scholarly journals Real-World Cost-Effectiveness of Late Time Window Thrombectomy for Patients With Ischemic Stroke

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lan Gao ◽  
Andrew Bivard ◽  
Mark Parsons ◽  
Neil J. Spratt ◽  
Christopher Levi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Perfusion Imaging ◽  
Prospective Cohort ◽  
Time Window ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Extended Time ◽  
Endovascular Thrombectomy

Background: To compare the cost-effectiveness of providing endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) for patients with ischemic stroke in the >4.5 h time window between patient groups who met and did not meet the perfusion imaging trial criteria.Methods: A discrete event simulation (DES) model was developed to simulate the long-term outcome post EVT in patients meeting or not meeting the extended time window clinical trial perfusion imaging criteria at presentation, vs. medical treatment alone (including intravenous thrombolysis). The effectiveness of thrombectomy in patients meeting the landmark trial criteria (DEFUSE 3 and DAWN) was derived from a prospective cohort study of Australian patients who received EVT for ischemic stroke, between 2015 and 2019, in the extended time window (>4.5 h).Results: Endovascular thrombectomy was shown to be a cost-effective treatment for patients satisfying the clinical trial criteria in our prospective cohort [incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $11,608/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for DEFUSE 3-postive or $34,416/QALY for DAWN-positive]. However, offering EVT to patients outside of clinical trial criteria was associated with reduced benefit (−1.02 QALY for DEFUSE 3; −1.43 QALY for DAWN) and higher long-term patient costs ($8,955 for DEFUSE 3; $9,271 for DAWN), thereby making it unlikely to be cost-effective in Australia.Conclusions: Treating patients not meeting the DAWN or DEFUSE 3 clinical trial criteria in the extended time window for EVT was associated with less gain in QALYs and higher cost. Caution should be exercised when considering this procedure for patients not satisfying the trial perfusion imaging criteria for EVT.

scholarly journals Systematic review of health economic studies in cranial neurosurgery

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. E2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Won Hyung A. Ryu ◽  
Michael M. H. Yang ◽  
Sandeep Muram ◽  
W. Bradley Jacobs ◽  
Steven Casha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Acute Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Endovascular Thrombectomy ◽  
Life Years ◽  
The Cost

OBJECTIVEAs the cost of health care continues to increase, there is a growing emphasis on evaluating the relative economic value of treatment options to guide resource allocation. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the current evidence regarding the cost-effectiveness of cranial neurosurgery procedures.METHODSThe authors performed a systematic review of the literature using PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, focusing on themes of economic evaluation and cranial neurosurgery following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Included studies were publications of cost-effectiveness analysis or cost-utility analysis between 1995 and 2017 in which health utility outcomes in life years (LYs), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), or disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) were used. Three independent reviewers conducted the study appraisal, data abstraction, and quality assessment, with differences resolved by consensus discussion.RESULTSIn total, 3485 citations were reviewed, with 53 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Of those, 34 studies were published in the last 5 years. The most common subspecialty focus was cerebrovascular (32%), followed by neurooncology (26%) and functional neurosurgery (24%). Twenty-eight (53%) studies, using a willingness to pay threshold of US$50,000 per QALY or LY, found a specific surgical treatment to be cost-effective. In addition, there were 11 (21%) studies that found a specific surgical option to be economically dominant (both cost saving and having superior outcome), including endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, epilepsy surgery for drug-refractory epilepsy, and endoscopic pituitary tumor resection.CONCLUSIONSThere is an increasing number of cost-effectiveness studies in cranial neurosurgery, especially within the last 5 years. Although there are numerous procedures, such as endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke, that have been conclusively proven to be cost-effective, there remain promising interventions in current practice that have yet to meet cost-effectiveness thresholds.

scholarly journals Update in the Early Management and Reperfusion Strategies of Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aldo A. Mendez ◽  
Edgar A. Samaniego ◽  
Sunil A. Sheth ◽  
Sudeepta Dandapat ◽  
David M. Hasan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Acute Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Mechanical Thrombectomy ◽  
Time Window ◽  
Prehospital Care ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Ongoing Research ◽  
Early Management ◽  
Endovascular Thrombectomy

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) remains a leading cause of death and long-term disability. The paradigms on prehospital care, reperfusion therapies, and postreperfusion management of patients with AIS continue to evolve. After the publication of pivotal clinical trials, endovascular thrombectomy has become part of the standard of care in selected cases of AIS since 2015. New stroke guidelines have been recently published, and the time window for mechanical thrombectomy has now been extended up to 24 hours. This review aims to provide a focused up-to-date review for the early management of adult patients with AIS and introduce the new upcoming areas of ongoing research.

Cost-effectiveness of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with low Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Scores (< 6) at presentation

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Xiao Wu ◽  
Sam Payabvash ◽  
Charles C. Matouk ◽  
Michael H. Lev ◽  
Max Wintermark ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Medical Management ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Effective Strategy ◽  
Lifetime Horizon ◽  
Old Patients ◽  
Endovascular Thrombectomy ◽  
Good Outcome ◽  
Cost Effective Strategy

OBJECTIVE The utility of endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in patients with acute ischemic stroke, large vessel occlusion (LVO), and low Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Scores (ASPECTS) remains uncertain. The objective of this study was to determine the health outcomes and cost-effectiveness of EVT versus medical management in patients with ASPECTS < 6. METHODS A decision-analytical study was performed with Markov modeling to estimate the lifetime quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and associated costs of EVT-treated patients compared to medical management. The study was performed over a lifetime horizon with a societal perspective in the US setting. RESULTS The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were $412,411/QALY and $1,022,985/QALY for 55- and 65-year-old groups in the short-term model. EVT was the long-term cost-effective strategy in 96.16% of the iterations and resulted in differences in health benefit of 2.21 QALYs and 0.79 QALYs in the 55- and 65-year-old age groups, respectively, equivalent to 807 days and 288 days in perfect health. EVT remained the more cost-effective strategy when the probability of good outcome with EVT was above 16.8% or as long as the good outcome associated with the procedure was at least 1.6% higher in absolute value than that of medical management. EVT remained cost-effective even when its cost exceeded $100,000 (threshold was $108,036). Although the cost-effectiveness decreased with age, EVT was cost-effective for 75-year-old patients as well. CONCLUSIONS This study suggests that EVT is the more cost-effective approach compared to medical management in patients with ASPECTS < 6 in the long term (lifetime horizon), considering the poor outcomes and significant disability associated with nonreperfusion.

scholarly journals Cost-Effectiveness of Tenecteplase Before Thrombectomy for Ischemic Stroke

Stroke ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 51 (12) ◽  
pp. 3681-3689 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lan Gao ◽  
Marj Moodie ◽  
Peter J. Mitchell ◽  
Leonid Churilov ◽  
Timothy J. Kleinig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ischemic Stroke ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Modified Rankin Scale ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life Years ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Quality Adjusted Life

Background and Purpose: Tenecteplase improved functional outcomes and reduced the requirement for endovascular thrombectomy in ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion in the EXTEND-IA TNK randomized trial. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of tenecteplase versus alteplase in this trial. Methods: Post hoc within-trial economic analysis included costs of index emergency department and inpatient stroke hospitalization, rehabilitation/subacute care, and rehospitalization due to stroke within 90 days. Sources for cost included key study site complemented by published literature and government websites. Quality-adjusted life-years were estimated using utility scores derived from the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days. Long-term modeled cost-effectiveness analysis used a Markov model with 7 health states corresponding to 7 modified Rankin Scale scores. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results: Within the 202 patients in the randomized controlled trial, total cost was nonsignificantly lower in the tenecteplase-treated patients (40 997 Australian dollars [AUD]) compared with alteplase-treated patients (46 188 AUD) for the first 90 days( P =0.125). Tenecteplase was the dominant treatment strategy in the short term, with similar cost (5412 AUD [95% CI, −13 348 to 2523]; P =0.181) and higher benefits (0.099 quality-adjusted life-years [95% CI, 0.001–0.1967]; P =0.048), with a 97.4% probability of being cost-effective. In the long-term, tenecteplase was associated with less additional lifetime cost (96 357 versus 106 304 AUD) and greater benefits (quality-adjusted life-years, 7.77 versus 6.48), and had a 100% probability of being cost-effective. Both deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. Conclusions: Both within-trial and long-term economic analyses showed that tenecteplase was highly likely to be cost-effective for patients with acute stroke before thrombectomy. Recommending the use of tenecteplase over alteplase could lead to a cost saving to the healthcare system both in the short and long term. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02388061.

scholarly journals A Re-Analysis of EU’s COVID-19 Vaccine Procurement Strategy in View of the An-Ticipated Cost-effectiveness of Vaccination

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Afschin Gandjour
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Vaccine Efficacy ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Mitigation Strategy ◽  
Mitigation Measures ◽  
Base Case ◽  
Procurement Strategy ◽  
Input Variables

Abstract Aim The EU has received criticism for being slow to secure COVID-19 vaccine contracts in 2020 before the approval of the first COVID-19 vaccine. The purpose of this study is to retrospectively analyze the EU’s COVID-19 vaccine procurement strategy. To this end, the study retrospectively determines the minimum vaccine efficacy that made vaccination cost-effective from a societal perspective in Germany before the clinical trial announcements in late 2020. The result is compared against the expected vaccine efficacy before the announcements. Methods Two strategies were analyzed: vaccination followed by complete lifting of mitigation measures and a long-term mitigation strategy. A decision model was constructed using, e.g., information on age-specific fatality rates, intensive care unit costs and outcomes, and herd protection threshold. The base-case time horizon was 5 years. Cost-effectiveness of vaccination was determined in terms of costs per life year gained. The value of an additional life year was borrowed from new, innovative oncological drugs, as cancer reflects a condition with a similar morbidity and mortality burden in the general population in the short term as COVID-19. Results A vaccine with 50% efficacy against death due to COVID-19 was not clearly cost-effective compared to a long-term mitigation strategy if mitigation measures were planned to be lifted after vaccine rollout. The minimum vaccine efficacy to achieve cost-effectiveness was 40% in the base case. The sensitivity analysis shows considerable variation around the minimum vaccine efficacy, extending above 50% for some of the input variables. Conclusions This study shows that vaccine efficacy levels expected before clinical trial announcements did not clearly justify lifting mitigation measures from a cost-effectiveness standpoint. Hence, the sluggish EU’s procurement strategy still appeared to be rational at the time of decision making.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of a hybrid emergency room system for severe trauma: a health technology assessment from the perspective of the third-party payer in Japan

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Takahiro Kinoshita ◽  
Kensuke Moriwaki ◽  
Nao Hanaki ◽  
Tetsuhisa Kitamura ◽  
Kazuma Yamakawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Emergency Room ◽  
Healthcare Costs ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Severe Trauma ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Short Term ◽  
The Third

Abstract Background Hybrid emergency room (ER) systems, consisting of an angiography-computed tomography (CT) machine in a trauma resuscitation room, are reported to be effective for reducing death from exsanguination in trauma patients. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of a hybrid ER system in severe trauma patients without severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods We conducted a cost-utility analysis comparing the hybrid ER system to the conventional ER system from the perspective of the third-party healthcare payer in Japan. A short-term decision tree and a long-term Markov model using a lifetime time horizon were constructed to estimate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and associated lifetime healthcare costs. Short-term mortality and healthcare costs were derived from medical records and claims data in a tertiary care hospital with a hybrid ER. Long-term mortality and utilities were extrapolated from the literature. The willingness-to-pay threshold was set at $47,619 per QALY gained and the discount rate was 2%. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results The hybrid ER system was associated with a gain of 1.03 QALYs and an increment of $33,591 lifetime costs compared to the conventional ER system, resulting in an ICER of $32,522 per QALY gained. The ICER was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold if the odds ratio of 28-day mortality was < 0.66. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that the hybrid ER system was cost-effective with a 79.3% probability. Conclusion The present study suggested that the hybrid ER system is a likely cost-effective strategy for treating severe trauma patients without severe TBI.

scholarly journals First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Cancers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 931
Author(s):  
Chi-Leung Chiang ◽  
Sik-Kwan Chan ◽  
Shing-Fung Lee ◽  
Horace Cheuk-Wai Choi
Keyword(s):  
Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lifetime Cost ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
First Line ◽  
First Line Therapy ◽  
Payer Perspective ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Using Data

Background: The IMbrave 150 trial revealed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo–bev) improves survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (1 year survival rate: 67.2% vs. 54.6%). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezo–bev vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable HCC from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from the IMbrave 150, we developed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of atezo–bev as first-line systemic therapy in HCC with those of sorafenib. The main outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Atezo–bev demonstrated a gain of 0.44 QALYs, with an additional cost of USD 79,074. The ICER of atezo–bev was USD 179,729 per QALY when compared with sorafenib. The model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. If we assumed that all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of HCC, atezo–bev was cost-effective (ICER USD 53,854 per QALY). However, if all patients followed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, the ICER of atezo–bev was USD 385,857 per QALY. Reducing the price of atezo–bev by 20% and 29% would satisfy the USD 150,000/QALY and 100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Moreover, capping the duration of therapy to ≤12 months or reducing the dosage of bev to ≤10 mg/kg would render atezo–bev cost-effective. Conclusions: The long-term effectiveness of atezo–bev is a critical but uncertain determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Price reduction would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes were modest. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document