Why the study?
Although clinical effectiveness was proven for perfusion imaging-guided intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase in acute ischemic stroke between 4.5 and 9 hours from onset, its lifetime cost-effectiveness remained unassessed from Chinese and US healthcare payer perspectives.
Is perfusion imaging-guided intravenous alteplase cost-effective compared with placebo for patients with acute ischemic stroke with a time of onset between 4.5 and 9 hours?
Is perfusion imaging-guided intravenous alteplase cost-effective compared with placebo for patients with acute ischemic stroke with a time of onset between 4.5 and 9 hours?
Perfusion imaging-guided intravenous alteplase is likely cost-effective in China and cost-saving in the US for acute ischemic stroke patients presenting 4.5 to 9 hours after onset.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support perfusion-guided alteplase for 4.5–9 h AIS in imaging-ready systems; extends EXTEND but leaves open real-world costs and implementation.
BACKGROUND: A clinical trial proved the clinical effectiveness of perfusion imaging-guided intravenous thrombolysis with alteplase for patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) with the time of onset between 4.5 and 9 hours. This study aimed to assess the lifetime cost-effectiveness of alteplase versus placebo from the perspective of Chinese and United States (US) healthcare payers. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was built to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with alteplase or placebo. Model inputs were extracted from published sources. Incremental costs, incremental QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) were calculated to evaluate the base-case scenario. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analysis were performed to evaluate uncertainty in the results. RESULTS: In China, alteplase yielded an additional lifetime QALY of 0.126 with an additional cost of Chinese Yuan (¥) ¥9552 compared with placebo, and the ICER was ¥83 950 (US$12 157)/QALY. In the US, alteplase had a higher QALY (difference: 0.193) with a lower cost (difference: US$-2024) compared with placebo. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, alteplase had a 42.54% to 78.3% probability of being cost-effective compared with placebo in China when the willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold ranged from ¥72 447/QALY to ¥217 341/QALY. In the US, alteplase had a 93.47% to 93.57% probability of being cost-effective under the WTP threshold of US$100 000/QALY to US$150 000/QALY. These findings remained robust under one-way sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: For patients with AIS with a time of onset between 4.5 and 9 hours, perfusion imaging-guided intravenous alteplase was likely to be cost-effective in China and was cost-effective in the US when compared with placebo.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: