Endovascular thrombectomy is cost-saving in patients with acute ischemic stroke with large infarct.

Objective: Endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) is the standard of care for acute large vessel occlusion stroke. Recently, the ANGEL-ASPECT and SELECT 2 trials showed improved outcomes in patients with acute ischemic Stroke presenting with large infarcts. The cost-effectiveness of EVT for this subpopulation of stroke patients has only been calculated using data from the previously published RESCUE-Japan LIMIT trial. It is, therefore, limited in its generalizability to an international population. With this study we primarily simulated patient-level costs to analyze the economic potential of EVT for patients with large ischemic stroke from a public health payer perspective based on the recently published data and secondarily identified determinants of cost-effectiveness. Methods: Costs and outcome of patients treated with EVT or only with the best medical care based on the recent prospective clinical trials ANGEL-ASPECT, SELECT2 and RESCUE-Japan LIMIT. A A Markov model was developed using treamtment outcomes derived from the most recent available literature. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses addressed uncertainty. Results: Endovascular treatment resulted in an incremental gain of 1.32 QALYs per procedure with cost savings of $17,318 per patient. Lifetime costs resulted to be most sensitive to the costs of the endovascular procedure. Conclusion: EVT is a cost-saving (i.e., dominant) strategy for patients presenting with large ischemic cores defined by inclusion criteria of the recently published ANGEL-ASPECT, SELECT2, and RESCUE-Japan LIMIT trials in comparison to best medical care in our simulation. Prospective data of individual patients need to be collected to validate these results.

Cost-effectiveness of endovascular treatment versus best medical management in basilar artery occlusion stroke: A U.S. healthcare perspective.

INTRODUCTION: Two recent studies showed clinical benefit for endovascular treatment (EVT) in basilar artery occlusion (BAO) stroke up to 12 h (ATTENTION) and between 6 and 24 h from onset (BAOCHE). Our aim was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of EVT from a U.S. healthcare perspective. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical input data were available for both trials, which were analyzed separately. A decision model was built 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 from a healthcare and a societal perspective. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated, deterministic (DSA) and probabilistic (PSA) sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: EVT in addition to best medical management (BMM) resulted in additional lifetime costs of $32,063 in the ATTENTION trial and lifetime cost savings of $7690 in the BAOCHE trial (societal perspective). From a healthcare perspective, EVT led to incremental costs and effectiveness of $37,389 and 2.0 QALYs (ATTENTION) as well as $3516 and 1.9 QALYs (BAOCHE), compared to BMM alone. The ICER values were $-4052/QALY (BAOCHE) and $15,867/QALY (ATTENTION) from a societal perspective. In each trial, PSA showed EVT to be cost-effective in most calculations (99.9%) for a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. Cost of EVT and age at stroke represented the greatest impact on the ICER. DISCUSSION: From an economic standpoint with a lifetime horizon, EVT in addition to BMM is estimated to be highly effective and cost-effective in BAO stroke.

Cost-effectiveness of opportunistic QCT-based osteoporosis screening for the prediction of incident vertebral fractures.

Objectives: Opportunistic quantitative computed tomography (oQCT) derived from non-dedicated routine CT has demonstrated high accuracy in diagnosing osteoporosis and predicting incident vertebral fractures (VFs). We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness of oQCT screening compared to dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) as the standard of care for osteoporosis screening. Methods: Three screening strategies ("no osteoporosis screening", "oQCT screening", and "DXA screening") after routine CT were simulated in a state-transition model for hypothetical cohorts of 1,000 patients (women and men aged 65 years) over a follow-up period of 5 years (base case). The primary outcomes were the cumulative costs and the quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) estimated from a U.S. health care perspective for the year 2022. Cost-effectiveness was assessed based on a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $70,249 per QALY. The secondary outcome was the number of prevented VFs. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to test the models' robustness. Results: Compared to DXA screening, oQCT screening increased QALYs in both sexes (additional 2.40 per 1,000 women and 1.44 per 1,000 men) and resulted in total costs of $3,199,016 and $950,359 vs. $3,262,934 and $933,077 for women and men, respectively. As a secondary outcome, oQCT screening prevented 2.6 and 2.0 additional VFs per 1,000 women and men, respectively. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, oQCT screening remained cost-effective in 88.3% (women) and 90.0% (men) of iterations. Conclusion: oQCT screening is a cost-effective ancillary approach for osteoporosis screening and has the potential to prevent a substantial number of VFs if considered in daily clinical practice.

Endovascular thrombectomy is cost-effective in acute basilar artery occlusion stroke.

Objective: Endovascular thrombectomy is a long-established therapy for acute basilar artery occlusion (aBAO). Unlike for anterior circulation stroke, cost-effectiveness of endovascular treatment has not been evaluated and is urgently needed to calculate expected health benefits and financial rewards. The aim of this study was therefore to simulate patient-level costs, analyze the economic potential of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with acute basilar artery occlusion (aBAO), and identify major determinants of cost-effectiveness. Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare outcome and cost parameters between patients treated by endovascular thrombectomy and patients treated by best medical care, based on four recent prospective clinical trials (ATTENTION, BAOCHE, BASICS, and BEST). Treatment outcomes were derived from the most recent literature. Uncertainty was addressed by deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Willingness to pay per QALY thresholds were set at 1x gross domestic product per capita, as recommended by the World Health Organization. Results: Endovascular treatment of acute aBAO stroke yielded an incremental gain of 1.71 quality-adjusted life-years per procedure with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $7,596 per QALY. This was substantially lower than the Willingness to pay of $63,593 per QALY. Lifetime costs were most sensitive to costs of the endovascular procedure. Conclusion: Endovascular treatment is cost-effective in patients with aBAO stroke.