Cost-effectiveness of tenecteplase versus alteplase for acute ischemic stroke

INTRODUCTION: Alteplase is widely used as an intravenous thrombolytic drug in acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Recently however, tenecteplase, a modified form of tissue plasminogen activator, has been shown to increase early recanalization rate and has proven to be non-inferior with a similar safety profile compared to alteplase. This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of 0.25 mg/kg tenecteplase versus 0.9 mg/kg alteplase for intravenous thrombolysis in AIS patients from the Dutch healthcare payer perspective.METHODS: A Markov decision-analytic model was constructed to assess total costs, total quality-adjusted life year (QALY), an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, and incremental net monetary benefit (INMB) of two treatments at willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds of €50,000/QALY and €80,000/QALY over a 10-year time horizon. One-way sensitivity analysis, probabilistic sensitivity analysis, and scenario analysis were conducted to test the robustness of results. Clinical data were obtained from large randomized controlled trials and real-world data.RESULTS: Treatment with tenecteplase saved €21 per patient while gaining 0.05 QALYs, resulting in INMB of €2381, clearly rendering tenecteplase cost-effective compared to alteplase. Importantly, tenecteplase remained the cost-effective alternative in all scenarios, including AIS patients due to large vessel occlusion (LVO). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis proved tenecteplase to be cost-effective with a 71.0% probability at a WTP threshold of €50,000/QALY.CONCLUSIONS: Tenecteplase treatment was cost-effective for all AIS patients (including AIS patients with LVO) compared to alteplase. The finding supports the broader use of tenecteplase in acute stroke care, as health outcomes improve at acceptable costs while having practical advantages, and a similar safety profile.</p

Postoperative recovery of accelerometer-based physical activity in older cancer patients

Introduction: Recovery of physical activity is an important functional outcome measure after cancer surgery. However, objective data on physical activity for older cancer patients is scarce. The aims of this study were to quantify perioperative physical activity levels, assess recovery of physical activity three months after surgery, and characterise patients who achieved recovery. Materials and methods: This observational cohort study analysed physical activity data collected from patients aged >65 who were scheduled for cancer surgery between May 2018 and July 2019. Perioperative daily step count was measured using a Fitbit device. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of patients who returned to (>90% of) their preoperative (baseline) physical activity levels three months after surgery. Results: Fifty patients (mean age 73) were recruited, and available Fitbit data was analysed. Median daily step counts at baseline (n = 40), before hospital discharge (n = 40), and three months postoperative (n = 37) were 5,974 (IQR 4,250-7,922),1,619 (IQR 920-2,839), and 4,674 (IQR 3,047-7,592), respectively. The 15/37 (41%) patients who had reached baseline levels three months after surgery seemed to have more preoperative self-reported physical activity, better anaesthesiologists' physical status classification, and fewer in-hospital complications compared to patients who had not, although the differences were statistically non-significant. Conclusion: Perioperative physical activity was quantified for older cancer patients, and 41% returned to baseline levels within three months. Accelerometer-based physical activity provided a valuable outcome measure for postoperative physical recovery. Future studies using objective physical activity measures are needed to evaluate effects of interventional studies aimed at improving physical activity. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd