{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03137789904502047, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011596180081855388, 'mean_word_length': 5.406113537117904, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Cost-Effectiveness of Intravenous Thrombolysis With Alteplase Within a 3-Hour Window After Acute Ischemic Stroke

Background and Purpose— The aim of this study was to assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of intravenous thrombolysis treatment with alteplase (Actilyse) of acute ischemic stroke with 24-hour in-house neurology coverage and use of magnetic resonance imaging. Methods— A health economic model was designed to calculate the marginal cost-effectiveness ratios for time spans of 1, 2, 3 and 30 years. Effect data were extracted from a meta-analysis of six large-scale randomized and placebo-controlled studies of thrombolytic therapy with alteplase. Cost data were extracted from thrombolysis treatment at Aarhus Hospital, Denmark, and from previously published literature. Results— The calculated cost-effectiveness ratio after the first year was $55 591 US per quality-adjusted life-year (base case). After the second year, computation of the cost-effectiveness ratio showed that thrombolysis was cost-effective. The long-term computations (30 years) showed that thrombolysis was a dominant strategy compared with conservative treatment given the model premises. Conclusions— A high-quality thrombolysis treatment with 24-hour in-house neurology coverage and magnetic resonance imaging might not be cost-effective in the short term compared with conservative treatment. In the long term, there are potentially large-scale health economic cost savings.