Cost-effectiveness of transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of major depression: a health economics analysis
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Standard rTMS protocols are cost effective, at an estimated $35,000 per quality adjusted life year gained.
“Economic analyses indicate that even standard rTMS protocols are cost effective, at an estimated $35,000 per quality adjusted life year gained (54).”
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
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- 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