Iris Dalhuisen, Kim Bui, Anne Kleijburg, Iris van Oostrom, Jan Spijker, Eric van Exel, Hans van Mierlo, Dieuwertje de Waardt, Martijn Arns, Indira Tendolkar, Philip van Eijndhoven, Ben Wijnen
{"title":"rTMS作为抗抑郁药无反应的下一步的成本效益：与当前抗抑郁治疗方法的随机比较。","authors":"Iris Dalhuisen, Kim Bui, Anne Kleijburg, Iris van Oostrom, Jan Spijker, Eric van Exel, Hans van Mierlo, Dieuwertje de Waardt, Martijn Arns, Indira Tendolkar, Philip van Eijndhoven, Ben Wijnen","doi":"10.1111/acps.13782","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective and commonly used treatment option for treatment-resistant depression, its cost-effectiveness remains much less studied. In particular, the comparative cost-effectiveness of rTMS and other treatment options, such as antidepressant medication, has not been investigated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An economic evaluation with 12 months follow-up was conducted in the Dutch care setting as part of a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial, in which patients with treatment-resistant depression were randomized to treatment with rTMS or treatment with the next pharmacological step according to the treatment algorithm. Missing data were handled with single imputations using predictive mean matching (PMM) nested in bootstraps. Incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios (ICERs/ICURs) were calculated, as well as cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Higher QALYs, response, and remission rates were found for lower costs when comparing the rTMS group to the medication group. After 12 months, QALYs were 0.618 in the rTMS group and 0.545 in the medication group. The response was 27.1% and 24.4% and remission was 25.0% and 17.1%, respectively. Incremental costs for rTMS were -€2.280, resulting in a dominant ICUR for QALYs and ICER for response and remission.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>rTMS appears to be a cost-effective treatment option for treatment-resistant depression when compared to the next pharmacological treatment step. The results support the implementation of rTMS as a step in the treatment algorithm for depression.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The trial is registered within the Netherlands Trial Register (code: NL7628, date: March 29, 2019).</p>","PeriodicalId":108,"journal":{"name":"Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cost-Effectiveness of rTMS as a Next Step in Antidepressant Non-Responders: A Randomized Comparison With Current Antidepressant Treatment Approaches.\",\"authors\":\"Iris Dalhuisen, Kim Bui, Anne Kleijburg, Iris van Oostrom, Jan Spijker, Eric van Exel, Hans van Mierlo, Dieuwertje de Waardt, Martijn Arns, Indira Tendolkar, Philip van Eijndhoven, Ben Wijnen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/acps.13782\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective and commonly used treatment option for treatment-resistant depression, its cost-effectiveness remains much less studied. In particular, the comparative cost-effectiveness of rTMS and other treatment options, such as antidepressant medication, has not been investigated.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An economic evaluation with 12 months follow-up was conducted in the Dutch care setting as part of a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial, in which patients with treatment-resistant depression were randomized to treatment with rTMS or treatment with the next pharmacological step according to the treatment algorithm. Missing data were handled with single imputations using predictive mean matching (PMM) nested in bootstraps. Incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios (ICERs/ICURs) were calculated, as well as cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Higher QALYs, response, and remission rates were found for lower costs when comparing the rTMS group to the medication group. After 12 months, QALYs were 0.618 in the rTMS group and 0.545 in the medication group. The response was 27.1% and 24.4% and remission was 25.0% and 17.1%, respectively. Incremental costs for rTMS were -€2.280, resulting in a dominant ICUR for QALYs and ICER for response and remission.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>rTMS appears to be a cost-effective treatment option for treatment-resistant depression when compared to the next pharmacological treatment step. The results support the implementation of rTMS as a step in the treatment algorithm for depression.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>The trial is registered within the Netherlands Trial Register (code: NL7628, date: March 29, 2019).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":108,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.13782\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.13782","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Cost-Effectiveness of rTMS as a Next Step in Antidepressant Non-Responders: A Randomized Comparison With Current Antidepressant Treatment Approaches.
Background: Although repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an effective and commonly used treatment option for treatment-resistant depression, its cost-effectiveness remains much less studied. In particular, the comparative cost-effectiveness of rTMS and other treatment options, such as antidepressant medication, has not been investigated.
Methods: An economic evaluation with 12 months follow-up was conducted in the Dutch care setting as part of a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial, in which patients with treatment-resistant depression were randomized to treatment with rTMS or treatment with the next pharmacological step according to the treatment algorithm. Missing data were handled with single imputations using predictive mean matching (PMM) nested in bootstraps. Incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios (ICERs/ICURs) were calculated, as well as cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs).
Results: Higher QALYs, response, and remission rates were found for lower costs when comparing the rTMS group to the medication group. After 12 months, QALYs were 0.618 in the rTMS group and 0.545 in the medication group. The response was 27.1% and 24.4% and remission was 25.0% and 17.1%, respectively. Incremental costs for rTMS were -€2.280, resulting in a dominant ICUR for QALYs and ICER for response and remission.
Conclusion: rTMS appears to be a cost-effective treatment option for treatment-resistant depression when compared to the next pharmacological treatment step. The results support the implementation of rTMS as a step in the treatment algorithm for depression.
Trial registration: The trial is registered within the Netherlands Trial Register (code: NL7628, date: March 29, 2019).
期刊介绍：
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica acts as an international forum for the dissemination of information advancing the science and practice of psychiatry. In particular we focus on communicating frontline research to clinical psychiatrists and psychiatric researchers.
Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica has traditionally been and remains a journal focusing predominantly on clinical psychiatry, but translational psychiatry is a topic of growing importance to our readers. Therefore, the journal welcomes submission of manuscripts based on both clinical- and more translational (e.g. preclinical and epidemiological) research. When preparing manuscripts based on translational studies for submission to Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, the authors should place emphasis on the clinical significance of the research question and the findings. Manuscripts based solely on preclinical research (e.g. animal models) are normally not considered for publication in the Journal.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
