治疗急性缺血性脑卒中时选择支架再障器的经济影响:从中国医疗系统角度对 MASTRO I 数据进行的成本效益分析。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Osama O Zaidat, Xinguang Yang, Waleed Brinjikji, Emilie Kottenmeier, Hendramoorthy Maheswaran, Thibaut Galvain, Patrick A Brouwer, Mahmood Mirza, Tommy Andersson
{"title":"治疗急性缺血性脑卒中时选择支架再障器的经济影响:从中国医疗系统角度对 MASTRO I 数据进行的成本效益分析。","authors":"Osama O Zaidat, Xinguang Yang, Waleed Brinjikji, Emilie Kottenmeier, Hendramoorthy Maheswaran, Thibaut Galvain, Patrick A Brouwer, Mahmood Mirza, Tommy Andersson","doi":"10.57264/cer-2024-0160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the EmboTrap<sup>®</sup> Revascularization Device compared with the Solitaire™ Revascularization Device and Trevo<sup>®</sup> Retriever for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. <b>Methods:</b> According to MASTRO I, a recent living systematic literature review and meta-analysis, mechanical thrombectomy (MT) with EmboTrap in the treatment of AIS resulted in better functional outcomes compared with the use of Solitaire or Trevo. Based on the proportion of patients that achieved 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-2, 3-5 and 6 reported in MASTRO I, a combined 90-day short-term decision tree and Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the three devices. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), representing the incremental cost (in 2022 Chinese Yuan [CNY]) per incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The ICERs were compared against willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of 1, 1.5 and 3-times the 2022 national gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China. <b>Results:</b> Treatment with EmboTrap resulted in total QALYs of 3.28 and total costs of 110,058 CNY per patient. Treatment with Trevo resulted in total QALYs of 3.05 and total costs of 116,941 CNY per patient. Treatment with Solitaire resulted in total QALYs of 2.81 and total costs of 99,090 CNY per patient. Trevo was dominated by EmboTrap as it was a more costly and less effective intervention. As such, Trevo was not cost-effective at any WTP threshold. Compared with Solitaire, EmboTrap was more effective and more costly, with an ICER of 23,615 CNY per QALY. This result suggests that EmboTrap is cost-effective when compared with Solitaire since the ICER was lower than all WTP thresholds assessed. <b>Conclusion:</b> EmboTrap dominated Trevo and is cost-effective for the treatment of patients with AIS compared with Solitaire when assessed from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system and based on the device-level meta-analysis MASTRO I. Selecting a stent retriever (SR) that optimizes 90-day mRS score is an important consideration from both a clinical and healthcare payer perspective in China as it is associated with reduced long-term costs and increased quality of life.</p>","PeriodicalId":15539,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","volume":"13 11","pages":"e240160"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11542088/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The economic impact associated with stent retriever selection for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke: a cost-effectiveness analysis of MASTRO I data from a Chinese healthcare system perspective.\",\"authors\":\"Osama O Zaidat, Xinguang Yang, Waleed Brinjikji, Emilie Kottenmeier, Hendramoorthy Maheswaran, Thibaut Galvain, Patrick A Brouwer, Mahmood Mirza, Tommy Andersson\",\"doi\":\"10.57264/cer-2024-0160\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Aim:</b> The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the EmboTrap<sup>®</sup> Revascularization Device compared with the Solitaire™ Revascularization Device and Trevo<sup>®</sup> Retriever for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. <b>Methods:</b> According to MASTRO I, a recent living systematic literature review and meta-analysis, mechanical thrombectomy (MT) with EmboTrap in the treatment of AIS resulted in better functional outcomes compared with the use of Solitaire or Trevo. Based on the proportion of patients that achieved 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-2, 3-5 and 6 reported in MASTRO I, a combined 90-day short-term decision tree and Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the three devices. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), representing the incremental cost (in 2022 Chinese Yuan [CNY]) per incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The ICERs were compared against willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of 1, 1.5 and 3-times the 2022 national gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China. <b>Results:</b> Treatment with EmboTrap resulted in total QALYs of 3.28 and total costs of 110,058 CNY per patient. Treatment with Trevo resulted in total QALYs of 3.05 and total costs of 116,941 CNY per patient. Treatment with Solitaire resulted in total QALYs of 2.81 and total costs of 99,090 CNY per patient. Trevo was dominated by EmboTrap as it was a more costly and less effective intervention. As such, Trevo was not cost-effective at any WTP threshold. Compared with Solitaire, EmboTrap was more effective and more costly, with an ICER of 23,615 CNY per QALY. This result suggests that EmboTrap is cost-effective when compared with Solitaire since the ICER was lower than all WTP thresholds assessed. <b>Conclusion:</b> EmboTrap dominated Trevo and is cost-effective for the treatment of patients with AIS compared with Solitaire when assessed from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system and based on the device-level meta-analysis MASTRO I. Selecting a stent retriever (SR) that optimizes 90-day mRS score is an important consideration from both a clinical and healthcare payer perspective in China as it is associated with reduced long-term costs and increased quality of life.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"volume\":\"13 11\",\"pages\":\"e240160\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11542088/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of comparative effectiveness research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0160\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comparative effectiveness research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0160","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本分析旨在从中国医疗系统的角度评估 EmboTrap® 血管重建装置与 Solitaire™ 血管重建装置和 Trevo® Retriever 治疗急性缺血性脑卒中(AIS)的成本效益。方法:根据 MASTRO I(一项最新的活体系统文献综述和荟萃分析),与使用 Solitaire 或 Trevo 相比,使用 EmboTrap 进行机械取栓术(MT)治疗急性缺血性脑卒中可获得更好的功能预后。根据 MASTRO I 中报告的 90 天改良 Rankin 量表 (mRS) 评分达到 0-2、3-5 和 6 分的患者比例,我们采用了 90 天短期决策树和 10 年马尔可夫模型来比较这三种设备的成本效益。主要结果是增量成本效益比(ICER),即每增量质量调整生命年(QALY)的增量成本(2022 年人民币)。将 ICER 与 2022 年中国人均国民生产总值(GDP)的 1 倍、1.5 倍和 3 倍的支付意愿(WTP)阈值进行比较。结果:使用 EmboTrap 治疗后,每位患者的总 QALY 为 3.28,总成本为 110,058 元人民币。使用 Trevo 治疗后,每位患者的总 QALY 为 3.05,总费用为 116,941 元人民币。使用 Solitaire 治疗的结果是,每名患者的总 QALY 为 2.81,总成本为 99,090 元人民币。Trevo 被 EmboTrap 压倒,因为它是一种成本更高、效果更差的干预措施。因此,在任何 WTP 临界值下,Trevo 都不具有成本效益。与 Solitaire 相比,EmboTrap 更有效,成本也更高,每 QALY 的 ICER 为 23,615 元人民币。这一结果表明,EmboTrap 与 Solitaire 相比具有成本效益,因为其 ICER 低于所评估的所有 WTP 临界值。结论从中国医疗系统的角度评估,并基于设备级荟萃分析 MASTRO I,EmboTrap 在 Trevo 中占据优势,与 Solitaire 相比,EmboTrap 在治疗 AIS 患者方面具有成本效益。在中国,从临床和医疗支付方的角度来看,选择一种能优化 90 天 mRS 评分的支架截留器 (SR) 是一个重要的考虑因素,因为它与降低长期成本和提高生活质量相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The economic impact associated with stent retriever selection for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke: a cost-effectiveness analysis of MASTRO I data from a Chinese healthcare system perspective.

Aim: The aim of this analysis was to assess the cost-effectiveness of the EmboTrap® Revascularization Device compared with the Solitaire™ Revascularization Device and Trevo® Retriever for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: According to MASTRO I, a recent living systematic literature review and meta-analysis, mechanical thrombectomy (MT) with EmboTrap in the treatment of AIS resulted in better functional outcomes compared with the use of Solitaire or Trevo. Based on the proportion of patients that achieved 90-day modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores of 0-2, 3-5 and 6 reported in MASTRO I, a combined 90-day short-term decision tree and Markov model with a 10-year time horizon was used to compare the cost-effectiveness of the three devices. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), representing the incremental cost (in 2022 Chinese Yuan [CNY]) per incremental quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). The ICERs were compared against willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of 1, 1.5 and 3-times the 2022 national gross domestic product (GDP) per capita in China. Results: Treatment with EmboTrap resulted in total QALYs of 3.28 and total costs of 110,058 CNY per patient. Treatment with Trevo resulted in total QALYs of 3.05 and total costs of 116,941 CNY per patient. Treatment with Solitaire resulted in total QALYs of 2.81 and total costs of 99,090 CNY per patient. Trevo was dominated by EmboTrap as it was a more costly and less effective intervention. As such, Trevo was not cost-effective at any WTP threshold. Compared with Solitaire, EmboTrap was more effective and more costly, with an ICER of 23,615 CNY per QALY. This result suggests that EmboTrap is cost-effective when compared with Solitaire since the ICER was lower than all WTP thresholds assessed. Conclusion: EmboTrap dominated Trevo and is cost-effective for the treatment of patients with AIS compared with Solitaire when assessed from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system and based on the device-level meta-analysis MASTRO I. Selecting a stent retriever (SR) that optimizes 90-day mRS score is an important consideration from both a clinical and healthcare payer perspective in China as it is associated with reduced long-term costs and increased quality of life.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of comparative effectiveness research
Journal of comparative effectiveness research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
121
期刊介绍: Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides a rapid-publication platform for debate, and for the presentation of new findings and research methodologies. Through rigorous evaluation and comprehensive coverage, the Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research provides stakeholders (including patients, clinicians, healthcare purchasers, and health policy makers) with the key data and opinions to make informed and specific decisions on clinical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信