BackgroundRepetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an evidence-based treatment for depression that is increasingly implemented in healthcare systems across the world. A new form of rTMS called intermittent theta burst stimulation (iTBS) can be delivered in 3 min and has demonstrated comparable effectiveness to the conventional 37.5 min 10Hz rTMS protocol in patients with depression.ObjectivesTo compare the direct treatment costs per course and per remission for iTBS compared to 10Hz rTMS treatment in depression.MethodsWe conducted a cost analysis from a healthcare system perspective using patient-level data from a large randomized non-inferiority trial (THREE-D). Depressed adults 18 to 65 received either 10Hz rTMS or iTBS treatment. Treatment costs were calculated using direct healthcare costs associated with equipment, coils, physician assessments and technician time over the course of treatment. Cost per remission was estimated using the proportion of patients achieving remission following treatment. Deterministic sensitivity analyses and non-parametric bootstrapping was used to estimate uncertainty.ResultsFrom a healthcare system perspective, the average cost per patient was USD$1,108 (SD 166) for a course of iTBS and $1,844 (SD 304) for 10Hz rTMS, with an incremental net savings of $735 (95% CI 688 to 783). The average cost per remission was $3,695 (SD 552) for iTBS and $6,146 (SD 1,015) for 10Hz rTMS, with an average incremental net savings of $2,451 (95% CI 2,293 to 2,610).ConclusionsThe shorter session durations and treatment capacity increase associated with 3 min iTBS translate into significant cost-savings per patient and per remission when compared to 10Hz rTMS.

Background and Aims:The World Health Organization's hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination strategy recognizes the need for interventions that identify populations most affected by infection. The emergency department (ED) has been suggested as a setting for HCV screening. The study objective was to explore the health and economic impact of HCV screening in the ED setting. Methods:We used a microsimulation model to conduct a cost-utility analysis evaluating two ED setting-specific strategies: no screening, and screening and subsequent treatment. Strategies were examined for two populations: (a) the general ED patient population; and (b) ED patients born between 1945 and 1975. The analysis was conducted from a healthcare payer perspective over a lifetime time horizon. A reference and high ED HCV seroprevalence measure were examined in the Canadian healthcare setting.US costs of chronic infection were used for a scenario analysis of screening in the US healthcare setting. Results: For birth cohort screening, in comparison to no screening, one liver-related death was averted for every 760 and 123 persons screened for the reference and high seroprevalence measures. For general population screening, one liver-related death was averted for every 831 and 147 persons screened for the reference and high seroprevalence measures. In comparison to no screening, birth cohort screening was cost-effective at CAN$25,584/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and US$42,615/QALY. General population screening was cost-effective at CAN$19,733/QALY and US$32,187/QALY. Conclusions: ED screening may represent a cost-effective component of populationbased strategies to eliminate HCV. Further studies are warranted to explore the feasibility and acceptability of this approach. K E Y W O R D S cost-utility analysis, economic evaluation, emergency department, hepatitis C, screening | 1283 MENDLOWITZ ET aL.