Low-Intensity Monitoring for Mild-to-Moderate Acute Ischemic Stroke Is Cost Saving: Economic Evaluation for OPTIMISTmain

View at publisher
Authors: Lizheng Xu, Menglu Ouyang, Emily Atkins, Debbie Summers, Yi Sui, Brenda Joyce Johnson, Laurent Billot, Alejandra Malavera, Roland Faigle, Paula Muñoz Venturelli, Diana Day, Xiaoqiu Liu
+18 more Q Li, Lili Song, Thompson Gordon Robinson, Francisca González, Francisca Urrutia, Candice Delcourt, Thang Huy Nguyen, Mai Duy Ton, H. Liu, Richard I. Lindley, Antonio Araúz, Andres Alberto Mercado, Wan Asyraf Wan Zaidi, Pooja Khatri, Xia Wang, Victor Urrutia, Stephen Jan, Craig S. Anderson
Cited by: 0
References: 33

Abstract

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.

Fields of Study & Subjects

Acute Ischemic Stroke Management Health Systems Economic Evaluations Quality of Life Emergency and Acute Care Studies

Publication details

Journal / source
Stroke
Volume
57
Issue
3
Pages
587–596
Publication date
29 January 2026
Language
EN