scholarly journals Cost-utility analysis of mechanical thrombectomy between 6 and 24 hours in acute ischemic stroke

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Pizzo ◽  
Maureen Dumba ◽  
Kyriakos Lobotesis

Background Recently, two randomized controlled trials demonstrated the benefit of mechanical thrombectomy performed between 6 and 24 h in acute ischemic stroke. The current economic evidence is supporting the intervention only within 6 h, but extended thrombectomy treatment times may result in better long-term outcomes for a larger cohort of patients. Aims We compared the cost-utility of mechanical thrombectomy in addition to medical treatment versus medical treatment alone performed beyond 6 h from stroke onset in the UK National Health Service (NHS). Methods A cost-utility analysis of mechanical thrombectomy compared to medical treatment was performed using a Markov model that estimates expected costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) over a 20-year time horizon. We present the results of three models using the data from the DEFUSE 3 and DAWN trials and evidence from published sources. Results Over a 20-year period, the incremental cost per QALY of mechanical thrombectomy was $1564 (£1219) when performed after 12 h from onset, $5253 (£4096) after 16 h and $3712 (£2894) after 24 h. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated that thrombectomy had a 99.9% probability of being cost-effective at the minimum willingness to pay for a QALY commonly used in the UK. Conclusions The results of this study demonstrate that performing mechanical thrombectomy up to 24 h from acute ischemic stroke symptom onset is still cost-effective, suggesting that this intervention should be implemented by the NHS on the basis of improvement in quality of life as well as economic grounds.

CMAJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. E316-E325 ◽  
Author(s):  
X. Xie ◽  
A. Lambrinos ◽  
B. Chan ◽  
I. A. Dhalla ◽  
T. Krings ◽  
...  

Stroke ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (9) ◽  
pp. 2591-2598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeban Ganesalingam ◽  
Elena Pizzo ◽  
Stephen Morris ◽  
Tom Sunderland ◽  
Diane Ames ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fanny Kählke ◽  
Claudia Buntrock ◽  
Filip Smit ◽  
Matthias Berking ◽  
Dirk Lehr ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Work-related stress is widespread among employees and associated with high costs for German society. Internet-based stress management interventions (iSMIs) are effective in reducing such stress. However, evidence for their cost-effectiveness is scant. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of a guided iSMI for employees. METHODS A sample of 264 employees with elevated symptoms of perceived stress (Perceived Stress Scale≥22) was assigned to either the iSMI or a waitlist control condition (WLC) with unrestricted access to treatment as usual. Participants were recruited in Germany in 2013 and followed through 2014, and data were analyzed in 2017. The iSMI consisted of 7 sessions plus 1 booster session. It was based on problem-solving therapy and emotion regulation techniques. Costs were measured from the societal perspective, including all direct and indirect medical costs. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis and a cost-utility analysis relating costs to a symptom-free person and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained, respectively. Sampling uncertainty was handled using nonparametric bootstrapping (N=5000). RESULTS When the society is not willing to pay anything to get an additional symptom-free person (eg, willingness-to-pay [WTP]=€0), there was a 70% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC. This probability rose to 85% and 93% when the society is willing to pay €1000 and €2000, respectively, for achieving an additional symptom-free person. The cost-utility analysis yielded a 76% probability that the intervention is more cost-effective than WLC at a conservative WTP threshold of €20,000 (US $25,800) per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS Offering an iSMI to stressed employees has an acceptable likelihood of being cost-effective compared with WLC. CLINICALTRIAL German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00004749; https://www.drks.de/DRKS00004749 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPOR RR2-10.1186/1471-2458-13-655


2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 141-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandjar Djalalov ◽  
Shayan Sehatzadeh ◽  
David H Keast ◽  
William WL Wong

Objective: Approximately between 1.5 and 3.0 per 1000 people are affected by venous leg ulcers (VLUs). The treatment and management of VLUs is costly and recurrence is a major concern. There is evidence that compression stockings can reduce the rate of re-ulceration compared with no compression. We present the first cost-effective analysis of compression stockings in preventing recurrence of VLUs from the perspective of the Ontario healthcare system. Method: A cost-utility analysis with a five-year time horizon was conducted. Use of compression stockings was compared with usual care (no compression stockings). We simulated a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with healed VLUs, using a state-transition model. Model input parameters were obtained mainly from the published literature. We estimated quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained and direct medical costs. We conducted various sensitivity analyses. Results: Compared with usual care, compression stockings were associated with higher costs and increased QALYs. Cost-utility analysis showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of compression stockings was $23,864 per QALY gained compared with no compression stockings. The most influential drivers of cost-effectiveness were the utility value of healed VLUs, cost of stockings, number of stocking replacements, monthly prevention cost and the risk of VLU recurrence. Conclusion: Compared with usual care, compression stockings were cost-effective in preventing VLUs, using a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50,000. These observations were consistent even when uncertainty in model inputs and parameters were considered.


2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Parody ◽  
Salvador Pedraza ◽  
María M. García-Gil ◽  
Carlos Crespo ◽  
Joaquín Serena ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document