These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Cost-effectiveness of recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator within 3 hours of acute ischemic stroke: current evidence.
    Author: Boudreau DM, Guzauskas GF, Chen E, Lalla D, Tayama D, Fagan SC, Veenstra DL.
    Journal: Stroke; 2014 Oct; 45(10):3032-9. PubMed ID: 25190439.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Despite the availability of results from multiple newer clinical trials and changing healthcare costs, the cost-effectiveness of recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator (r-tPA) for treatment of acute ischemic stroke within 0 to 3 hours of symptom onset was last evaluated in 1998 for the United States Using current evidence, we evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of r-tPA administered 0 to 3 hours after acute ischemic stroke onset versus no r-tPA. METHODS: A disease-based decision model to project lifetime outcomes of patients after acute ischemic stroke by r-tPA treatment status from the US payer perspective was developed. Model inputs were derived from a recent meta-analysis of r-tPA trials, cohort studies, and health state preference studies. Cost data, inflated to 2013 dollars, were based on drug wholesale acquisition cost and the literature. To compare r-tPA to no r-tPA, we calculated incremental total direct costs, incremental quality-adjusted life years, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. We performed 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to evaluate uncertainty in the results. RESULTS: r-tPA resulted in a gain of 0.39 quality-adjusted life years (95% confidence range, 0.16-0.66) on average per patient and a lifetime cost-saving of $25,000 (95% confidence range, -$42,500 to -$11,000) compared with no r-tPA. In probabilistic sensitivity analyses, r-tPA was dominant compared with no r-tPA in ≈100% of simulations. The model was sensitive to inputs for r-tPA efficacy, healthcare costs for disabled patients, mortality rates for disabled and nondisabled patients, and quality of life estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis supports earlier economic evaluations that r-tPA is a cost-effective method to treat stroke. Appropriate use of r-tPA should be prioritized nationally.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]