Cited by 90Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation StudiesHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeTreatment of Major Depression

Cost-effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of major depression: a health economics analysis

Simpson, Kit N., Welch, Mary Jane, Kozel, F. Andrew, Demitrack, Mark A., Nahas, Ziad·2009·Advances in Therapy

Abstract

Introduction Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a novel antidepressant therapy shown to be effective and safe in pharmacotherapy-resistant major depression. The incremental cost-effectiveness and the direct cost burden compared with sham treatment were estimated, and compared with the current standard of care. Methods Healthcare resource utilization data were collected during a multicenter study (n=301) and a decision analysis was used to stratify the 9-week treatment outcomes. A Markov model with an acute-outcome severity-based risk of relapse was used to estimate the illness course over a full year of treatment follow-up. These model estimates were also compared to best estimates of outcomes and costs of pharmacotherapy treatment, using the published STAR(*)D outcomes. The cost-effectiveness of TMS was described using an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and on a direct cost per patient basis across a varying range of assumptions. The model's sensitivities to costs due to losses in work productivity and to caregiver time were also examined. Results Compared with sham treatment and at a cost of US$300 per treatment session, TMS provides an ICER of US$34,999 per QALY, which is less than the "willingness-to-pay' standard of US$50,000 per QALY for a new treatment for major depression. When productivity gains due to clinical recovery were included, the ICER was reduced to US$6667 per QALY. In open-label conditions, T…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s12325-009-0013-x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 32 · Cited by 90

Authors
Simpson, K. N., Welch, M. J., Kozel, F. A., Demitrack, M. A., & Nahas, Z.
Affiliations
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • Rush University Medical Center (US)
  • The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (US)
  • Neuronetics (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Nahas, Ziad
Venue
Advances in Therapy
Published
2009-03
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
346-368
ISSN
  • 0741-238X (ISSN-L)
  • 1865-8652
OpenAlex
W1969206591
Cited by
90
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Advances in Therapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
transcranial magnetic stimulation, major depressive disorder, cost-effectiveness, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, quality-adjusted life years, relapse risk, work productivity loss, caregiver time, STAR*D
MeSH terms
Adult, Antidepressive Agents, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Decision Support Techniques, Depressive Disorder, Major, Major Depressive Disorder, Drug Resistance, Employment, Female, Humans, Male, Markov Chains, Middle Aged, Severity of Illness Index, Treatment Outcome, Health Care Costs, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review