ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Economic value of extended-window intravenous alteplase in posterior circulation stroke: a Markov analysis based on the EXPECTS trial.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of intravenous alteplase compared with standard medical therapy alone for patients with posterior circulation ischemic stroke (PCIS) presenting 4.5-24 h after symptom onset, from the perspective of the Chinese healthcare system. Methods: A hybrid decision tree and Markov model was developed to simulate disease progression over a lifetime horizon (30 years). Clinical efficacy, utility values, and cost data were derived from the EXPECTS randomized controlled trial and domestic database. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Cost-effectiveness was assessed against a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of one time China's Results: Compared with standard therapy, alteplase provided an additional 0.95 QALYs at an incremental cost of 17,580 CNY, resulting in an ICER of 18,567 CNY per QALY gained. This ICER is substantially below the WTP threshold, indicating that alteplase is highly cost-effective. The one-way sensitivity analysis showed that the ICER was most sensitive to the risk ratios of disability outcomes (mRS 2-5), yet remained within the cost-effective range across all parameter variations. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirmed that at the WTP threshold of 35,000 CNY per QALY, the probability of alteplase being cost-effective was nearly 100%. Conclusion: For patients with PCIS in the 4.5-24-h time window, intravenous alteplase is a highly cost-effective treatment option in China. This finding supports the broader implementation of extended-window thrombolysis for eligible PCIS patients, particularly in settings where access to endovascular thrombectomy or advanced perfusion imaging is limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.