A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of emergency interventions for stroke in low- and middle-income countries.

backgroundStroke is a leading cause of death and disability globally, with an increasing incidence in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The successful treatment of acute stroke requires an organized, efficient and well-resourced emergency care system. However, debate exists surrounding the prioritization of stroke treatment programs given the high costs of treatment and the increased incidence of hemorrhagic stroke in LMICs. Economic data is helpful to guide evidence-based priority setting in health systems development, particularly in low-resource settings where scarcity requires careful stewardship of resources. This systematic review surveys the existing evidence surrounding the cost-effectiveness of interventions to address acute stroke in LMIC settings.

methodsThe authors conducted a PRISMA style systematic review of economic evaluations of interventions to address acute stroke in LMICs. Five databases were systematically searched for articles, which were then reviewed for inclusion.

resultsOf the 153 unique articles identified, 11 met the inclusion criteria. Four studies demonstrate the heavy economic burden on patients and households due to stroke. Two studies estimate that preventive measures are more cost-effective than acute treatments. Four studies directly examine the cost-effectiveness of thrombolysis and thrombectomy in three middle-income countries (Iran, China, and Brazil) with results ranging from roughly $2578 to $34,052 (2019 USD) per quality adjusted life-year saved. These results are similar to the cost-effectiveness ratios estimated in high-income settings. Finally, one study examined a care bundle that included acute treatment elements.

conclusionsThe findings reinforce the need for additional research support informed decision-making. The available evidence suggests that preventive measures should be prioritized over emergency treatment for acute stroke, particularly in settings of resource scarcity. Cost-effectiveness ratios do not compare favorably to estimates for other emergency care interventions in LMICs, such as basic emergency care training, implementation of triage systems, and basic trauma care. Cost-effectiveness is also likely to vary depending on local epidemiology. Overall, decision-makers should balance the economic evidence alongside social, political and cultural priorities when making resource allocation choices.