Health economic impact of Nerinetide in addition to mechanical thrombectomy without concurrent alteplase

Background and purpose: The ESCAPE-NA1 trial has shown that intravenous Nerinetide improves clinical outcomes in acute ischemic stroke patients with large vessel occlusion undergoing endovascular treatment without concurrent intravenous alteplase. We assessed the health economic impact of intravenous Nerinetide as an adjunctive treatment in endovascular treatment patients who do not receive concurrent intravenous alteplase. Methods: Data are from the ESCAPE-NA1 trial, in which acute ischemic stroke with large vessel occlusion endovascular treatment patients were randomized to receive intravenous Nerinetide or placebo. Only those patients not treated with concurrent intravenous alteplase were included in this analysis. We used a Markov state transition model (12 months cycle length) to estimate expected lifetime costs and outcomes, assuming Nerinetide cost being zero for the purpose of this analysis. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and derived mean net monetary benefits with 95% prediction intervals from a probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Upper, middle, and lower willingness-to-pay thresholds were set at $50,000,$100,000, and $150,000. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for Nerinetide in addition to endovascular treatment was $13,721/quality-adjusted life year (healthcare perspective) and $14,453/quality-adjusted life year (societal perspective). At the upper willingness-to-pay threshold, Nerinetide in addition to endovascular treatment resulted in a higher mean net monetary benefit compared to endovascular treatment alone, both from a healthcare perspective (449,526 [95% prediction interval: 448,627–450,425] vs. 382,584 [381,781–383,386]) and a societal perspective (350,750 [349,842–351,658] vs. 282,896 [282,068–283,725]). Mean net monetary benefits were also higher for Nerinetide in addition to endovascular treatment at the middle and lower willingness-to-pay thresholds. Conclusion: Treating patients with a cerebroprotectant, such as Nerinetide, in addition to endovascular treatmentl in patients who cannot receive intravenous alteplase may be beneficial from a health-economic standpoint.