Cost-Effectiveness of Increased Use of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After High-Risk Transient Ischemic Attack or Minor Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Rates of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after high-risk transient ischemic attack or minor ischemic stroke (TIAMIS) are suboptimal. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis to characterize the parameters of a quality improvement (QI) intervention designed to increase DAPT use after TIAMIS. METHODS AND RESULTS: We constructed a decision tree model that compared current national rates of DAPT use after TIAMIS with rates after implementing a theoretical QI intervention designed to increase appropriate DAPT use. The base case assumed that a QI intervention increased the rate of DAPT use to 65% from 45%. Costs (payer and societal) and outcomes (stroke, myocardial infarction, major bleed, or death) were modeled using a lifetime horizon. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$100 000 per quality-adjusted life year was considered cost-effective. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. From the payer perspective, a QI intervention was associated with $9657 in lifetime cost savings and 0.18 more quality-adjusted life years compared with current national treatment rates. A QI intervention was cost-effective in 73% of probabilistic sensitivity analysis iterations. Results were similar from the societal perspective. The maximum acceptable, initial, 1-time payer cost of a QI intervention was $28 032 per patient. A QI intervention that increased DAPT use to at least 51% was cost-effective in the base case. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing DAPT use after TIAMIS with a QI intervention is cost-effective over a wide range of costs and proportion of patients with TIAMIS treated with DAPT after implementation of a QI intervention. Our results support the development of future interventions focused on increasing DAPT use after TIAMIS.

Cost-Effectiveness of Smoking Cessation Interventions in Patients With Ischemic Stroke and Transient Ischemic Attack.

BACKGROUND: Smoking cessation rates after stroke and transient ischemic attack are suboptimal, and smoking cessation interventions are underutilized. We performed a cost-effectiveness analysis of smoking cessation interventions in this population. METHODS: We constructed a decision tree and used Markov models that aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of varenicline, any pharmacotherapy with intensive counseling, and monetary incentives, compared with brief counseling alone in the secondary stroke prevention setting. Payer and societal costs of interventions and outcomes were modeled. The outcomes were recurrent stroke, myocardial infarction, and death using a lifetime horizon. Estimates and variance for the base case (35% cessation), costs and effectiveness of interventions, and outcome rates were imputed from the stroke literature. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and incremental net monetary benefits. An intervention was considered cost-effective if the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was less than the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) or when the incremental net monetary benefit was positive. Probabilistic Monte Carlo simulations modeled the impact of parameter uncertainty. RESULTS: From the payer perspective, varenicline and pharmacotherapy with intensive counseling were associated with more QALYs (0.67 and 1.00, respectively) at less total lifetime costs compared with brief counseling alone. Monetary incentives were associated with 0.71 more QALYs at an additional cost of $120 compared with brief counseling alone, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $168/QALY. From the societal perspective, all 3 interventions provided more QALYs at less total costs compared with brief counseling alone. In 10 000 Monte Carlo simulations, all 3 smoking cessation interventions were cost-effective in >89% of runs. CONCLUSIONS: For secondary stroke prevention, it is cost-effective and potentially cost-saving to deliver smoking cessation therapy beyond brief counseling alone.

Stroke Treatment in the Era of COVID-19: a Review.

Purpose of Review: To describe a comprehensive review of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of stroke in the era of COVID-19. Recent Findings: COVID-19 is associated with myriad neurological disorders, including cerebrovascular disease. While ischemic stroke is the most common, COVID-19 is associated with an increased risk of intracranial hemorrhage, arterial dissection, posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. In this review, we discuss the epidemiology, pathophysiology, and treatment of stroke due to COVID-19. In addition, we describe how COVID-19 has changed the landscape of stroke systems of care and the effect this has had on patients with cerebrovascular disease. Summary: While COVID-19 is associated with a heightened risk of stroke, the pandemic has led to advances in stroke systems of care that may reduce the long-term burden of stroke.

Evaluation of Transient Ischemic Attack and Minor Stroke: A Rapid Outpatient Model for the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond.

The grim circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the need to refine and adapt stroke systems of care. Patients' care-seeking behaviors have changed due to perceived risks of in-hospital treatment during the pandemic. In response to these challenges, we optimized a recently implemented, novel outpatient approach for the evaluation and management of minor stroke and transient ischemic attack, entitled RESCUE-TIA. This modified approach incorporated telemedicine visits and remote testing, and proved valuable during the pandemic. In this review article, we provide the evidence-based rationale for our approach, describe its operationalization, and provide data from our initial experience.