Comparing performance measures and clinical outcomes between mobile stroke units and usual care in underserved areas.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of mobile stroke units (MSUs) in improving acute ischemic stroke (AIS) care in developing countries is unknown. We compared performance measures and stroke outcomes in AIS patients between MSU and usual care: emergency medical services (EMS) and walk-in. METHODS: We enrolled patients > 18 years of age with an AIS within 4.5 h after onset. Demographic data, types, and time of reperfusion therapies and clinical outcomes were recorded. A favorable outcome was defined as a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 0-2 at 3 months. RESULTS: A total of 978 AIS patients (MSU = 243, EMS = 214, walk-in = 521) were enrolled between June 1, 2018, and April 30, 2021. The mean age (± SD) was 66 (± 14) years, and 510 (52.1%) were male. AIS time metrics were the shortest in the MSU with a mean (± SD) door to needle (DN) time of 20 (± 7), 29 (± 13), and 35 (± 16) min (p < 0.001) and door to puncture (DP) time of 73 ± 19, 86 ± 33, and 101 ± 42 min (p < 0.001) in MSU, EMS, and walk-in, respectively. Participants in the MSU (56.8%) received higher rate of reperfusion therapie(s) when compared to the EMS (51.4%) and walk-in (31.5%) (p < 0.001). After adjustment for any potential confounders and using the EMS as a reference, the MSU has the highest likelihood of achieving a favorable outcome (adjusted OR 2.15; 95% CI 1.39-3.32). CONCLUSIONS: In underserved populations, MSUs significantly reduced DN time, increased the likelihood of receiving reperfusion treatment, and achieved independency at 3 months when compared to usual care.

Economic evaluation of endovascular treatment for acute ischaemic stroke in Thailand.

OBJECTIVES: Endovascular therapy (EVT) has proven to be clinically effective in treating large vessel occlusion acute ischaemic stroke (AIS), either alone or in combination with intravenous alteplase. Despite this, there is a limited evidence on the cost-effectiveness of EVT in Thailand and other low-income and middle-income countries. This study aims to assess whether EVT is a cost-effective therapy for AIS, and to estimate the fiscal burden to the Thai government through budget impact analysis. METHODS: An economic evaluation was performed to compare AIS therapy with and without EVT from a societal perspective. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Clinical parameters were derived from both national and international literature, while cost and utility data were collected locally. The analysis applied a cost-effectiveness threshold of 160 000 Baht (~$5000) per QALY, as set by the Thai government. RESULTS: Both EVT alone and EVT combined with intravenous alteplase, among patients who are ineligible and eligible for intravenous alteplase, respectively, improved health outcomes but incurred additional cost. The combination of EVT and intravenous alteplase was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 146 800 THB per QALY gained compared with intravenous alteplase alone, and the ICER of EVT alone compared with supportive care among patients ineligible for intravenous alteplase was estimated at 115 000 THB per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis showed that the price of EVT has the greatest impact on model outcomes. Over a time horizon of 5 years, the introduction of EVT into the Thai health benefit package would require an additional budget of 887 million THB, assuming 2000 new cases per year. CONCLUSIONS: EVT represents good value for money in the Thai context, both when provided to patients eligible for intravenous alteplase, and when provided alone to those who are ineligible for intravenous alteplase.