• Ricardo A Najera, Katherine E Kabotyanski, Nicole C McLaughlin, Sean T Gregory, Adrish Anand, Ben Shofty, Nicole R Provenza, Eric A Storch, Wayne K Goodman, and Sameer A Sheth.
• 1Department of Neurosurgery, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
• J. Neurosurg. 2025 Jan 3: 1101-10.

ObjectiveDeep brain stimulation (DBS) is an effective neurosurgical option for patients with treatment-resistant obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Despite being more costly than neuroablative procedures of comparable efficacy, DBS has gained popularity over the years for its reversibility and adjustability. Although the cost-effectiveness of DBS has been investigated extensively in movement disorders, few economic analyses of DBS for psychiatric disorders exist. In this study, the authors present the first cost-effectiveness analysis of DBS for treatment-resistant OCD in the United States.MethodsThe authors developed four decision analytical models to compare the cost-effectiveness of DBS with treatment as usual (TAU) for OCD, varying either the device type (i.e., nonrechargeable or rechargeable) or the time horizon (i.e., 3 or 5 years) in each model. Treatment response and complication rates were based on a literature review. Published algorithms were used to convert Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale scores into utility scores reflecting improvements in quality of life. Costs were approached from the healthcare sector perspective and were drawn primarily from Medicare facility and physician reimbursement rates. For each model, a Monte Carlo simulation (n = 100,000) and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in US dollars per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).ResultsData from 249 and 265 treatment-resistant OCD patients from the published literature who received DBS and had sufficient follow-up in 3- and 5-year models, respectively, were included. When conventional US willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds were used, nonrechargeable DBS models were less cost-effective (3-year ICER: $108,431/QALY; 5-year ICER: $203,202/QALY) and rechargeable DBS models were more cost-effective (3-year ICER: $49,363/QALY; 5-year ICER: $41,495/QALY) than TAU. At a WTP threshold of $100,000/QALY, rechargeable DBS devices were moderately more cost-effective than TAU at 3 and 5 years in 100% of iterations. At a WTP threshold of $50,000/QALY, rechargeable DBS devices were definitively more cost-effective than TAU at 3 and 5 years in 54% and 89% of iterations, respectively. When using WHO WTP conventions, 3- and 5-year nonrechargeable models were cost-effective in 100% and 84% of iterations, and 3- and 5-year rechargeable models were highly cost-effective in 99% and 100% of iterations, respectively.ConclusionsRechargeable DBS models were cost-effective for treatment-resistant OCD compared with TAU. Nonrechargeable DBS models may be cost-effective, especially with improvement in battery longevity and changes in accepted WTP thresholds.

8 keywords...

hide…