Key result
Prehospital BP lowering projects as highly cost-effective in likely ICH at ~$28 per QALY gained.
Why the study?
Prehospital blood pressure lowering benefits intracerebral hemorrhage but worsens ischemic stroke, so this study investigated whether treating patients test-positive for likely intracerebral hemorrhage is cost-effective.
Does prehospital blood pressure lowering improve cost-effectiveness in hyperacute stroke patients likely to have intracerebral hemorrhage?
Does prehospital blood pressure lowering improve cost-effectiveness in hyperacute stroke patients likely to have intracerebral hemorrhage?
Prehospital blood pressure lowering in hyperacute stroke patients likely to have intracerebral hemorrhage is a highly cost-effective strategy in both the US and China.
Supports prehospital BP lowering consideration in likely ICH; extends INTERACT 4 with cost modeling but leaves open clinical adoption.
Introduction: Prehospital blood pressure lowering in hyperacute stroke patients improves outcome in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) but worsens outcome in ischemic stroke (IS) patients, per the INTERACT 4 trial. Modeling has shown existing prehospital ICH recognition scales (e.g. CASPR) and point-of-care tests (e.g serum GFAP) have sufficient sensitivity/specificity in selecting a population strongly enriched for ICH to make field antihypertensive therapy in test-positive patients clinically beneficial. The objective of this study was to investigate if this treatment strategy would also be cost-effective. Methods: Modeling inputs were: 1) age- and sex-specific life expectancies from US and China actuarial tables; 2) mRS disability weights and disability-level specific mortality hazard ratios for ICH and IS; 3) 3m mRS outcomes for ICH and IS patients from INTERACT 4; and 4) costs of prehospital BP medication in the US (nifedipine) and China (urapidil). Aggregating these data, we calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for prehospital BP-lowering therapy over a range of positive predictive values (PPVs) for ICH of prehospital assessment tests from 50%-100%. Results: Table 1 shows ICER results for PPVs between 50%-100% for male and female US and Chinese patients. Treating patients test-positive for likely ICH was highly cost-effective in all scenarios. For example, at 80% PPV, prehospital BP-lowering cost $28 (dollars) per quality-adjusted life year gained in US male patients and ¥ 109 RMB (renminbi) per QALY in Chinese female patients. Fig 1.1 depicts model results in US male and female patients. In the prototypical male US patient age, DALYs with BP-lowering were 11.4 (YLL 9.6+YLD 1.8) vs without BP-lowering 11.7 (YLL 10.0+YLD 1.8). The average quality-adjusted life year gained for each treated male patient was 0.3y. Figure 1.2 depicts results in Chinese patients. In the prototypical Chinese female patient, DALYs with BP-lowering were 20.0 (YLL 16.9+YLD 3.1) vs without BP-lowering 20.7 (YLL 17.6+YLD 3.1). The average quality-adjusted life year gained for each treated female patient was 0.6y. Conclusion: Prehospital BP-lowering treatment in hyperacute stroke patients assessed as likely having ICH would be highly cost-effective at positive predictive values attainable by currently available ICH diagnostic scales and point-of-care tests. These findings support pivotal trial testing of this promising treatment approach.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question. Prehospital blood pressure lowering in likely ICH patients was highly cost-effective at an 80% positive predictive value, costing $28 per QALY gained in US males.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: