Is concurrent intravenous alteplase in patients undergoing endovascular treatment for large vessel occlusion stroke cost-effective even if the cost of alteplase is only US1?

BACKGROUND: The added value of intravenous (IV) alteplase in large vessel occlusion (LVO) stroke over and beyond endovascular treatment (EVT) is controversial. We compared the long-term costs and cost-effectiveness of a direct-to-EVT paradigm in LVO stroke patients presenting directly to the mothership hospital to concurrent EVT and IV alteplase. METHODS: We used a decision model consisting of a short-run model to analyze costs and functional outcomes within 90 days after the index stroke and a long-run Markov state transition model (cycle length of 12 months) to estimate expected lifetime costs and outcomes. Outcome data were from the DIRECT-MT trial (NCT03469206). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and net monetary benefits were calculated and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed. Analysis was performed from a healthcare perspective and a societal perspective using both a minimal assumed alteplase cost of US1 and true alteplase cost. RESULTS: When assuming a minimal cost of alteplase of 1, EVT with concurrent IV alteplase resulted in incremental lifetime cost of 5664 (healthcare perspective) /4804 (societal perspective) and a decrement of 0. 25 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) compared with EVT only, indicating dominance of the EVT only approach. Net monetary benefits were consistently higher for EVT only compared with EVT with concurrent alteplase. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed increased costs without an increase in QALYs for EVT and concurrent IV alteplase compared with EVT only. Results were even more in favor of EVT when the true cost of alteplase was used for analysis. CONCLUSION: EVT without concurrent alteplase is the preferred strategy from a health economic standpoint.