Observed Cost and Variations in Short Term Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy for Ischemic Stroke in Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III.
ABSTRACT: Examination of linked data on patient outcomes and cost of care may help identify areas where stroke care can be improved. We report on the association between variations in stroke severity, patient outcomes, cost, and treatment patterns observed over the acute hospital stay and through the 12-month follow-up for subjects receiving endovascular therapy compared to intravenous tissue plasminogen activator alone in the IMS (Interventional Management of Stroke) III Trial.Prospective data collected for a prespecified economic analysis of the trial were used. Data included hospital billing records for the initial stroke admission and subsequent detailed resource use after the acute hospitalization collected at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Cost of follow-up care varied 6-fold for patients in the lowest (0-1) and highest (20+) National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale category at 5 days, and by modified Rankin Scale at 3 months. The kind of resources used postdischarge also varied between treatment groups. Incremental short-term cost-effectiveness ratios varied greatly when treatments were compared for patient subgroups. Patient subgroups predefined by stroke severity had incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $97 303/quality-adjusted life year (severe stroke) and $3 187 805/quality-adjusted life year (moderately severe stroke).Detailed economic and resource utilization data from IMS III provide powerful evidence for the large effect that patient outcome has on the economic value of medical and endovascular reperfusion therapies. These data can be used to inform process improvements for stroke care and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of endovascular therapy in the US health system for stroke intervention trials.URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Registration number: NCT00359424.
Project description:The Interventional Management of Stroke (IMS) III study tested the effect of intravenous tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA) alone when compared with intravenous tPA followed by endovascular therapy and collected cost data to assess the economic implications of the 2 therapies. This report describes the factors affecting the costs of the initial hospitalization for acute stroke subjects from the United States.Prospective cost analysis of the US subjects was treated with intravenous tPA alone or with intravenous tPA followed by endovascular therapy in the IMS III trial. Results were compared with expected Medicare payments.The adjusted cost of a stroke admission in the study was $35 130 for subjects treated with endovascular therapy after intravenous tPA treatment and $25 630 for subjects treated with intravenous tPA alone (P<0.0001). Significant factors related to costs included treatment group, baseline National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, time from stroke onset to intravenous tPA, age, stroke location, and comorbid diabetes mellitus. The mean cost for subjects who had routine use of general anesthesia as part of endovascular therapy was $46 444 when compared with $30 350 for those who did not have general anesthesia. The costs of embolectomy for IMS III subjects and patients from the National Inpatient Sample cohort exceeded the Medicare diagnosis-related group payment in ?75% of patients.Minimizing the time to start of intravenous tPA and decreasing the use of routine general anesthesia may improve the cost-effectiveness of medical and endovascular therapy for acute stroke.http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00359424.
Project description:To estimate the clinical and economic impact of drug-eluting endovascular treatment strategies for femoropopliteal artery disease compared with current standard of care.Systematic literature search to pool target lesion revascularisations (TLR). Model-based per-patient cost impact and quasi-cost-effectiveness projection over 24 months based on pooled TLRs and current reimbursement.The UK's National Health Service (NHS).Patients presenting with symptomatic femoropopliteal disease eligible for endovascular treatment.Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline-recommended treatment with percutaneous transluminal balloon angioplasty (PTA) and bailout bare metal stenting (BMS) versus primary BMS placement, or drug-coated balloon (DCB), or drug-eluting stent (DES) treatment.24-month per-patient cost impact to NHS (primary outcome).pooled 24-month TLR rates; numbers needed to treat (NNTs); cost per TLR avoided and estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) in £ per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).N=28 studies were identified, reporting on 5167 femoropopliteal lesions. Over 24 months, DCB, DES and BMS reduced TLRs of de novo lesions from 36.2% to 17.6%, 19.4% and 26.9%, respectively, at an increased cost of £43, £44 and £112. NNTs to avoid 1 TLR in 24 months were 5.4, 6.0 and 10.8, resulting in cost per TLR avoided of £231, £264 and £1204. DCB was estimated to add 0.011 QALYs, DES 0.010 QALYs and BMS 0.005 QALYs, resulting in estimated ICERs of £3983, £4534 and £20 719 per QALY gained. A subset analysis revealed more favourable clinical and economic outcomes for a 3.5 µg/mm(2) DCB with urea excipient, compared with the rest of DCBs. A modest reduction of 10% in DCB and DES prices made drug-eluting treatments dominant.Widespread adoption of drug-eluting endovascular therapies for femoropopliteal disease would add meaningful clinical benefit at reasonable additional costs to the NHS. Based on currently available data, DCBs offer the highest clinical and economic value.
Project description:Importance:The Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial reported that apixaban therapy was superior to warfarin therapy in preventing stroke and all-cause death while causing significantly fewer major bleeds. To establish the value proposition of substituting apixiban therapy for warfarin therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation, we performed a cost-effectiveness analysis using patient-level data from the ARISTOTLE trial. Objective:To assess the cost and cost-effectiveness of apixaban therapy compared with warfarin therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation from the perspective of the US health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants:This economic analysis uses patient-level resource use and clinical data collected in the ARISTOTLE trial, a multinational randomized clinical trial that observed 18 201 patients (3417 US patients) for a median of 1.8 years between 2006 and 2011. Interventions:Apixaban therapy vs warfarin therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures:Within-trial resource use and cost were compared between treatments, using externally derived US cost weights. Life expectancies for US patients were estimated according to their baseline risk and treatment using time-based and age-based survival models developed using the overall ARISTOTLE population. Quality-of-life adjustment factors were obtained from external sources. Cost-effectiveness (incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained) was evaluated from a US perspective, and extensive sensitivity analyses were performed. Results:Of the 3417 US patients enrolled in ARISTOTLE, the mean (SD) age was 71 (10) years; 2329 (68.2%) were male and 3264 (95.5%) were white. After 2 years of anticoagulation therapy, health care costs (excluding the study drug) of patients treated with apixaban therapy and warfarin therapy were not statistically different (difference, -$60; 95% CI, -$2728 to $2608). Life expectancy, modeled from ARISTOTLE outcomes, was significantly longer with apixaban therapy vs warfarin therapy (7.94 vs 7.54 quality-adjusted life years). The incremental cost, including cost of anticoagulant and monitoring, of achieving these benefits was within accepted US norms ($53 925 per quality-adjusted life year, with 98% likelihood of meeting a $100 000 willingness-to-pay threshold). Results were generally consistent when model assumptions were varied, with lifetime cost-effectiveness most affected by the price of apixaban and the time horizon. Conclusions and Relevance:Apixaban therapy for ARISTOTLE-eligible patients with atrial fibrillation provides clinical benefits at an incremental cost that represents reasonable value for money judged using US benchmarks for cost-effectiveness. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00412984.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess cost-effectiveness of stroke care for Aboriginal compared with non-Aboriginal patients in the Northern Territory (NT), Australia. DESIGN:Cost-effectiveness analysis using data from a cohort-based follow-up study of stroke incidents. SETTING:Public hospitals in the NT from 1992 to 2013. PARTICIPANTS:Individual patient data were extracted and linked from the hospital inpatient and primary care information systems. OUTCOME MEASURES:Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated and assessed graphically. Survival time was used to measure effectiveness of stroke care, in comparison with the net costs per life-year gained, from a healthcare perspective, by applying multivariable models to account for time-dependent confounding. RESULTS:2158 patients with incident stroke were included (1171 males, 1178 aged <65 years and 966 from remote areas). 992 patients were of Aboriginal origin (46.0%, disproportionately higher than the population proportion of 27%). Of all cases, 42.6% were ischaemic and 29.8% haemorrhagic stroke. Average age of stroke onset was 51 years in Aboriginal, compared with 65 years in non-Aboriginal patients (p<0.001). Aboriginal patients had 71.4% more hospital bed-days, and 7.4% fewer procedures than non-Aboriginal patients. Observed health costs averaged $A50 400 per Aboriginal compared with $A33 700 per non-Aboriginal patient (p<0.001). The differential costs and effects for each population were distributed evenly across the incremental cost-effectiveness plane threshold line, indicating no difference in cost-effectiveness between populations. After further adjustment for confounding and censoring, cost-effectiveness appeared greater for Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal patients, but this was not statistically significant (p=0.25). CONCLUSIONS:Stroke care for the NT Aboriginal population is at least as cost-effective as the non-Aboriginal population. Stroke care presents worthwhile and equitable survival benefits for Aboriginal patients in remote communities, notwithstanding their higher level burden of disease. These findings are relevant for healthcare planning and policy development regarding equal access to stroke care for Aboriginal patients.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Assessment of the costs of care associated with chronic upper-limb spasticity following stroke in Australia and the potential benefits of adding intensive upper limb rehabilitation to botulinum toxin-A are key objectives of the InTENSE randomised controlled trial. METHODS:Recruitment for the trial has been completed. A total of 139 participants from 6 stroke units across 3 Australian states are participating in the trial. A cost utility analysis will be undertaken to compare resource use and costs over 12 months with health-related quality of life outcomes associated with the intervention relative to a usual care comparator. A cost effectiveness analysis with the main clinical measure of outcome, Goal Attainment Scaling, will also be undertaken. The primary outcome measure for the cost utility analysis will be the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) generated from the incremental cost of the intervention as compared to the incremental benefit, as measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. The utility scores generated from the EQ-5D three level instrument (EQ-5D-3?L) measured at baseline, 3?months and 12?months will be utilised to calculate the incremental Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gains for the intervention relative to usual care using area-under the curve methods. DISCUSSION:The results of the economic evaluation will provide evidence of the total costs of care for patients with chronic upper limb spasticity following stroke. It will also provide evidence for the cost-effectiveness of adding evidence-based movement therapy to botulinum toxin-A as a treatment, providing important information for health system decision makers tasked with the planning and provision of services.
Project description: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.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:The use of multimodal computed tomography imaging (MMCT) in routine clinical assessment of stroke patients improves the identification of patients with large regions of salvageable brain tissue, lower risk for haemorrhagic transformation, or a large vessel occlusion requiring endovascular therapy. AIM:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of using MMCT compared to usual practice for determining eligibility for reperfusion therapy with alteplase using real world data from the International Stroke Perfusion Imaging Registry (INSPIRE). METHODS:We performed a cost-utility analysis. Mean costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient for two alternative screening protocols were calculated. Protocol 1 represented usual practice, while Protocol 2 reflected treatment targeting using multimodal imaging. Cost-effectiveness was assessed using the net-benefit framework. RESULTS:Protocol 1 had a total mean per patient cost of $2,013 USD and 0.148 QALYs. Protocol 2 had a total mean per patient cost of $1,519 USD and 0.153 QALYs. For a range of willingness-to-pay values, representing implicit thresholds of cost-effectiveness, the lower bound of the incremental net monetary benefit statistic was consistently greater than zero, indicating that MMCT is cost- effective compared to usual practice. The results were most sensitive to variation in the mean number of alteplase vials administered. CONCLUSION:In a healthcare setting where multimodal imaging technologies are available and reimbursed, their use in screening patients presenting with acute stroke to determine eligibility for alteplase treatment is cost-effective given a range of willingness-to-pay thresholds and warrants consideration as an alternative to routine practice.
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine whether brief interventions promoting physical activity are cost-effective in primary care or community settings. DESIGN:Systematic review of economic evaluations. METHODS AND DATA SOURCES:We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EconLit, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, the Cochrane library, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database and the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry up to 20 August 2014. Web of Knowledge was used for cross-reference search. We included studies investigating the cost-effectiveness of brief interventions, as defined by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, promoting physical activity in primary care or the community. Methodological quality was assessed using Drummond's checklist for economic evaluations. Data were extracted from individual studies fulfilling selection criteria using a standardised pro forma. Comparisons of cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios were made between studies. RESULTS:Of 1840 identified publications, 13 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria describing 14 brief interventions. Studies varied widely in the methods used, such as the perspective of economic analysis, intervention effects and outcome measures. The incremental cost of moving an inactive person to an active state, estimated for eight studies, ranged from £96 to £986. The cost-utility was estimated in nine studies compared with usual care and varied from £57 to £14?002 per quality-adjusted life year; dominant to £6500 per disability-adjusted life year; and £15?873 per life years gained. CONCLUSIONS:Brief interventions promoting physical activity in primary care and the community are likely to be inexpensive compared with usual care. Given the commonly accepted thresholds, they appear to be cost-effective on the whole, although there is notable variation between studies.
Project description:Importance:Although both short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy have been practiced in parallel for more than 15 years, no cost-effectiveness analysis comparing these 2 approaches in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer has been published. Objective:To analyze the cost-effectiveness of short-course radiotherapy vs long-course chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants:This economic evaluation used a cost-effectiveness model simulating 10-year outcomes for 1 million hypothetical patients aged 65 years with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with either short-course radiotherapy or long-course chemoradiotherapy, followed by surgery and chemotherapy. Utilities and probabilities from the literature and costs from the Healthcare Bluebook and Medicare fee schedules were used to determine incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. It was assumed that long-course chemoradiotherapy would result in higher rates of low anterior resection (LAR). To model preference-sensitive care, a 2-way sensitivity analysis was conducted in which the utilities of the no-evidence-of-disease (NED) states with LAR and abdominoperineal resection (APR) were simultaneously varied. The analysis was repeated for patients with distal rectal tumors. Analysis was conducted from January to October 2018. Exposures:Short-course radiotherapy and long-course chemoradiotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures:Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results:Short-course radiotherapy was the cost-effective strategy compared with long-course chemoradiotherapy (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $133 495 per quality-adjusted life-year). Two-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the cost-effective approach for a given patient depended on the utilities for the NED-LAR and NED-APR states. Assuming that a greater proportion of patients with locally advanced distal tumors undergoing long-course chemoradiotherapy (39%) would proceed to LAR compared with those treated with short-course radiotherapy (19%), long-course chemoradiotherapy was the cost-effective approach (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, $61 123 per quality-adjusted life-year). Conclusions and Relevance:Short-course radiotherapy was the cost-effective strategy compared with long-course chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. The cost-effectiveness of short-course radiotherapy vs long-course chemoradiotherapy was sensitive to the utilities of the NED-LAR and NED-APR health states, highlighting the importance of care that is sensitive to patient preference. Long-course chemoradiotherapy was the cost-effective approach for patients with distal tumors.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Prevention of secondary stroke following initial ictus is an important focus of after-stroke care. Blood pressure (BP) is a key risk factor, so usual care following stroke or transient ischaemic attack includes regular BP checks and monitoring of anti-hypertensive medication. This is traditionally carried out in primary care, but the evidence supporting self-monitoring and self-guided management of BP in the general population with hypertension is growing. OBJECTIVE:Our objective was to estimate the cost effectiveness of treatment as usual (TAU) versus (1) self-monitoring of BP (S-MON) and (2) self-monitoring and guided self-management of anti-hypertensive medication (S-MAN). METHODS:This was a within-trial economic evaluation of a randomised controlled trial estimating the incremental cost per 1 mmHg BP reduction and per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained over a 6-month time horizon from the perspective of the UK National Health Service (NHS). RESULTS:Data were evaluable for 140 participants. Costs per patient were £473, £853 and £1035; mean reduction in systolic BP (SBP) was 3.6, 6.7 and 6.1 mmHg, and QALYs accrued were 0.427, 0.422 and 0.423 for TAU, S-MON and S-MAN, respectively. No statistically significant differences in incremental costs or outcomes were detected. On average, S-MAN was dominated or extended dominated. The incremental cost per 1 mmHg BP reduction from S-MON versus TAU was £137. CONCLUSION:On average, S-MAN is an inefficient intervention. S-MON may be cost effective, depending on the willingness to pay for a 1 mmHg BP reduction, although it yielded fewer QALYs over the within-trial time horizon. Decision modelling is required to explore the longer-term costs and outcomes.