Aim: Estimate the cost-per-remitter with esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant (ESK + oral AD) versus oral AD plus nasal placebo (oral AD + PBO) among patients with treatment-resistant depression. Patients & methods: An Excel-based model was developed to estimate the cost-per-remitter for ESK + oral AD versus oral AD + PBO over 52 weeks from multiple US payer perspectives. Clinical end points and cost inputs were derived from clinical trials and the literature, respectively. Results: Under the base-case scenario, the cost-per-remitter for ESK + oral AD and oral AD + PBO were as follows: Commercial: US$85,808 versus US$100,198; Medicaid: US$76,236 versus US$96,067; Veteran's Affairs: US$77,765 versus US$104,519; and Integrated Delivery Network: US$103,924 versus US$142,766. Conclusion: The findings suggest that ESK + oral AD is a cost-efficient alternative treatment for treatment-resistant depression compared with oral AD + PBO.
Keywords: cost efficiency; cost offset; cost-per-responder; cost–benefit analysis; economic model.
Lay abstract The US FDA recently approved esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant (AD) as a new treatment for adults with treatment-resistant depression. We developed an Excel-based model to understand whether esketamine + oral AD treatment offers better value for the money spent, compared with treatment with oral AD alone. We find that the higher annual costs of esketamine + oral AD treatment are more than offset by the better clinical outcomes achieved with this treatment. Specifically, in a given year, more people treated with esketamine + oral AD versus oral AD alone achieved and remained in remission, and as a result, they incurred fewer other medical costs.