Key result
A blood biomarker test to guide pre-hospital thrombolysis in suspected stroke patients was cost-effective compared with standard care, yielding more QALYs (4.87 vs. 4.77) with an ICER of 881€/QALY.
Why the study?
Intravenous tPA benefits in stroke are highly time dependent, requiring evaluation of whether a blood biomarker test guiding pre-hospital tPA is cost-effective compared with standard hospital care.
Does a blood biomarker test to guide pre-hospital tPA improve quality-adjusted life-years and cost-effectiveness in adult patients with suspected moderate to severe stroke?
Does a blood biomarker test to guide pre-hospital tPA improve quality-adjusted life-years and cost-effectiveness in adult patients with suspected moderate to severe stroke?
A blood biomarker test to guide pre-hospital thrombolysis is highly cost-effective compared with standard hospital care for patients with suspected ischemic stroke.
Supports modeled cost-effectiveness of biomarker-guided pre-hospital thrombolysis; leaves open randomized validation before adoption.
OBJECTIVES: Stroke treatment with intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA) is effective and efficient, but as its benefits are highly time dependent, it is essential to treat the patient promptly after symptom onset. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of a blood biomarker test to differentiate ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke to guide pre-hospital treatment with tPA in patients with suspected stroke, compared with standard hospital management. The standard care for patients suffering stroke consists mainly in diagnosis, treatment, hospitalization and monitoring. METHODS: A Markov model was built with four health states according to the modified Rankin scale, in adult patients with suspected moderate to severe stroke (NIHSS 4-22) within 4.5 hours after symptom onset. A Spanish Health System perspective was used. The time horizon was 15 years. Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and life-years gained (LYGs) were used as a measure of effectiveness. Short- and long-term direct health costs were included. Costs were expressed in Euros (2022). A discount rate of 3% was used. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and several one-way sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: The use of a blood-test biomarker compared with standard care was associated with more QALYs (4.87 vs. 4.77), more LYGs (7.18 vs. 7.07), and greater costs (12,807€ vs. 12,713€). The ICER was 881€/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that the biomarker test was cost-effective in 82% of iterations using a threshold of 24,000€/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a blood biomarker test to guide pre-hospital thrombolysis is cost-effective compared with standard hospital care in patients with ischemic stroke.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Parody-Rúa et al. (2022) studied Suspected moderate to severe stroke. Blood biomarker test to guide pre-hospital tPA vs. Standard hospital management was evaluated on Quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (ICER 881€/QALY). A blood biomarker test to guide pre-hospital thrombolysis in suspected stroke patients was cost-effective compared with standard care, yielding more QALYs (4.87 vs. 4.77) with an ICER of 881€/QALY.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: