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

Ross EL, Zivin K, Maixner DF. Cost-effectiveness of Electroconvulsive Therapy vs Pharmacotherapy/Psychotherapy for Treatment-Resistant Depression in the United States. JAMA psychiatry. 2018 Jul 1; 75(7):713-722.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 07-206 – VA Depression Treatments: Practice, Policy and Cost-Effectiveness

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

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.