Cost-effectiveness of tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute ischemic stroke.

INTRODUCTION: Alteplase is widely used as an intravenous thrombolytic drug in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Recently however, tenecteplase, a modified form of tissue plasminogen activator, has been shown to increase early recanalization rate and has proven to be non-inferior with a similar safety profile compared to alteplase. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 0.25 mg/kg tenecteplase versus 0.9 mg/kg alteplase for intravenous thrombolysis in AIS patients from the Dutch healthcare payer perspective. METHODS: A Markov decision-analytic model was constructed to assess total costs, total quality-adjusted life year (QALY), an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of two treatments at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of €50,000/QALY and €80,000/QALY over a 10-year time horizon. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were conducted to test the robustness of results. Clinical data were obtained from large randomized controlled trials and real-world data. RESULTS: Treatment with tenecteplase saved €21 per patient while gaining 0.05 QALYs, resulting in INMB of €2381, clearly rendering tenecteplase cost-effective compared to alteplase. Importantly, tenecteplase remained the cost-effective alternative in all scenarios, including AIS patients due to large vessel occlusion (LVO). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis proved tenecteplase to be cost-effective with a 71.0% probability at a WTP threshold of €50,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Tenecteplase treatment was cost-effective for all AIS patients (including AIS patients with LVO) compared to alteplase. The finding supports the broader use of tenecteplase in acute stroke care, as health outcomes improve at acceptable costs while having practical advantages, and a similar safety profile.

Cost-effectiveness of tenecteplase versus alteplase for stroke thrombolysis evaluation trial in the ambulance.

BACKGROUND: Tenecteplase administered to patients with ischaemic stroke in a mobile stroke unit (MSU) has been shown to reduce the perfusion lesion volumes and result in ultra-early recovery. We now seek to assess the cost-effectiveness of tenecteplase in the MSU. METHODS: A within-trial (TASTE-A) economic analysis and a model-based long-term cost-effectiveness analysis were performed. This post hoc within-trial economic analysis utilised the patient-level data (intention to treat, ITT) prospectively collected over the trial to calculate the difference in both healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, estimated from modified Rankin scale score). A Markov microsimulation model was developed to simulate the long-term costs and benefits. RESULTS: In total, there were 104 patients with ischaemic stroke randomised to tenecteplase (n = 55) or alteplase (n = 49) treatment groups, respectively in the TASTE-A trial. The ITT-based analysis showed that treatment with tenecteplase was associated with non-signficantly lower costs (A$28,903 vs A$40,150 (p = 0.056)) and greater benefits (0.171 vs 0.158 (p = 0.457)) than that for the alteplase group over the first 90 days post the index stroke. The long-term model showed that tenecteplase led to greater savings in costs (-A$18,610) and more health benefits (0.47 QALY or 0.31 LY gains). Tenecteplase-treated patients had reduced costs for rehospitalisation (-A$1464), nursing home care (-A$16,767) and nonmedical care (-A$620) per patient. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of ischaemic stroke patients with tenecteplase appeared to be cost-effective and improve QALYs in the MSU setting based on Phase II data. The reduced total cost from tenecteplase was driven by savings from acute hospitalisation and reduce need for nursing home care.

Cost-Effectiveness of Tenecteplase Before Thrombectomy for Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Tenecteplase improved functional outcomes and reduced the requirement for endovascular thrombectomy in ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion in the EXTEND-IA TNK randomized trial. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of tenecteplase versus alteplase in this trial. METHODS: Post hoc within-trial economic analysis included costs of index emergency department and inpatient stroke hospitalization, rehabilitation/subacute care, and rehospitalization due to stroke within 90 days. Sources for cost included key study site complemented by published literature and government websites. Quality-adjusted life-years were estimated using utility scores derived from the modified Rankin Scale score at 90 days. Long-term modeled cost-effectiveness analysis used a Markov model with 7 health states corresponding to 7 modified Rankin Scale scores. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Within the 202 patients in the randomized controlled trial, total cost was nonsignificantly lower in the tenecteplase-treated patients (40 997 Australian dollars [AUD]) compared with alteplase-treated patients (46 188 AUD) for the first 90 days(P=0.125). Tenecteplase was the dominant treatment strategy in the short term, with similar cost (5412 AUD [95% CI, -13 348 to 2523]; P=0.181) and higher benefits (0.099 quality-adjusted life-years [95% CI, 0.001-0.1967]; P=0.048), with a 97.4% probability of being cost-effective. In the long-term, tenecteplase was associated with less additional lifetime cost (96 357 versus 106 304 AUD) and greater benefits (quality-adjusted life-years, 7.77 versus 6.48), and had a 100% probability of being cost-effective. Both deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analyses yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: Both within-trial and long-term economic analyses showed that tenecteplase was highly likely to be cost-effective for patients with acute stroke before thrombectomy. Recommending the use of tenecteplase over alteplase could lead to a cost saving to the healthcare system both in the short and long term. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02388061.