Cost-effectiveness of Tenecteplase Versus Alteplase for Stroke Thrombolysis Evaluation Trial in the Ambulance

Background: Tenecteplase administered to patients with ischaemic stroke in a mobile stroke unit (MSU) has been shown to reduce the perfusion lesion volumes and result in ultra-early recovery. We now seek to assess the cost-effectiveness of tenecteplase in the MSU.

Methods: A within-trial (TASTE-A) economic analysis and a model-based long-term cost-effectiveness analysis were performed. This post hoc within-trial economic analysis utilised the patient-level data (intention to treat, ITT) prospectively collected over the trial to calculate the difference in both healthcare costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, estimated from modified Rankin scale score). A Markov microsimulation model was developed to simulate the long-term costs and benefits.

Results: In total, there were 104 patients with ischaemic stroke randomised to tenecteplase ( = 55) or alteplase ( = 49) treatment groups, respectively in the TASTE-A trial. The ITT-based analysis showed that treatment with tenecteplase was associated with non-signficantly lower costs (A$28,903 vs A$40,150 ( = 0.056)) and greater benefits (0.171 vs 0.158 ( = 0.457)) than that for the alteplase group over the first 90 days post the index stroke. The long-term model showed that tenecteplase led to greater savings in costs (-A$18,610) and more health benefits (0.47 QALY or 0.31 LY gains). Tenecteplase-treated patients had reduced costs for rehospitalisation (-A$1464), nursing home care (-A$16,767) and nonmedical care (-A$620) per patient.

Conclusions: Treatment of ischaemic stroke patients with tenecteplase appeared to be cost-effective and improve QALYs in the MSU setting based on Phase II data. The reduced total cost from tenecteplase was driven by savings from acute hospitalisation and reduce need for nursing home care.