Health budget implications of mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischaemic stroke in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: This research evaluates the budget impact of treating acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) using a combination of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) with stent retrievers (SR) and intravenous tissue-plasminogen activator (IV-tPA) in Australia. METHODS: This study examined the economic impact over five years for a patient cohort based on the number of patients treated with MT+ IV-tPA in Australia 2021, versus treatment with IV-tPA alone. A budget impact (BI) model was developed to project direct medical costs (economic impact) of IV-tPA+ MT with SR vs. Intravenous tissue-plasminogen activator alone over a five-year period (2021-2025 inclusive) from a healthcare perspective. The model is composed of a short-run decision tree model based on a 3-month post-treatment modified Rankin Scale (mRS) from the EXTEND-IA study and a published long-run Markov state transition model. Acute, mid-term and long-term care costs were projected based on anticipated mRS scores from the EXTEND-IA trial. Estimated yearly and cumulative budget impact were reported to indicate the economic impact of the two treatment strategies for AIS in the Australian healthcare system. RESULTS: MT+IV-tPA had a greater budgetary impact than IV-tPA alone, with annual savings starting at Year 1 and continuing through to Year 5. Cost savings of 21% or approximately $36 million can be achieved over five years for the patient cohort treated in Australia in 2021. Each MT procedure performed delivers approximately $3280 in annual health system savings per patient. CONCLUSION: Treatment of AIS with a combination of MT+IV-tPA generates significant savings in the Australian healthcare system compared with IV-tPA alone.

Mechanical thrombectomy is cost-effective versus medical management alone around Europe in patients with low ASPECTS.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate, by a cost-effectiveness analysis, the efficiency of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) versus medical management (MM) in patients with a low Alberta Stroke Program Early CT Score (ASPECTS) from the RESCUE Study. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was designed to project both direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of MT versus MM in eight European countries (Spain, UK, France, Italy, Belgium, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands). Our model was created based on previously published health-economic data in those countries. Procedure costs, acute, mid-term, and long-term care costs were projected based on expected modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores as reported in the RESCUE-Japan LIMIT trial. RESULTS: MT was found to be a cost-effective option in eight different countries across Europe (Spain, Italy, UK, France, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden). with a lifetime incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varying from US$2 875 to US$11 202/QALY depending on the country. A cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed 100% acceptability of MT at the willingness to pay (WTP) of US$40 000 for the eight countries. CONCLUSIONS: MT is efficient versus MM alone for patients with low ASPECTS in eight countries across Europe. Patients with a large ischemic core could be treated with MT because it is both clinically beneficial and economically sustainable.