Health economic evaluation in noninvasive brain stimulation: an infographic
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17267/2965-3738bis.2025.e6222Keywords:
Non-invasive Brain Stimulation, Technology Assessments, Economic Health Evaluation, Cost-effectivenessAbstract
ABSTRACT | BACKGROUND: The use of non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) techniques to treat various health conditions is now well established in many countries. Essential considerations for adopting any new health technology – including safety, efficacy, and effectiveness – have been extensively studied and supported by published research and expert consensus. However, while NIBS has overcome many safety and efficacy barriers for numerous conditions, evidence regarding its cost-effectiveness remains limited. OBJECTIVES: This infographic presents the principal types of full economic evaluations applicable to NIBS interventions. METHODS: Its design aligns with methodological standards for health economic studies and incorporates guidelines from key policy institutions, including the Brazilian Ministry of Health. RESULTS: The evaluation of costs and benefits associated with NIBS plays a crucial role in health technology assessments and decisions regarding its integration into healthcare systems. From a patient’s perspective, cost-effective innovations expand treatment options, particularly for chronic or refractory conditions, while improving access through reimbursement and insurance coverage. From a health economic viewpoint, these evaluations are vital to ensure efficient resource allocation and prevent investment in clinically or economically unjustified treatments. Full economic evaluations can be categorized into cost-minimization analysis (CMA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA), and cost-benefit analysis (CBA). CONCLUSION: Economic evaluation is a cornerstone of health technology assessment (HTA), providing critical evidence to guide decisions about adopting new technologies in public healthcare. For noninvasive brain stimulation (NIBS) — including repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (rTMS) and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS) — current evidence reveals a significant gap in cost-effectiveness analyses. Future studies should adhere to methodological guidelines and regional priorities to strengthen the evidence base, ultimately supporting the integration of these interventions into public health systems.
Downloads
References
1. Lefaucheur JP, Antal A, Ayache SS, Benninger DH, Brunelin J, Cogiamanian F, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). Clin Neurophysiol. 2017;128:56-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2016.10.087
2. Baptista AF, Fernandes A, Sa KN, Okano AH, Brunoni AR, Lara-Solares A, et al. Latin American and Caribbean consensus on noninvasive central nervous system neuromodulation for chronic pain management (LAC(2)-NIN-CP). Pain Rep. 2019;4:e692. https://doi.org/10.1097/PR9.0000000000000692
3. Lefaucheur JP, Aleman A, Baeken C, Benninger DH, Brunelin J, Lazzaro VD, et al. Evidence-based guidelines on the therapeutic use of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS): An update (2014-2018). Clin Neurophysiol. 2020;131:474-528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2019.11.002
4. Rossi S, Antal A, Bestmann S, Bikson M, Brewer C, Brockmöller J, et al. Safety and recommendations for TMS use in healthy subjects and patient populations, with updates on training, ethical and regulatory issues: Expert Guidelines. Clin Neurophysiol. 2021;132:269-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinph.2020.10.003
5. Drummond M. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015. 445 p.
6. Ministério da Saúde (Brasil). Secretaria de Ciência, Tecnologia e Insumos Estratégicos. Diretrizes metodológicas: estudos de avaliação econômica de tecnologias em saúde. 2a ed. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2014. 132 p.
7. Chatterton ML, Lee YY, Le LK, Nichols M, Carter R, Berk M, et al. Cost-utility analysis of adjunct repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for treatment resistant bipolar depression. J Affect Disord. 2024;356:639-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2024.04.075
8. Gregory ST, Goodman WK, Kay B, Riemann B, Storch EA. Cost-effectiveness analysis of deep transcranial magnetic stimulation relative to evidence-based strategies for treatment-refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder. J Psychiatr Res. 2022;146:50-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.12.034
9. Hendriks L, Mihalopoulos C, Le LK, Loo C, Chatterton ML. Cost-utility analysis of rTMS as add-on therapy to standard care for the treatment of hallucinations in schizophrenia. Eur Psychiatry. 2022;65:1-32. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2022.13
10. Noda Y, Miyashita C, Komatsu Y, Kito S, Mimura M. Cost-effectiveness analysis comparing repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy with antidepressant treatment in patients with treatment-resistant depression in Japan. Psychiatry Res. 2023;330:115573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2023.115573
11. Xi M, Shen X, Guliyeva K, Hancock-Howard R, Coyte PC, Chan BCF. Cost-utility analysis of transcranial direct current stimulation therapy with and without virtual illusion for neuropathic pain for adults with spinal cord injury in Canada. J Spinal Cord Med. 2021;44(Suppl 1):S159-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10790268.2021.1961051
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Fuad Ahmad Hazime, Raquel Sales Rocha-Jacob, Suhaila Mahmoud Smaili, Igor Garcia Barreto, Abrahão Fontes Baptista, Katia Nunes Sá
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
