Economic evaluation of endovascular treatment for acute ischaemic stroke in Thailand
Issued Date
2022-09-27
Resource Type
eISSN
20446055
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85138973085
Pubmed ID
36167373
Journal Title
BMJ Open
Volume
12
Issue
9
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
BMJ Open Vol.12 No.9 (2022)
Suggested Citation
Rattanavipapong W., Worakijthamrongchai T., Soboon B., Luankongsomchit V., Kongmuangpuk M., Isaranuwatchai W., Teerawattananon Y., Nilanont Y. Economic evaluation of endovascular treatment for acute ischaemic stroke in Thailand. BMJ Open Vol.12 No.9 (2022). doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-064403 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/87240
Title
Economic evaluation of endovascular treatment for acute ischaemic stroke in Thailand
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
Objectives Endovascular therapy (EVT) has proven to be clinically effective in treating large vessel occlusion acute ischaemic stroke (AIS), either alone or in combination with intravenous alteplase. Despite this, there is a limited evidence on the cost-effectiveness of EVT in Thailand and other low-income and middle-income countries. This study aims to assess whether EVT is a cost-effective therapy for AIS, and to estimate the fiscal burden to the Thai government through budget impact analysis. Methods An economic evaluation was performed to compare AIS therapy with and without EVT from a societal perspective. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Clinical parameters were derived from both national and international literature, while cost and utility data were collected locally. The analysis applied a cost-effectiveness threshold of 160 000 Baht (∼$5000) per QALY, as set by the Thai government. Results Both EVT alone and EVT combined with intravenous alteplase, among patients who are ineligible and eligible for intravenous alteplase, respectively, improved health outcomes but incurred additional cost. The combination of EVT and intravenous alteplase was associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of 146 800 THB per QALY gained compared with intravenous alteplase alone, and the ICER of EVT alone compared with supportive care among patients ineligible for intravenous alteplase was estimated at 115 000 THB per QALY gained. Sensitivity analysis showed that the price of EVT has the greatest impact on model outcomes. Over a time horizon of 5 years, the introduction of EVT into the Thai health benefit package would require an additional budget of 887 million THB, assuming 2000 new cases per year. Conclusions EVT represents good value for money in the Thai context, both when provided to patients eligible for intravenous alteplase, and when provided alone to those who are ineligible for intravenous alteplase.