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.

Decrementally cost-effective health technologies in non-inferiority studies: A systematic review.

Background: HTA guidance has generally been driven by situations where innovative and usually more expensive technologies are compared to the prevailing standards of care. Cheaper and less efficacious interventions have received scarce attention, although strategies with minimal individual efficacy losses might produce collective health gains when savings are redistributed. Purpose: This systematic review of health economic evaluations identified interventions that are both cost and outcome reducing to procure a list of candidate decrementally cost-effective technologies. Data Sources: English language searches were performed in PubMed, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov covering 2005 to September 2021. Study Selection: Full economic evaluations reporting in English decrementally cost-effective health technologies based on RCT data, modelling or mixed methods. Data Synthesis: After filtering 4,975 studies found through the systematic database search, 107 decrementally cost-effective health technologies (HTs) were identified. Nearly a third were services (n = 29) and similarly for drugs (n = 31). For over half of the studies (n = 54) health outcomes were measured in QALYs and the cost-utility ratios varied from €140 to €5 million saved per QALY lost, albeit with time horizons varying from 4 days of follow-up to lifetime extrapolations. Less than a quarter of the studies were carried out from the societal perspective. Limitations: Despite including ClinicalTrials.gov as data source, unpublished studies may have been missed. Conclusions: Our results show a growth in recent years in the number of economic publications demonstrating decrementally cost-effective HTs. Economic tools are needed to facilitate the adoption of such HTs by policy-makers at the national level to maximise health outcomes at the population level. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=95504, identifier CRD42018095504.