Dataset Information

Cost-Effectiveness of Esketamine Nasal Spray for Patients With Treatment-Resistant Depression in the United States.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This study aimed to estimate the cost-effectiveness of esketamine, a novel intranasally dosed antidepressant, for patients in the United States with treatment-resistant depression.

Methods

A decision-analytic model parameterized with efficacy data from phase 3 randomized trials of esketamine was used to simulate the effects of treatment with esketamine versus oral antidepressants over a 5-year horizon, from both societal and health care sector perspectives. Outcomes included remission and response of depression, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for esketamine. Value-based prices were calculated, defined as the per-dose price at which esketamine would become cost-effective given cost-effectiveness thresholds of $50,000/QALY, $100,000/QALY, and $150,000/QALY. Uncertainty in these outcomes was assessed with probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Key model parameters included the efficacy of esketamine versus oral antidepressants (relative risk of 1.39 for remission; 1.32 for response) and the monthly cost of esketamine ($5,572 for month 1; $1,699-$2,244 thereafter).

Results

Over 5 years, esketamine was projected to increase time in remission from 25.3% to 31.1% of life-years, resulting in a gain of 0.07 QALYs. Esketamine increased societal costs by $16,617 and health care sector costs by $16,995. Base case ICERs were $237,111/QALY (societal) and $242,496/QALY (health care sector). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed a greater than 95% likelihood that esketamine's ICER would be above $150,000/QALY. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of $150,000/QALY, esketamine's value-based price was approximately $140/dose (versus a current price of $240/dose).

Conclusions

Esketamine is unlikely to be cost-effective for management of treatment-resistant depression in the United States unless its price falls by more than 40%.

SUBMITTER: Ross EL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7920520 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceControlled studies have shown short-term efficacy of esketamine for treatment-resistant depression (TRD), but long-term effects remain to be established.ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant compared with an oral antidepressant plus placebo nasal spray in delaying relapse of depressive symptoms in patients with TRD in stable remission after an induction and optimization course of esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant.Design, setting, and participantsIn this phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized withdrawal study conducted from October 6, 2015, to February 15, 2018, at outpatient referral centers, 705 adults with prospectively confirmed TRD were enrolled; 455 entered the optimization phase and were treated with esketamine nasal spray (56 or 84 mg) plus an oral antidepressant. After 16 weeks of esketamine treatment, 297 who achieved stable remission or stable response entered the randomized withdrawal phase.InterventionsPatients who achieved stable remission and those who achieved stable response (without remission) were randomized 1:1 to continue esketamine nasal spray or discontinue esketamine treatment and switch to placebo nasal spray, with oral antidepressant treatment continued in each group.Main outcomes and measuresTime to relapse was examined in patients who achieved stable remission, as assessed using a weighted combination log-rank test.ResultsAmong the 297 adults (mean age [SD], 46.3 [11.13] years; 197 [66.3%] female) who entered the randomized maintenance phase, 176 achieved stable remission; 24 (26.7%) in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 39 (45.3%) in the antidepressant and placebo group experienced relapse (log-rank P = .003, number needed to treat [NNT], 6). Among the 121 who achieved stable response, 16 (25.8%) in the esketamine and antidepressant group and 34 (57.6%) in the antidepressant and placebo group experienced relapse (log-rank P < .001, NNT, 4). Esketamine and antidepressant treatment decreased the risk of relapse by 51% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.84) among patients who achieved stable remission and 70% (HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.55) among those who achieved stable response compared with antidepressant and placebo treatment. The most common adverse events reported for esketamine-treated patients after randomization were transient dysgeusia, vertigo, dissociation, somnolence, and dizziness (incidence, 20.4%-27.0%), each reported in fewer patients (<7%) treated with an antidepressant and placebo.Conclusions and relevanceFor patients with TRD who experienced remission or response after esketamine treatment, continuation of esketamine nasal spray in addition to oral antidepressant treatment resulted in clinically meaningful superiority in delaying relapse compared with antidepressant plus placebo.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02493868.

Project description: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.

Project description:Patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) have higher rates of relapse and pronounced decreases in daily functioning and health-related quality of life compared to patients with major depressive disorder who are not treatment-resistant, underscoring the need for treatment choices with sustained efficacy and long-term tolerability. Adults with TRD who participated in ≥1 of 6 phase 3 "parent" studies could continue esketamine treatment, combined with an oral antidepressant, by enrolling in phase 3, open-label, long-term extension study, SUSTAIN-3. Based on their status at parent-study end, eligible participants entered a 4-week induction phase followed by an optimization/maintenance phase, or directly entered the optimization/maintenance phase of SUSTAIN-3. Intranasal esketamine dosing was flexible, twice-weekly during induction and individualized to depression severity during optimization/maintenance. At the interim data cutoff (01 December 2020), 1148 participants were enrolled, 458 at induction and 690 at optimization/maintenance. Mean (median) cumulative duration of maintenance esketamine treatment was 31.5 (37.7) months (totaling 2769 cumulative patient-years). Common treatment-emergent adverse events (≥20%) were headache, dizziness, nausea, dissociation, somnolence, and nasopharyngitis. Mean Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score decreased during induction, and this reduction persisted during optimization/maintenance (mean [SD] change from the baseline to the endpoint of each phase: induction -12.8 [9.73]; optimization/maintenance +1.1 [9.93]), with 35.6% and 46.1% of participants in remission (MADRS total score ≤12) at induction and optimization/maintenance endpoints, respectively. Improvement in depression ratings generally persisted among participants who remained in maintenance treatment, and no new safety signal was identified during long-term treatment (up to 4.5 years) using intermittent-dosed esketamine in conjunction with daily antidepressant.

Project description:AimMajor depressive disorder is considered one of the most frequent diseases in the general population, and treatment-resistant depression (TRD) represents the subset with more significant clinical and social impact. Large, robust phase III studies have shown safety and efficacy of esketamine nasal spray plus SSRI/SNRI antidepressants (ADs) compared with SSRI/SNRI plus placebo nasal spray in patients with TRD. The main aim of this study was to perform a cost-utility analysis comparing esketamine plus ADs with ADs alone in TRD patients, from the societal perspective in Italy. A secondary analysis focused on the National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective.MethodsA Markov multistate model has been developed to estimate quality-adjusted life years and economic outcomes of both treatment strategies over 5 years considering the initiation of esketamine in the different treatment lines, from 3 to 5 (3L-5L). The model has been populated with data from literature and real-world evidence. The analysis from the societal perspective considered direct healthcare costs and patients' productivity losses. In addition to the incremental cost-utility ratio (ICUR), the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) has been calculated as (incremental benefit × WTP) - incremental cost and by applying a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of 50,000€/QALY. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses have been performed to assess the robustness of the model results.ResultsFrom the societal perspective, the ICUR ranged between 16,314€ and 22,133€ per QALY according to the different treatment lines, while it was over the threshold of 100,000€/QALY for the NHS perspective. The INMB was positive and ranged from 2259€ to 2744€ across treatment lines in the societal perspective; the INMB begins to occur earlier when moving towards subsequent lines of treatment (3.9 years for 3L, 3.6 years for 4L and 3.5 years for 5L). The analyses showed also that the advantage in terms of INMB is maintained for a wide range of societal preferences expressed by WTP thresholds, and in particular for values above 22,200€, 16,400€ and 17,100€ for 3L, 4L and 5L, respectively.ConclusionThe study showed that esketamine may be a cost-effective opportunity from the societal perspective for the management of patients with treatment-resistant depression. In the future, data collected from observational studies or registries, which can include the collection of productivity losses and also costs sustained by the patients, will be able to provide further evidence in order to improve the reliability of the model results.

Project description:BackgroundIntranasal drug delivery offers a non-invasive and convenient dosing option for patients and physicians, especially for conditions requiring chronic/repeated-treatment administration. However, in some cases such delivery may be harmful to nasal and olfactory epithelia.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to assess the potential impact of long-term intermittent treatment with esketamine nasal spray, taken in conjunction with an oral antidepressant (AD), on olfactory function and nasal tolerability in patients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD).MethodsA total of 1142 patients with TRD participated from four multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase III studies: three short-term studies (two in patients aged 18-64 years, one in patients ≥65 years), and one long-term maintenance study of esketamine nasal spray + AD versus placebo nasal spray + AD. Across the four studies, assessments were performed at 208 sites in 21 countries. Olfactory function was measured using the 40-item University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT®) and the single-staircase Snap & Sniff® Odor Detection Threshold Test (S&S-T). Nasal tolerability, including nasal examinations and a quantitative, self-administered nasal symptom questionnaire (NSQ), was also assessed. Data were analyzed using analyses of covariance.ResultsOf 1142 participants, 734 were women (64.3%). The mean age of all participants ranged from 45.7 to 70.0 years across the studies. Overall, 855 patients received esketamine nasal spray + AD and 432 received placebo nasal spray + AD. Objective evaluation of nasal function showed no evidence of an adverse impact following esketamine administration. Based on the UPSIT® and S&S-T results, intranasal administration of esketamine had no effect on the odor identification or threshold test scores compared with placebo nasal spray + oral AD. Similarly, repeated administration with esketamine nasal spray had no meaningful impact on assessments of nasal function. No dose-response relationship was observed between esketamine doses and the olfactory test scores. Esketamine nasal spray was well tolerated, as indicated by responses on the NSQ and negative nasal examination findings.ConclusionFindings from this analysis indicate that there was no evidence of adverse effect on either olfactory or nasal health measures with repeated intermittent administration of esketamine nasal spray at any dose over the course of short-term (4 weeks) or long-term (16-100 weeks) studies.Clinical trial registrationTRANSFORM-1: NCT02417064, date of registration: 15/04/2015; TRANSFORM-2: NCT02418585, date of registration: 16/04/2015; TRANSFORM-3: NCT02422186, date of registration: 21/04/2015; SUSTAIN-1: NCT02493868, date of registration: 10/07/2015.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with treatment-resistant depression (TRD) report significant deficits in physical and mental health, as well as severely impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and functioning. Esketamine effectively enhances the daily functioning in these patients while also improving their depressive symptoms. This study assessed HRQoL and health status of patients with TRD, who were treated with esketamine nasal spray and an oral antidepressant (ESK + AD) vs. placebo nasal spray and an AD (AD + PBO).MethodsData from TRANSFORM-2, a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, short-term flexibly dosed study, were analyzed. Patients (aged 18-64 years) with TRD were included. The outcome assessments included the European Quality of Life Group, Five Dimension, Five Level (EQ-5D-5L), EQ-Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS), and Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS). The health status index (HSI) was calculated using EQ-5D-5L scores.ResultsThe full analysis set included 223 patients (ESK + AD: 114; AD + PBO: 109; mean [SD] age: 45.7 [11.89]). At Day 28, a lower percentage of patients reported impairment in the ESK + AD vs. AD + PBO group in all five EQ-5D-5L dimensions: mobility (10.6% vs. 25.0%), self-care (13.5% vs. 32.0%), usual activities (51.9% vs. 72.0%), pain/discomfort (35.6% vs. 54.0%), and anxiety/depression (69.2% vs. 78.0%). The mean (SD) change from baseline in HSI at Day 28 was 0.310 (0.219) for ESK + AD and 0.235 (0.252) for AD + PBO, with a higher score reflecting better levels of health. The mean (SD) change from baseline in EQ-VAS score at Day 28 was greater in ESK + AD (31.1 [25.67]) vs. AD + PBO (22.1 [26.43]). The mean (SD) change in the SDS total score from baseline to Day 28 also favored ESK + AD (-13.6 [8.31]) vs. AD + PBO (-9.4 [8.43]).ConclusionsGreater improvements in HRQoL and health status were observed among patients with TRD treated with ESK + AD vs. AD + PBO.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02418585.

Project description:BackgroundThe efficacy of esketamine nasal spray (NS) as a rapid-acting agent for treatment resistant depression (TRD) was demonstrated in comparisons with placebo, when both were given in addition to a newly initiated selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)/serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI). How esketamine NS compares with commonly used real-world (RW) polypharmacy treatment strategies is not known.MethodICEBERG was an adjusted indirect treatment comparison that analysed data from SUSTAIN-2 (NCT02497287; clinicaltrials.gov), a long-term, open-label study of esketamine NS plus SSRI/SNRI, and the European Observational TRD Cohort (EOTC; NCT03373253; clinicaltrials.gov), an observational study of routine clinical practice. Data were compared between patients receiving esketamine NS (SUSTAIN-2) and those from the EOTC treated with polypharmacy treatment strategies, either combination or augmentation. Analyses were adjusted for potential confounders, using rescaled average treatment effect among treated estimates. Threshold analyses were conducted to assess potential impact of unmeasured confounders on the robustness of analyses where esketamine NS was found to be significantly superior. Sensitivity analyses were used to understand the impact of analysis method selection and data handling.ResultsEsketamine NS treatment resulted in a higher probability of 6-month response (49.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 45.6-53.9]) and remission (33.6% [95% CI 29.7-37.6]) versus RW polypharmacy (26.8% [95% CI 21.0-32.5] and 19.4%, [95% CI 14.2-24.6], respectively). Relative risk calculations showed esketamine NS was 1.859 (95% CI 1.474-2.345; p < 0.0001) times as likely to result in response and 1.735 (1.297-2.322; p = 0.0002) times as likely to result in remission versus RW polypharmacy at 6 months. Threshold and extensive sensitivity analyses supported that analyses of esketamine NS superiority were robust.ConclusionICEBERG supports esketamine NS being superior to current RW individualized polypharmacy strategies, including augmentation, with benefits extending beyond acute use, to improved chance of 6-month response and remission. While unobserved confounding factors may certainly impact results of an indirect comparison, threshold analysis supported a low likelihood of this affecting the conclusions.To view an animated summary of this publication, please click on the Supplementary video.