Analyzing Cost-Effectiveness of Allocating Neurointerventionist for Drive and Retrieve System for Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke.

OBJECTIVES: There are regional disparities in implementation rates of endovascular thrombectomy due to time and resource constraints such as endovascular thrombectomy specialists. In Hokkaido, Japan, Drive and Retrieve System (DRS), where endovascular thrombectomy specialists perform early endovascular thrombectomies by traveling from the facilities where they normally work to facilities closer to the patient. This study analyzed the cost-effectiveness of allocating a endovascular thrombectomy specialist for DRS to treat stroke patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: he number of ischemic stroke patients expected to receive endovascular thrombectomy in Hokkaido in 2015 was estimated. It was assumed that an additional neutointerventionist was allocated for DRS. The analysis was performed from the government's perspective, which includes medical and nursing-care costs, and the personnel cost for endovascular thrombectomy specialist. The analysis was conducted comparing the current scenario, where patients received endovascular thrombectomy in facilities where endovascular thrombectomy specialists normally work, with the scenario with DRS within 60 min drive distance. Patient transport time was analyzed using geographic information system, and patient severity was estimated from the transport time. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in each medical area which was calculated from the incremental costs and the incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), estimated from patient severity using published literature. The entire process was repeated 100 times. RESULTS: DRS was most cost-effective in Kamikawachubu area, where the ICER was $14,173±16,802/QALY, significantly lower than the threshold that the Japanese guideline suggested. CONCLUSIONS: Since DRS was cost-effective in Kamikawachubu area, the area should be prioritized when a endovascular thrombectomy specialist for DRS is allocated as a policy.

Burden of oral anticoagulation in embolic stroke of undetermined source without atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: Prevention of recurrent stroke in patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) is challenging. The advent of safer anticoagulation in the form of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has prompted exploration of prophylactic anticoagulation for all ESUS patients, rather than anticoagulating just those with documented atrial fibrillation (AF). However, recent trials have failed to demonstrate a clinical benefit, while observing increased bleeding. We modeled the economic impact of anticoagulating ESUS patients without documented AF across multiple geographies. METHODS: CRYSTAL-AF trial data were used to assess ischaemic stroke event rates in ESUS patients confirmed AF-free after long-term monitoring. Anticipated bleeding event rates (including both minor and major bleeds) with aspirin, dabigatran 150 mg, and rivaroxaban 20 mg were sourced from published meta-analyses, whilst a 30% ischaemic stroke reduction for both DOACs was assumed. Cost data for clinical events and pharmaceuticals were collected from the local payer perspective. RESULTS: Compared with aspirin, dabigatran and rivaroxaban resulted in 17.9 and 29.9 additional bleeding events per 100 patients over a patient's lifetime, respectively. Despite incorporating into our model the proposed 30% reduction in ischaemic stroke risk, both DOACs were cost-additive over patient lifetime, as the costs of bleeding events and pharmaceuticals outweighed cost savings associated with the reduction in ischaemic strokes. DOACs added £5953-£7018 per patient (UK), €6683-€7368 (Netherlands), €4933-€9378 (Spain), AUD$5353-6539 (Australia) and $26,768-$32,259 (US) of payer cost depending on the agent prescribed. Additionally, in the U.S. patient pharmacy co-payments ranged from $2468-$12,844 depending on agent and patient plan. In all settings, cost-savings could not be demonstrated even when the modelling assumed 100% protection from recurrent ischaemic strokes, due to the very low underlying risk of recurrent ischaemic stroke in this population (1.27 per 100 patient-years). CONCLUSIONS: Anticoagulation of non-AF patients may cause excess bleeds and add substantial costs for uncertain benefits, suggesting a personalised approach to anticoagulation in ESUS patients.