Table 12:
Model Input Parameters Used in Reference Case Analysis
| Model Parameters | Mean (95% CI) | Distributiona | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| rTMS | |||
| Probability of response | 0.418 (0.296–0.552) | Beta | HQO13 |
| Probability of remission given response | 0.481 (0.395–0.586) | Beta | HQO13 |
| Sustained response | |||
| At 6 mo | 0.529 (0.403–0.650) | Beta | Jelovac et al156 and |
| At 12 mo | 0.463 (0.326–0.607) | Beta | Fitzgibbon et al143 |
| Percentage of TRD patients who would switch to ECT after no initial response to rTMS | 0.35 | Not variedc | Fitzgibbon et al143 |
| ECT | |||
| Probability of response | 0.666 (0.633–0.698) | Beta | Ross et al157 |
| Probability of remission given response | 0.509 (0.474–0.544) | Beta | Ross et al157 |
| Probability of remission without response | 0.183 (0.111–0.280) | Beta | Ross et al157 |
| Relapse | |||
| Without maintenance therapy | 0.377 (0.307–0.452) | Beta | Jelovac et al156 |
| With maintenance therapy | 0.308 (0.194–0.433) | Beta | Ross et al157 |
| Pharmacotherapy Alone | |||
| Risk ratio of probability of response (rTMS vs. pharmacotherapy) | 2.4 (1.70–3.40) | Lognormal | Clinical review |
| Probability of response | 0.174 (0.162–0.174) | Calculation | |
| Risk ratio of probability of remission (rTMS vs. pharmacotherapy) | 2.21 (1.26–3.90) | Lognormal | Clinical review |
| Probability of remission given response | 0.218 (0.150–0.313) | Calculation | |
| iTBS | |||
| Estimated adjusted difference in response (rTMS vs. iTBS) | 0.0183 (−0.066 to 0.102) | Blumberger et al25 | |
| Probability of response | 0.436 (0.231–0.654) | Beta | Calculation |
| Estimated adjusted difference in remission (rTMS vs. iTBS) | 0.052 (−0.024 to 0.128) | Blumberger et al25 | |
| Probability of remission Sustained responseb | 0.533 (0.371–0.714) | Beta | Calculation |
| At 6 mo | 0.529 (0.403–0.650) | Beta | Jelovac et al156 and |
| At 12 mo | 0.463 (0.326–0.607) | Beta | Fitzgibbon et al143 |
| All Treatment Strategies | |||
| Increase in mortality due to severe depression | 29% | Not variedd | Fitzgibbon et al,143 Chang et al,158 Chesney et al,159 Cuijpers et al160 |
Abbreviations: ECT, electroconvulsive therapy; HQO, Health Quality Ontario; iTBS, intermittent theta burst stimulation; rTMS, repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation; TRD, treatment-resistant depression.
a
Distribution was assigned and calculated by Briggs et al.161
b
Under the assumption that values for iTBS are the same as for rTMS.
c
This assumption was not varied in the reference case analysis based on Fitzgibbon et al.143 However, this value was varied in the scenario analysis from 0 to 100%.
d
This assumption was not varied in the reference case analysis based on Fitzgibbon et al.143 However, this value was varied in the scenario analysis by ±25%