Elizabeth R Stevens1, Eric Roberts2, Heather Carman Kuczynski2, Bernadette Boden-Albala2. 1. Department of Epidemiology, New York University College of Global Public Health, New York, NY, USA; Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: elizabeth.stevens@nyumc.org. 2. Department of Epidemiology, New York University College of Global Public Health, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Less than 25% of stroke patients arrive to an emergency department within the 3-hour treatment window. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a stroke preparedness behavioral intervention study (Stroke Warning Information and Faster Treatment [SWIFT]), a stroke intervention demonstrating capacity to decrease race-ethnic disparities in ED arrival times. METHODS: Using the literature and SWIFT outcomes for 2 interventions, enhanced educational (EE) materials, and interactive intervention (II), we assess the cost-effectiveness of SWIFT in 2 ways: (1) Markov model, and (2) cost-to-outcome ratio. The Markov model primary outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained using the cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY. The primary cost-to-outcome endpoint was cost per additional patient with ED arrival <3 hours, stroke knowledge, and preparedness capacity. We assessed the ICER of II and EE versus standard care (SC) from a health sector and societal perspective using 2015 USD, a time horizon of 5 years, and a discount rate of 3%. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness of the II and EE programs was, respectively, $227.35 and $74.63 per additional arrival <3 hours, $440.72 and $334.09 per additional person with stroke knowledge proficiency, and $655.70 and $811.77 per additional person with preparedness capacity. Using a societal perspective, the ICER for EE versus SC was $84 643 per QALY gained and the ICER for II versus EE was $59 058 per QALY gained. Incorporating fixed costs, EE and II would need to administered to 507 and 1693 or more patients, respectively, to achieve an ICER of $100 000/QALY. CONCLUSION: II was a cost-effective strategy compared with both EE and SC. Nevertheless, high initial fixed costs associated with II may limit its cost-effectiveness in settings with smaller patient populations.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Less than 25% of strokepatients arrive to an emergency department within the 3-hour treatment window. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a stroke preparedness behavioral intervention study (Stroke Warning Information and Faster Treatment [SWIFT]), a stroke intervention demonstrating capacity to decrease race-ethnic disparities in ED arrival times. METHODS: Using the literature and SWIFT outcomes for 2 interventions, enhanced educational (EE) materials, and interactive intervention (II), we assess the cost-effectiveness of SWIFT in 2 ways: (1) Markov model, and (2) cost-to-outcome ratio. The Markov model primary outcome was the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained using the cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY. The primary cost-to-outcome endpoint was cost per additional patient with ED arrival <3 hours, stroke knowledge, and preparedness capacity. We assessed the ICER of II and EE versus standard care (SC) from a health sector and societal perspective using 2015 USD, a time horizon of 5 years, and a discount rate of 3%. RESULTS: The cost-effectiveness of the II and EE programs was, respectively, $227.35 and $74.63 per additional arrival <3 hours, $440.72 and $334.09 per additional person with stroke knowledge proficiency, and $655.70 and $811.77 per additional person with preparedness capacity. Using a societal perspective, the ICER for EE versus SC was $84 643 per QALY gained and the ICER for II versus EE was $59 058 per QALY gained. Incorporating fixed costs, EE and II would need to administered to 507 and 1693 or more patients, respectively, to achieve an ICER of $100 000/QALY. CONCLUSION:II was a cost-effective strategy compared with both EE and SC. Nevertheless, high initial fixed costs associated with II may limit its cost-effectiveness in settings with smaller patient populations.
Authors: Jeffrey L Saver; Eric E Smith; Gregg C Fonarow; Mathew J Reeves; Xin Zhao; Daiwai M Olson; Lee H Schwamm Journal: Stroke Date: 2010-06-03 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Georgios Tsivgoulis; Ramin Zand; Aristeidis H Katsanos; Guillaume Turc; Christian H Nolte; Simon Jung; Charlotte Cordonnier; Jochen B Fiebach; Jan F Scheitz; Pascal P Klinger-Gratz; Catherine Oppenheim; Nitin Goyal; Apostolos Safouris; Heinrich P Mattle; Anne W Alexandrov; Peter D Schellinger; Andrei V Alexandrov Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Amie W Hsia; Amanda Castle; Jeffrey J Wing; Dorothy F Edwards; Nina C Brown; Tara M Higgins; Jasmine L Wallace; Sara S Koslosky; M Chris Gibbons; Brisa N Sánchez; Ali Fokar; Nawar Shara; Lewis B Morgenstern; Chelsea S Kidwell Journal: Stroke Date: 2011-05-05 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Werner Hacke; Geoffrey Donnan; Cesare Fieschi; Markku Kaste; Rüdiger von Kummer; Joseph P Broderick; Thomas Brott; Michael Frankel; James C Grotta; E Clarke Haley; Thomas Kwiatkowski; Steven R Levine; Chris Lewandowski; Mei Lu; Patrick Lyden; John R Marler; Suresh Patel; Barbara C Tilley; Gregory Albers; Erich Bluhmki; Manfred Wilhelm; Scott Hamilton Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-03-06 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Denise M Boudreau; Gregory F Guzauskas; Er Chen; Deepa Lalla; Darren Tayama; Susan C Fagan; David L Veenstra Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 7.914