RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The free radical scavenger edaravone has been reported useful for improvement in activities of daily living and for prevention of recurrent stroke in the edaravone versus sodium ozagrel in acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke (EDO) trial. The aim of this report was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of edaravone compared to the intravenous antiplatelet drug ozagrel sodium (ozagrel) for noncardioembolic stroke (non-CES) based on the EDO trial data. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed using the Markov model, which also incorporated the long-term course after the acute stage of non-CES. From the perspective of a health care payer, direct medical costs and nursing care costs were taken into account in the cost analysis. The quality-adjusted life year (QALY) served as an indicator of effectiveness. Simulation at 5 and 10 years after the onset of non-CES was carried out. The study involved 68-year-old patients with non-CES, selected against the EDO trial subject selection criteria. A 14-day treatment with edaravone 60 mg/day or ozagrel 160 mg/day was assumed as acute treatment for non-CES. RESULTS: The use of edaravone was associated with a reduction in total costs (0.51 million yen [$6,374] at 5 years and 0.64 million yen [$8,039]) at 10 years after the onset of non-CES) and improvement in QALYs (0.23 at 5 years and 0.38 at 10 years). Compared to ozagrel therapy, edaravone therapy was a cost-saving strategy for treating non-CES. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to ozagrel therapy, edaravone therapy for non-CES is not only useful from a clinical viewpoint, but also valuable from a socioeconomic perspective.