Skip to content

Journal of comparative effectiveness research

ISSN 2042-6313

2 papers in the library · publishing 2025

Papers

Cost-per-remitter for esketamine nasal spray versus quetiapine for treatment-resistant depression.

Journal of comparative effectiveness research June 9, 2025 Kristin Clemens, Amanda Teeple, Benoit Rive et al.

Esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant costs less per patient who achieves remission than quetiapine extended release plus an oral antidepressant for adults with treatment-resistant depression. Over 32 weeks, 50% of those taking esketamine plus an antidepressant achieved remission, compared with 33% taking quetiapine plus an antidepressant. The cost-per-remitter was $3,102 lower for esketamine in a commercial insurance setting and $456 lower in a Medicaid setting. In a scenario where non-responders switched to repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, the cost savings were larger: $15,134 lower commercially and $12,488 lower for Medicaid. The authors suggest esketamine plus an antidepressant is a cost-effective option.

Impact analysis of expanded access to ketamine for treatment-resistant depression.

Journal of comparative effectiveness research June 1, 2025 Thanh Lu, Sophia D'Angelo, Zohra Tayebali et al.

Expanding access to intravenous ketamine for US patients with nonpsychotic treatment-resistant depression (TRD) and moderate-to-severe depression, compared to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), could yield net societal savings of $828.2 million annually over five years, including $95.3 million in patient savings and $743.7 million in payer savings, while imposing an additional $10.8 million burden on caregiver time. A population-level Markov simulation model, parameterized with data from a randomized trial, projected that expanded ketamine access would increase the number of treated patients by 75,000 in the first year and 4,292 annually thereafter. Ketamine may be a noninferior treatment relative to ECT for improving depression symptoms.