The costs and benefits of community thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction

Luke David Vale, H. Steffens, C. Donaldson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: There is evidence that the earlier a patient reaches hospital and receives thrombolysis, the better the outcome. The GREAT (Grampian Region Early Anistreplase Trial) directly addressed the issue of early thrombolysis by evaluating, in a randomised controlled trial, the efficacy of thrombolysis in the community compared with that administered in hospital.

Objective: This paper aimed to model the cost and benefits of community compared with hospital thrombolysis from the UK NHS perspective, using efficacy data from the GREAT.

Methods: A decision-analytic approach was used to model these two alternatives. Resource use and cost estimates were estimated for a single tertiary centre. Estimates of effectiveness in life-years were obtained from the 4-year follow-up for patients recruited to the GREAT, using declining exponential approximation of life expectancy. Costs are in pound, 2000/1 values.

Results: Community thrombolysis had an average life expectancy of 12.48 years and hospital thrombolysis had an average life expectancy of 12.39 years. Costs were pound361 for community thrombolysis and pound300 for hospital thrombolysis. Community thrombolysis led to an additional 0.09 years of life-expectancy gained compared with hospital thrombolysis at an additional cost of pound61 per patient. Therefore, the incremental cost per life-year gained for the community thrombolysis service over the hospital thrombolysis service was pound667. Sensitivity analysis showed that estimates of cost per life-year gained were most sensitive to the estimates of survival.

Conclusion: This model suggests that, from the UK NHS perspective, implementing community thrombolysis may lead to extra survival but at extra cost over hospital thrombolysis. Although the incremental cost per life-year is modest, judgements still have to be made, however, as to whether the extra benefits estimated are worth the additional resources required. This requires consideration of the local context in which the service may be introduced.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)943-954
Number of pages11
JournalPharmacoeconomics
Volume22
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2004

Keywords

  • EARLY ANISTREPLASE TRIAL
  • DOMICILIARY THROMBOLYSIS
  • CONVENIENT APPROXIMATION
  • GENERAL-PRACTITIONERS
  • LIFE EXPECTANCY
  • PROGNOSIS
  • FOLLOW
  • STREPTOKINASE
  • REGISTER
  • EFFICACY

Cite this

The costs and benefits of community thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. / Vale, Luke David; Steffens, H.; Donaldson, C.

In: Pharmacoeconomics, Vol. 22, 2004, p. 943-954.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Vale, Luke David ; Steffens, H. ; Donaldson, C. / The costs and benefits of community thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. In: Pharmacoeconomics. 2004 ; Vol. 22. pp. 943-954.
@article{0a28347d454149a09fbd150ea3d49b9b,
title = "The costs and benefits of community thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction",
abstract = "Background: There is evidence that the earlier a patient reaches hospital and receives thrombolysis, the better the outcome. The GREAT (Grampian Region Early Anistreplase Trial) directly addressed the issue of early thrombolysis by evaluating, in a randomised controlled trial, the efficacy of thrombolysis in the community compared with that administered in hospital.Objective: This paper aimed to model the cost and benefits of community compared with hospital thrombolysis from the UK NHS perspective, using efficacy data from the GREAT.Methods: A decision-analytic approach was used to model these two alternatives. Resource use and cost estimates were estimated for a single tertiary centre. Estimates of effectiveness in life-years were obtained from the 4-year follow-up for patients recruited to the GREAT, using declining exponential approximation of life expectancy. Costs are in pound, 2000/1 values.Results: Community thrombolysis had an average life expectancy of 12.48 years and hospital thrombolysis had an average life expectancy of 12.39 years. Costs were pound361 for community thrombolysis and pound300 for hospital thrombolysis. Community thrombolysis led to an additional 0.09 years of life-expectancy gained compared with hospital thrombolysis at an additional cost of pound61 per patient. Therefore, the incremental cost per life-year gained for the community thrombolysis service over the hospital thrombolysis service was pound667. Sensitivity analysis showed that estimates of cost per life-year gained were most sensitive to the estimates of survival.Conclusion: This model suggests that, from the UK NHS perspective, implementing community thrombolysis may lead to extra survival but at extra cost over hospital thrombolysis. Although the incremental cost per life-year is modest, judgements still have to be made, however, as to whether the extra benefits estimated are worth the additional resources required. This requires consideration of the local context in which the service may be introduced.",
keywords = "EARLY ANISTREPLASE TRIAL, DOMICILIARY THROMBOLYSIS, CONVENIENT APPROXIMATION, GENERAL-PRACTITIONERS, LIFE EXPECTANCY, PROGNOSIS, FOLLOW, STREPTOKINASE, REGISTER, EFFICACY",
author = "Vale, {Luke David} and H. Steffens and C. Donaldson",
year = "2004",
doi = "10.2165/00019053-200422140-00004",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "943--954",
journal = "Pharmacoeconomics",
issn = "1170-7690",
publisher = "Adis International Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The costs and benefits of community thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction

AU - Vale, Luke David

AU - Steffens, H.

AU - Donaldson, C.

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - Background: There is evidence that the earlier a patient reaches hospital and receives thrombolysis, the better the outcome. The GREAT (Grampian Region Early Anistreplase Trial) directly addressed the issue of early thrombolysis by evaluating, in a randomised controlled trial, the efficacy of thrombolysis in the community compared with that administered in hospital.Objective: This paper aimed to model the cost and benefits of community compared with hospital thrombolysis from the UK NHS perspective, using efficacy data from the GREAT.Methods: A decision-analytic approach was used to model these two alternatives. Resource use and cost estimates were estimated for a single tertiary centre. Estimates of effectiveness in life-years were obtained from the 4-year follow-up for patients recruited to the GREAT, using declining exponential approximation of life expectancy. Costs are in pound, 2000/1 values.Results: Community thrombolysis had an average life expectancy of 12.48 years and hospital thrombolysis had an average life expectancy of 12.39 years. Costs were pound361 for community thrombolysis and pound300 for hospital thrombolysis. Community thrombolysis led to an additional 0.09 years of life-expectancy gained compared with hospital thrombolysis at an additional cost of pound61 per patient. Therefore, the incremental cost per life-year gained for the community thrombolysis service over the hospital thrombolysis service was pound667. Sensitivity analysis showed that estimates of cost per life-year gained were most sensitive to the estimates of survival.Conclusion: This model suggests that, from the UK NHS perspective, implementing community thrombolysis may lead to extra survival but at extra cost over hospital thrombolysis. Although the incremental cost per life-year is modest, judgements still have to be made, however, as to whether the extra benefits estimated are worth the additional resources required. This requires consideration of the local context in which the service may be introduced.

AB - Background: There is evidence that the earlier a patient reaches hospital and receives thrombolysis, the better the outcome. The GREAT (Grampian Region Early Anistreplase Trial) directly addressed the issue of early thrombolysis by evaluating, in a randomised controlled trial, the efficacy of thrombolysis in the community compared with that administered in hospital.Objective: This paper aimed to model the cost and benefits of community compared with hospital thrombolysis from the UK NHS perspective, using efficacy data from the GREAT.Methods: A decision-analytic approach was used to model these two alternatives. Resource use and cost estimates were estimated for a single tertiary centre. Estimates of effectiveness in life-years were obtained from the 4-year follow-up for patients recruited to the GREAT, using declining exponential approximation of life expectancy. Costs are in pound, 2000/1 values.Results: Community thrombolysis had an average life expectancy of 12.48 years and hospital thrombolysis had an average life expectancy of 12.39 years. Costs were pound361 for community thrombolysis and pound300 for hospital thrombolysis. Community thrombolysis led to an additional 0.09 years of life-expectancy gained compared with hospital thrombolysis at an additional cost of pound61 per patient. Therefore, the incremental cost per life-year gained for the community thrombolysis service over the hospital thrombolysis service was pound667. Sensitivity analysis showed that estimates of cost per life-year gained were most sensitive to the estimates of survival.Conclusion: This model suggests that, from the UK NHS perspective, implementing community thrombolysis may lead to extra survival but at extra cost over hospital thrombolysis. Although the incremental cost per life-year is modest, judgements still have to be made, however, as to whether the extra benefits estimated are worth the additional resources required. This requires consideration of the local context in which the service may be introduced.

KW - EARLY ANISTREPLASE TRIAL

KW - DOMICILIARY THROMBOLYSIS

KW - CONVENIENT APPROXIMATION

KW - GENERAL-PRACTITIONERS

KW - LIFE EXPECTANCY

KW - PROGNOSIS

KW - FOLLOW

KW - STREPTOKINASE

KW - REGISTER

KW - EFFICACY

U2 - 10.2165/00019053-200422140-00004

DO - 10.2165/00019053-200422140-00004

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 943

EP - 954

JO - Pharmacoeconomics

JF - Pharmacoeconomics

SN - 1170-7690

ER -