Skip to content

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

Kristin Clemens, Amanda Teeple, Benoit Rive, Noam Kirson, Urvi Desai, Jason Doran, Diab Eid, Alice Qu, Hannah Bowrey, Kruti Joshi

Journal of comparative effectiveness research June 9, 2025 DOI: 10.57264/cer-2024-0092 via PubMed

Summary

AI-generated from the abstract

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.

Study at a glance

Characteristics Economic model based on clinical trial data Peer reviewed
Population Adults with treatment-resistant depression
Interventions Esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant Quetiapine extended release plus an oral antidepressant
Duration 32 weeks
Topics Depression Esketamine
Keywords Cost efficiency Cost offset Cost-benefit Cost-per-remitter Economic model
Key finding Esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant had a lower cost-per-remitter than quetiapine extended release plus an oral antidepressant in both commercial and Medicaid settings.

Abstract

Aim: Estimate the cost-per-remitter with esketamine nasal spray plus an oral antidepressant (ESK NS + OAD) versus quetiapine extended release plus an oral antidepressant (QTP XR + OAD) among adults with treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Materials & methods: An Excel-based model was developed to estimate the cost-per-remitter for ESK NS + OAD and QTP XR + OAD from the perspective of a US commercial insurance plan and Medicaid. Remission and response rates were estimated in 4-week intervals over 32 weeks using data from the ESCAPE-TRD phase IIIb clinical trial comparing ESK NS + OAD versus QTP XR + OAD in adults with TRD. Direct healthcare costs were sourced from health economic literature and the RED BOOK® drug pricing database. Indirect costs were derived from a separate analysis of ESCAPE-TRD using the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment: Depression questionnaire. Adults not remitting/responding either stayed on current treatment or discontinued current treatment and initiated either augmented therapy with antipsychotics or repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. In a scenario analysis, all individuals who did not achieve response and discontinued treatment initiated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. Results: The remission rate at 32 weeks was 50% for adults receiving ESK NS + OAD and 33% for adults receiving QTP XR + OAD. The cost-per-remitter for ESK NS + OAD compared with QTP XR + OAD was $3102.17 lower in the commercial setting and $456.12 lower in the Medicaid setting. Under the scenario analysis, the cost-per-remitter for ESK NS + OAD compared with QTP XR + OAD was $15,133.66 lower in the commercial setting and $12,487.62 lower in the Medicaid setting. Conclusion: The findings suggest that ESK NS + OAD is a cost-effective treatment for adults with TRD compared with QTP XR + OAD in the commercial and Medicaid settings.

Explore topics

Comments

No comments yet.

Log in to comment