Cost-effectiveness of endovascular thrombectomy with alteplase versus endovascular thrombectomy alone for acute ischemic stroke secondary to large vessel occlusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent randomized trials have suggested that endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) alone may provide similar functional outcomes as the current standard of care, EVT combined with intravenous alteplase treatment, for acute ischemic stroke secondary to large vessel occlusion. We conducted an economic evaluation of these 2 therapeutic options. METHODS: We constructed a decision analytic model with a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients to assess the cost-effectiveness of EVT with intravenous alteplase treatment versus EVT alone for acute ischemic stroke secondary to large vessel occlusion from both the societal and public health care payer perspectives. We used studies and data published in 2009-2021 for model inputs, and acquired cost data for Canada and China, representing high- and middle-income countries, respectively. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) using a lifetime horizon and accounted for uncertainty using 1-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses. All costs are reported in 2021 Canadian dollars. RESULTS: In Canada, the difference in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained between EVT with alteplase and EVT alone was 0.10 from both the societal and health care payer perspectives. The difference in cost was $2847 from a societal perspective and $2767 from the payer perspective. In China, the difference in QALYs gained was 0.07 from both perspectives, and the difference in cost was $1550 from the societal perspective and $1607 from the payer perspective. One-way sensitivity analyses showed that the distributions of modified Rankin Scale scores at 90 days after stroke were the most influential factor on ICERs. For Canada, compared to EVT alone, the probability that EVT with alteplase would be cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY gained was 58.7% from a societal perspective and 58.4% from a payer perspective. The corresponding values for at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $47 185 (3 times the Chinese gross domestic product per capita in 2021) were 65.2% and 67.4%. INTERPRETATION: For patients with acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion eligible for immediate treatment with both EVT alone and EVT with intravenous alteplase treatment, it is uncertain whether EVT with alteplase is cost-effective compared to EVT alone in Canada and China.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".