A Prospective Economic Evaluation of Rapid Endovascular Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND: During the Randomized Assessment of Rapid Endovascular Treatment (EVT) of Ischemic Stroke (ESCAPE) trial, patient-level micro-costing data were collected. We report a cost-effectiveness analysis of EVT, using ESCAPE trial data and Markov simulation, from a universal, single-payer system using a societal perspective over a patient's lifetime. METHODS: Primary data collection alongside the ESCAPE trial provided a 3-month trial-specific, non-model, based cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). A Markov model utilizing ongoing lifetime costs and life expectancy from the literature was built to simulate the cost per QALY adopting a lifetime horizon. Health states were defined using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores. Uncertainty was explored using scenario analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: The 3-month trial-based analysis resulted in a cost per QALY of $201,243 of EVT compared to the best standard of care. In the model-based analysis, using a societal perspective and a lifetime horizon, EVT dominated the standard of care; EVT was both more effective and less costly than the standard of care (-$91). When the time horizon was shortened to 1 year, EVT remains cost savings compared to standard of care (∼$15,376 per QALY gained with EVT). However, if the estimate of clinical effectiveness is 4% less than that demonstrated in ESCAPE, EVT is no longer cost savings compared to standard of care. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the adoption of EVT as a treatment option for acute ischemic stroke, as the increase in costs associated with caring for EVT patients was recouped within the first year of stroke, and continued to provide cost savings over a patient's lifetime.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01778335.

Systematic Review of the Cost and Cost-Effectiveness of Rapid Endovascular Therapy for Acute Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Rapid endovascular therapy (EVT) is an emerging treatment option for acute ischemic stroke. Several economic evaluations have been published examining the cost-effectiveness of EVT, and many international bodies are currently making adoption decisions. The objective of this study was to establish the cost-effectiveness of EVT for ischemic stroke patients and to synthesize all the publicly available economic literature. METHODS: A systematic review of the published literature was conducted to identify economic evaluations and cost analyses of EVT for acute ischemic stroke patients. Systematic review best practices were followed, and study quality was assessed. RESULTS: Four-hundred sixty-three articles were identified from electronic databases. After deduplication, abstract review, and full-text review, 17 studies were included. Seven of the studies were cost analyses, and 10 were cost-effectiveness studies. Generally, the cost analyses reported on the cost of the approach/procedure or the hospitalization costs associated with EVT. All of the cost-effectiveness studies reported a cost per quality-adjusted life year as the primary outcomes. Studies varied in regards to the costs considered, the perspective adopted, and the time horizon used. All the studies reported a cost per quality-adjusted life year of <$50 000 as the primary outcome. CONCLUSIONS: There is a robust body of evidence for the cost and cost-effectiveness of EVT. The cost analyses suggested that although EVT was associated with higher costs, it also resulted in improved patient outcomes. From the cost-effectiveness studies, EVT seems to be good value for money when a threshold of $50 000 per quality-adjusted life year gained is adopted.

Prospective economic evaluation of an electronic discharge communication tool: analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To complete an economic evaluation within a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing the use of an electronic discharge communication tool (eDCT) compared with usual care. SETTING: Patients being discharged from a single tertiary care centre's internal medicine Medical Teaching Units. PARTICIPANTS: Between January 2012 and December 2013, 1399 patients were randomised to a discharge mechanism. Forty-five patients were excluded from the economic evaluation as they did not have data for the index hospitalisation cost; 1354 patients contributed to the economic evaluation. INTERVENTION: eDCT generated at discharge containing structured content on reason for admission, details of the hospital stay, treatments received and follow-up care required. The control group was discharged via traditional dictation methods. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary economic outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Secondary outcomes included the cost per death avoided and the cost per readmission avoided. RESULTS: The average transcription cost was $C22.28 per patient, whereas the estimated cost of the eDCT was $C13.33 per patient. The cost per QALY gained was $C239 933 in the eDCT arm compared with usual care due to the very small gains in effectiveness and approximately $C800difference in resource utilisation costs. The bootstrap analyses resulted in eDCT being more effective and more costly in 29.2% of samples, less costly and more effective in 29.2% of samples, less effective and more costly in 23.9% of samples and finally, less costly and less effective in 17.7% of samples. CONCLUSIONS: The eDCT reduced per patient costs of the generation of discharge summaries. The bootstrap estimates demonstrate considerable uncertainty supporting the finding of neutrality reported in the clinical component of the RCT. The immediate transcription cost savings and previously documented provider and patient satisfaction may increase the impetus for organisations to invest in such systems, provided they have a foundation of eHealth infrastructure and readiness. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01402609.

A systematic review of the cost and cost-effectiveness of electronic discharge communications.

BACKGROUND: The transition between acute care and community care can be a vulnerable period in a patients' treatment due to the potential for postdischarge adverse events. The vulnerability of this period has been attributed to factors related to the miscommunication between hospital-based and community-based physicians. Electronic discharge communication has been proposed as one solution to bridge this communication gap. Prior to widespread implementation of these tools, the costs and benefits should be considered. OBJECTIVE: To establish the cost and cost-effectiveness of electronic discharge communications compared with traditional discharge systems for individuals who have completed care with one provider and are transitioning care to a new provider. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the published literature, using best practices, to identify economic evaluations/cost analyses of electronic discharge communication tools. Inclusion criteria were: (1) economic analysis and (2) electronic discharge communication tool as the intervention. Quality of each article was assessed, and data were summarised using a component-based analysis. RESULTS: One thousand unique abstracts were identified, and 57 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. Four studies met final inclusion criteria. These studies varied in their primary objectives, methodology, costs reported and outcomes. All of the studies were of low to good quality. Three of the studies reported a cost-effectiveness measure ranging from an incremental daily cost of decreasing average discharge note completion by 1 day of $0.331 (2003 Canadian), a cost per page per discharge letter of €9.51 and a dynamic net present value of €31.1 million for a 5-year implementation of the intervention. None of the identified studies considered clinically meaningful patient or quality outcomes. DISCUSSION: Economic analyses of electronic discharge communications are scarcely reported, and with inconsistent methodology and outcomes. Further studies are needed to understand the cost-effectiveness and value for patient care.