Stroke · 2026
Low-Intensity Monitoring for Mild-to-Moderate Acute Ischemic Stroke Is Cost Saving: Economic Evaluation for OPTIMISTmain.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Xu Lizheng, Ouyang Menglu, Atkins Emily R, Summers Debbie, Sui Yi, Johnson Brenda, Billot Laurent, Malavera Alejandra, Faigle Roland, Muñoz-Venturelli Paula, Day Diana, Liu Xiaoqiu, Li Qiang, Song Lili, Robinson Thompson G, González Francisca, Urrutia-Goldsack Francisca, Delcourt Candice, Nguyen Huy Thang, Ton Mai Duy, Liu Hueiming, Lindley Richard I, Arauz Antonio, Mercado Andrés, Wan Zaidi Wan Asyraf, Khatri Pooja, Wang Xia, Urrutia Victor C, Jan Stephen, Anderson Craig S
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: OPTIMISTmain (Main Optimal Post rtPA-IV Monitoring in Ischemic Stroke Trial) has shown that low-intensity monitoring is feasible and safe compared with standard monitoring in stable patients who receive thrombolysis treatment for acute ischemic stroke of mild-to-moderate neurological impairment. We aimed to estimate the economic benefits of low-intensity care compared with standard care.
METHODS: A cost-minimization analysis based on OPTIMISTmain was conducted for Australia, China, Malaysia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam. A decision tree model comprising 2 arms was developed from the trial design. State transition probabilities for each country were extracted from the trial, and cost data were sourced from the existing literature. Mean costs over the 90-day duration of follow-up were compared, and univariate and probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Low-intensity monitoring had the highest probability of cost saving in China (100.00%) and the United Kingdom (100.00%), followed by Australia (99.94%), the United States (95.91%), and Vietnam (86.66%), as patients in this group incurred US dollars savings of 239, 133, 647, 943, and 3 in direct costs compared with patients in the standard group, respectively. In Malaysia, however, the intervention costs slightly exceeded those for standard care (US dollars 5643 versus 5378). Countries with higher proportions of patients having intensive care unit monitoring had greater cost savings. Cost-saving thresholds of monitoring costs were 1.24, 1.30, 1.26, 1.24, 1.01, and 0.91 times the base case value in Australia, China, the United Kingdom, the United States, Vietnam, and Malaysia, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The low-intensity monitoring protocol was cost saving in countries with high proportions of intensive care resources for postthrombolysis treatment monitoring, such as in the United States.
REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03734640. URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/; Unique identifier: ACTRN 12619001556134p.
METHODS: A cost-minimization analysis based on OPTIMISTmain was conducted for Australia, China, Malaysia, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Vietnam. A decision tree model comprising 2 arms was developed from the trial design. State transition probabilities for each country were extracted from the trial, and cost data were sourced from the existing literature. Mean costs over the 90-day duration of follow-up were compared, and univariate and probabilistic sensitivity and scenario analyses were performed.
RESULTS: Low-intensity monitoring had the highest probability of cost saving in China (100.00%) and the United Kingdom (100.00%), followed by Australia (99.94%), the United States (95.91%), and Vietnam (86.66%), as patients in this group incurred US dollars savings of 239, 133, 647, 943, and 3 in direct costs compared with patients in the standard group, respectively. In Malaysia, however, the intervention costs slightly exceeded those for standard care (US dollars 5643 versus 5378). Countries with higher proportions of patients having intensive care unit monitoring had greater cost savings. Cost-saving thresholds of monitoring costs were 1.24, 1.30, 1.26, 1.24, 1.01, and 0.91 times the base case value in Australia, China, the United Kingdom, the United States, Vietnam, and Malaysia, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The low-intensity monitoring protocol was cost saving in countries with high proportions of intensive care resources for postthrombolysis treatment monitoring, such as in the United States.
REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03734640. URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/; Unique identifier: ACTRN 12619001556134p.