Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Cost-Effectiveness of Late Endovascular Thrombectomy vs. Best Medical Management in a Clinical Trial Setting and Real-World Setting

  • Johanna Maria Ospel*
  • , Charlotte Zerna
  • , Emma Harrison
  • , Timothy J. Kleinig
  • , Volker Puetz
  • , Daniel P.O. Kaiser
  • , Brett Graham
  • , Amy Y.X. Yu
  • , Brian Van Adel
  • , Jai J. Shankar
  • , Ryan A. McTaggart
  • , Vitor Pereira
  • , Donald F. Frei
  • , Wolfgang G. Kunz
  • , Mayank Goyal
  • , Michael D. Hill
  • *Corresponding author for this work
  • University of Calgary
  • Städtisches Klinikum Dresden
  • Princess Alexandra Hospital
  • Royal Adelaide Hospital
  • Technische Universität Dresden
  • Saskatchewan Health Authority
  • University of Toronto
  • McMaster University
  • University of Manitoba
  • Rhode Island Hospital
  • Colorado Neurological Institute
  • Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background and purpose: To assess cost-effectiveness of late time-window endovascular treatment (EVT) in a clinical trial setting and a real-world setting. Methods: Data are from the randomized ESCAPE trial and a prospective cohort study (ESCAPE-LATE). Anterior circulation large vessel occlusion patients presenting > 6 hours from last-known-well were included, whereby collateral status was an inclusion criterion for ESCAPE but not ESCAPE-LATE. A Markov state transition model was built to estimate lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) for EVT in addition to best medical care vs. best medical care only in a clinical trial setting (comparing ESCAPE-EVT to ESCAPE control arm patients) and a real-world setting (comparing ESCAPE-LATE to ESCAPE control arm patients). We performed an unadjusted analysis, using 90-day modified Rankin Scale(mRS) scores as model input and analysis adjusted for baseline factors. Acceptability of EVT was calculated using upper/lower willingness-to-pay thresholds of 100,000 USD/50,000 USD/QALY. Results: Two-hundred and forty-nine patients were included (ESCAPE-LATE:n = 200, ESCAPE EVT-arm:n = 29, ESCAPE control-arm:n = 20). Late EVT in addition to best medical care was cost effective in the unadjusted analysis both in the clinical trial and real-world setting, with acceptability 96.6%-99.0%. After adjusting for differences in baseline variables between the groups, late EVT was marginally cost effective in the clinical trial setting (acceptability:49.9%-61.6%), but not the real-world setting (acceptability:32.9%-42.6%). Conclusion: EVT for LVO-patients presenting beyond 6 hours was cost effective in the clinical trial setting and real-world setting, although this was largely related to baseline patient differences favoring the real-world EVT group. After adjusting for these, EVT benefit was reduced in the trial setting, and absent in the real-world setting.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)803-810
Number of pages8
JournalCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences
Volume51
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - 1 Nov 2024
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Acute ischemic stroke
  • cost-effectiveness
  • endovascular treatment
  • health economics
  • late time window
  • thrombectomy

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Cost-Effectiveness of Late Endovascular Thrombectomy vs. Best Medical Management in a Clinical Trial Setting and Real-World Setting'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this