effective in each simulation of the PSA if it preserved at least 75 percent of the effectiveness of the active control (thus demonstrating non-inferiority) and had a positive NMB at a given willingness-to-pay threshold (WTP). RESULTS: rTMS was less effective (i.e., associated with fewer QALYs) and less costly than ECT. The traditional CEAC approach showed that the probabilities of rTMS being cost-effective were 100 percent, 39 percent, and 14 percent at WTPs of $0, $50,000, and $100,000 per QALY gained, respectively. In the new decision framework, the probabilities of rTMS being cost-effective were reduced to 23 percent, 21 percent, and 13 percent at WTPs of $0, $50,000, and $100,000 per QALY, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This new framework provides a different perspective for decision making with considerations of both non-inferiority and WTP thresholds.

Cost-effectiveness of preoperative motor mapping with navigated transcranial magnetic brain stimulation in patients with high-grade glioma.

OBJECTIVE Navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) is used to identify the motor cortex prior to surgery. Yet, there has, until now, been no published evidence on the economic impact of nTMS. This study aims to analyze the cost-effectiveness of nTMS, evaluating the incremental costs of nTMS motor mapping per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY). By doing so, this study also provides a model allowing for future analysis of general cost-effectiveness of new neuro-oncological treatment options. METHODS The authors used a microsimulation model based on their cohort population sampled for 1000 patients over the time horizon of 2 years. A health care provider perspective was used to assemble direct costs of total treatment. Transition probabilities and health utilities were based on published literature. Effects were stated in QALYs and established for health state subgroups. RESULTS In all scenarios, preoperative mapping was considered cost-effective with a willingness-to-pay threshold < 3*per capita GDP (gross domestic product). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of nTMS versus no nTMS was 45,086 Euros/QALY. Sensitivity analyses showed robust results with a high impact of total treatment costs and utility of progression-free survival. Comparing the incremental costs caused by nTMS implementation only, the ICER decreased to 1967 Euros/QALY. CONCLUSIONS Motor mapping prior to surgery provides a cost-effective tool to improve the clinical outcome and overall survival of high-grade glioma patients in a resource-limited setting. Moreover, the model used in this study can be used in the future to analyze new treatment options in neuro-oncology in terms of their general cost-effectiveness.

Noninvasive Brain Stimulation: Challenges and Opportunities for a New Clinical Specialty.

Noninvasive brain stimulation refers to a set of technologies and techniques with which to modulate the excitability of the brain via transcranial stimulation. Two major modalities of noninvasive brain stimulation are transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) and transcranial current stimulation. Six TMS devices now have approved uses by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and are used in clinical practice: five for treating medication refractory depression and the sixth for presurgical mapping of motor and speech areas. Several large, multisite clinical trials are currently underway that aim to expand the number of clinical applications of noninvasive brain stimulation in a way that could affect multiple clinical specialties in the coming years, including psychiatry, neurology, pediatrics, neurosurgery, physical therapy, and physical medicine and rehabilitation. In this article, the authors review some of the anticipated challenges facing the incorporation of noninvasive brain stimulation into clinical practice. Specific topics include establishing efficacy, safety, economics, and education. In discussing these topics, the authors focus on the use of TMS in the treatment of medication refractory depression when possible, because this is the most widely accepted clinical indication for TMS to date. These challenges must be thoughtfully considered to realize the potential of noninvasive brain stimulation as an emerging specialty that aims to enhance the current ability to diagnose and treat disorders of the brain.

Cost-Effectiveness Modeling of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Compared to Electroconvulsive Therapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression in Singapore.

BACKGROUND: Compared to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), the cost-effectiveness of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the management of treatment-resistant depression (TRD) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS: This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of rTMS vs. ECT for TRD from Singapore societal perspective. METHODS: We constructed a Markov model to project the cost and benefit of rTMS compared with ECT over one year in patients with TRD. The relative treatment effects between rTMS and ECT were obtained from meta-analyses of published trials. The effectiveness and quality of life data for patients using ECT, resource use for TRD and their associated costs were derived from the national tertiary mental institution in Singapore. RESULTS: At one year, rTMS was cost-effective relative to ECT. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) associated with ECT was Singapore dollars (SGD) 311,024 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. This exceeded the willingness-to-pay threshold of SGD 70,000 per QALY gained. A similar trend was observed for ICER per remission achieved (i.e., SGD 143,811 per remission achieved with ECT). In the subgroup analysis, rTMS was found to be less costly and more effective than ECT in nonpsychotic depressive patients. In the scenario analysis, ECT employed as an ambulatory service yielded a much smaller ICER (i.e., SGD 78,819 per QALY gained) compared to the standard inpatient setting. CONCLUSIONS: rTMS was a cost-effective treatment compared to ECT in TRD over one year. The cost-effectiveness of rTMS was attenuated when ECT was used in the outpatient setting.

Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) - beyond depression.

INTRODUCTION: Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation (dTMS) utilizes different H-coils to study and treat a variety of psychiatric and neurological conditions with identifiable brain targets. The availability of this technology is dramatically changing the practice of psychiatry and neurology as it provides a safe and effective way to treat even drug-resistant patients. However, up until now, no effort was made to summarize the different types of H-coils that are available, and the conditions for which they were tested. Areas covered: Here we assembled all peer reviewed publication that used one of the H-coils, together with illustrations of the effective field they generate within the brain. Currently, the technology has FDA clearance for depression and European clearance for additional disorders, and multi-center trials are exploring its safety and effectiveness for OCD, PTSD, bipolar depression and nicotine addiction. Expert commentary: Taken together with positive results in smaller scale experiments, dTMS coils represent a non-invasive way to manipulate pathological activity in different brain structures and circuits. Advances in stimulation and imaging methods can now lead to efficacious and logical treatments. This should reduce the stigma associated with mental disorders, and improve access to psychiatric treatment.

Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for Treatment-Resistant Depression: An Economic Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder (MDD, 10% over a person's lifetime) is common and costly to the health system. Unfortunately, many MDD cases are resistant to treatment with antidepressant drugs and require other treatment to reduce or eliminate depression. Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has long been used to treat persons with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Despite its effectiveness, ECT has side effects that make patients intolerant to the treatment, or they refuse to use it. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), which has fewer side effects than ECT and might be an alternative for TRD patients who are ineligible for or unwilling to undergo ECT, has been developed to treat TRD. OBJECTIVES: This analysis evaluates the cost-effectiveness of rTMS for patients with TRD compared with ECT or sham rTMS and estimates the potential budgetary impact of various levels of implementation of rTMS in Ontario. REVIEW METHODS: A cost-utility analysis compared the costs and health outcomes of two treatments for persons with TRD in Ontario: rTMS alone compared with ECT alone and rTMS alone compared with sham rTMS. We calculated the six-month incremental costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for these treatments. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to test the robustness of the model's results. A 1-year budget impact analysis estimated the costs of providing funding for rTMS. The base-case analysis examined the additional costs for funding six centres, where rTMS infrastructure is in place. Sensitivity and scenario analyses explored the impact of increasing diffusion of rTMS to centres with existing ECT infrastructure. All analyses were conducted from the Ontario health care payer perspective. RESULTS: ECT was cost effective compared to rTMS when the willingness to pay is greater than $37,640.66 per QALY. In the base-case analysis, which had a six-month time horizon, the cost and effectiveness for rTMS was $5,272 and 0.31 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The cost and effectiveness for ECT were $5,960 and 0.32 QALYs. This translates in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $37,640.66 per QALY gained for ECT compared to rTMS. When rTMS is compared with sham rTMS, an additional $2,154.33 would be spent to gain 0.02 QALY. This translates to an ICER of $98,242.37 per QALY gained. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the probability of rTMS being cost-effective compared to sham rTMS was 2% and 45% at the thresholds of $50,000 and $100,000 per QALY gained, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation may be cost-effective compared to sham treatment in patients with treatment-resistant depression, depending on the willingness-to-pay threshold.

A low-cost system for coil tracking during transcranial magnetic stimulation.

PURPOSE: Accurate coil placement over a target area is critical during transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), as small deviations can alter testing outcomes. Accordingly, frameless stereotaxic systems (FSS) are recommended for reliable coil placement during TMS applications. However, FSS is not practical due to the cost associated with procuring such systems. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to develop a low-cost TMS coil tracking approach using simple webcams and an image processing algorithm in LabVIEW Vision Assistant. METHODS: A system was created using two webcams, retroreflective markers, and computer stereovision, for tracking the TMS coil over a target area. Accuracy of the system was validated in both the global and local reference frames, while repeatability was measured within- and between-days for placement of the TMS coil over the target area relative to the head. The feasibility of our system was also verified by collecting motor evoked potentials (MEPs) of first dorsal interosseous muscle from human subjects. RESULTS: The results of this study indicated that the system was highly accurate and repeatable, and could track the coil position with <5 mm error and orientation <1.1° error from the target. We also observed larger and more consistent MEPs when stimulating the brain using feedback from the coil tracking system than when the examiner attempted to stimulate without any feedback. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that webcam-based coil tracking is a feasible low-cost solution to track coil positions during TMS procedures.

Cost-Effectiveness of Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation versus Antidepressant Therapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression.

BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) therapy is a clinically safe, noninvasive, nonsystemic treatment for major depressive disorder. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of rTMS versus pharmacotherapy for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder who have failed at least two adequate courses of antidepressant medications. METHODS: A 3-year Markov microsimulation model with 2-monthly cycles was used to compare the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of rTMS and a mix of antidepressant medications (including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclics, noradrenergic and specific serotonergic antidepressants, and monoamine oxidase inhibitors). The model synthesized data sourced from published literature, national cost reports, and expert opinions. Incremental cost-utility ratios were calculated, and uncertainty of the results was assessed using univariate and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Compared with pharmacotherapy, rTMS is a dominant/cost-effective alternative for patients with treatment-resistant depressive disorder. The model predicted that QALYs gained with rTMS were higher than those gained with antidepressant medications (1.25 vs. 1.18 QALYs) while costs were slightly less (AU $31,003 vs. AU $31,190). In the Australian context, at the willingness-to-pay threshold of AU $50,000 per QALY gain, the probability that rTMS was cost-effective was 73%. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the superiority of rTMS in terms of value for money compared with antidepressant medications. CONCLUSIONS: Although both pharmacotherapy and rTMS are clinically effective treatments for major depressive disorder, rTMS is shown to outperform antidepressants in terms of cost-effectiveness for patients who have failed at least two adequate courses of antidepressant medications.

[Hospital production cost of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in the treatment of depression]. / Coût de production hospitalier de la stimulation magnétique transcrânienne répétée (rTMS) dans le traitement de la dépression.

BACKGROUND: Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective and well-tolerated treatment in resistant depression with mild to moderate intensity. This indication has not yet been approved in France. The cost and medico-economic value of rTMS in psychiatry remains unknown. The aim of this preliminary study was to assess rTMS cost production analysis as an in-hospital treatment for depression. METHODS: The methodology, derived from analytical accounts, was validated by a multidisciplinary task force (clinicians, public health doctors, pharmacists, administrative officials and health economist). It was pragmatic, based on official and institutional documentary sources and from field practice. It included equipment, staff, and structure costs, to get an estimate as close to reality as possible. First, we estimated the production cost of rTMS session, based on our annual activity. We then estimated the cost of a cure, which includes 15 sessions. A sensitivity analysis was also performed. RESULTS: The hospital production cost of a cure for treating depression was estimated at € 1932.94 (€ 503.55 for equipment, € 1082.75 for the staff, and € 346.65 for structural expenses). CONCLUSION: This cost-estimate has resulted from an innovative, pragmatic, and cooperative approach. It is slightly higher but more comprehensive than the costs estimated by the few international studies. However, it is limited due to structure-specific problems and activity. This work could be repeated in other circumstances in order to obtain a more general estimate, potentially helpful for determining an official price for the French health care system. Moreover, budgetary constraints and public health choices should be taken into consideration.

Cost-effectiveness of electroconvulsive therapy compared to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment-resistant severe depression: a decision model.

BACKGROUND: Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is widely applied to treat severe depression resistant to standard treatment. Results from previous studies comparing the cost-effectiveness of this technique with treatment alternatives such as repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) are conflicting. METHOD: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing ECT alone, rTMS alone and rTMS followed by ECT when rTMS fails under the perspective of the Spanish National Health Service. The analysis is based on a Markov model which simulates the costs and health outcomes of individuals treated under these alternatives over a 12-month period. Data to populate this model were extracted and synthesized from a series of randomized controlled trials and other studies that have compared these techniques on the patient group of interest. We measure effectiveness using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and characterize the uncertainty using probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: ECT alone was found to be less costly and more effective than rTMS alone, while the strategy of providing rTMS followed by ECT when rTMS fails is the most expensive and effective option. The incremental cost per QALY gained of this latter strategy was found to be above the reference willingness-to-pay threshold used in these types of studies in Spain and other countries. The probability that ECT alone is the most cost-effective alternative was estimated to be around 70%. CONCLUSIONS: ECT is likely to be the most cost-effective option in the treatment of resistant severe depression for a willingness to pay of €30,000 per QALY.

Evaluating the evidence on comparative effectiveness and value of management options for treatment-resistant depression.

Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a debilitating patient condition with significant clinical and economic impact. The introduction of a new treatment approach, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), created the opportunity for a multi-stakeholder initiative to examine the comparative clinical effectiveness and comparative value of the different approaches to managing patients with TRD. The New England Comparative Effectiveness Public Advisory Council (CEPAC) convened in December 2011 to discuss the evidence on management options for patients with TRD. The Council voted that rTMS was as good or better than usual care and represented a reasonable value compared with usual care. The votes and deliberation of CEPAC led to first-in-the-nation payer coverage policies allowing patients access to this new treatment option. Regional groups that examine and deliberate on the comparative effectiveness evidence for existing and emerging treatments can have a direct influence on medical policy that accelerates access to innovative treatments.