Journal of affective disorders · 2024
Cost-utility analysis of adjunct repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment resistant bipolar depression.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chatterton Mary Lou, Lee Yong Yi, Le Long Khanh-Dao, Nichols Melanie, Carter Rob, Berk Michael, Mihalopoulos Cathrine
Аннотация
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.
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.