Background: Stroke is one of the major causes of disability in the adult population and represents a heavy social and economic burden. Currently available therapeutic tools to support the recovery of impaired brain functions are quite limited. Animal studies have demonstrated that neuronal replacement and partial reconstruction of neural circuitry or modulation of the recovery process is possible with cell transplantation in the damaged adult brain. Stem cell therapy (SCT) may promote functional recovery also in stroke patients, thereby improving quality of life and reducing costs. Our aim was to estimate the potential societal value of SCT in stroke patients. Methods: We created a decision-analytic model in Microsoft Excel 2010 to assess life-long costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of SCT versus standard care for stroke patients from a societal perspective. The model structure consisted of 7 health states in accordance with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS). We modeled for age (55, 65, and 75 years), functional status at discharge (mRS 2, 3, and 4), effectiveness of SCT (50 and 25% increase in the probability to improve 1 mRS grade), mode of stem cell administration, risk of recurrent stroke, complications of intervention, and use of immunosuppressive drugs. The difference between an assumed societal willingness to pay for a QALY gain in Sweden (110,400 USD) and the cost per QALY gain resulting from the model was interpreted as the value of SCT. Results: Increased survival (1.06 life years) and improved functional status gave rise to an estimated gain of 1.34 QALY in a cohort of patients aged 55 with mRS 2 at hospital discharge. Although the SCT intervention increased costs by 64,014 USD (excluding cost of stem cells), the costs of intervention were offset mainly by decreased productivity losses. In total, the intervention saved 19,055 USD, i.e., at a price of 19,055 USD for stem cells, the SCT would be cost neutral. The societal value of SCT was 166,500 USD. Conclusions: The application of the health-economic model to Sweden shows that in younger stroke patients with moderate disability, the societal value of SCT given a zero price of stem cells is 166,500 USD. Although the transplantation itself is more costly, SCT offers potential for cost offset and cost savings in a long-term perspective by reducing the disability after stroke. The therapy appeared cost effective under a wide range of assumptions. Hence, further research and development in stem cells suitable for stroke therapy could potentially produce great value to society.

Keywords:
Stroke, Stem cells, Cost effectiveness
1.
World Health Organization: The global burden of disease: 2004 update. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/2004_report_update/en/index.html (accessed January 27, 2012).
2.
Ghatnekar O, Persson U, Glader EL, Terént A: Cost of stroke in Sweden: an incidence estimate. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:375–380.
3.
Allender S, Scarborough P, Peto V, Rayner M, Leal J, Luengo-Fernandez R, Gray A: European cardiovascular disease statistics 2008. European Heart Network 2008.
4.
Olai L: Life after a Stroke Event. With Special Reference to Aspects on Prognosis, Health and Municipality Care Utilization, and Life Satisfaction among Patients and Their Informal Caregivers. Dissertation at the Faculty of Medicine, Uppsala University, Uppsala, 2010.
5.
Earnshaw SR, Wilson M, Mauskopf J, Joshi AV: Model-based cost-effectiveness analyses for the treatment of acute stroke events: a review and summary of challenges. Value Health 2009;12:507–520.
6.
Lindvall O, Kokaia Z: Stem cell research in stroke: how far from the clinic? Stroke 2011;42:2369–2375.
7.
Savitz SI, Chopp M, Deans R, Carmichael ST, Phinney D, Wechsler L: Stem cell therapy as an emerging paradigm for stroke (STEPS) II. Stroke 2011;42:825–829.
8.
Bang OY, Lee JS, Lee PH, Lee G: Autologous mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in stroke patients. Ann Neurol 2005;57:874–882.
9.
Kondziolka D, Steinberg GK, Wechsler L, Meltzer CC, Elder E, Gebel J, Decesare S, Jovin T, Zafonte R, Lebowitz J, Flickinger JC, Tong D, Marks MP, Jamieson C, Luu D, Bell-Stephens T, Teraoka J: Neurotransplantation for patients with subcortical motor stroke: a phase 2 randomized trial. J Neurosurg 2005;103:38–45.
10.
Lee JS, Hong JM, Moon GJ, Lee PH, Ahn YH, Bang OY: A long-term follow-up study of intravenous autologous mesenchymal stem cell transplantation in patients with ischemic stroke. Stem Cells 2010;28:1099–1106.
11.
Persson U, Hjelmgren J: Hälso-och sjukvården behöver kunskap om hur befolkningen värderar hälsan. Lakartidningen 2003;43:3436–3437.
12.
Agency. TDaPB: Tlv: S uppdrag angående omregleringen av apoteksmarknaden. 2010:50.
13.
Goldstein LB, Matchar DB, Hoff-Lindquist J, Samsa GP, Horner RD: VA Stroke Study: neurologist care is associated with increased testing but improved outcomes. Neurology 2003;61:792–796.
14.
Ovbiagele B, Saver J: Day-90 acute ischemic stroke outcomes can be derived from early functional activity level. Cerebrovasc Dis 2009;29:50–56.
15.
Hardie K, Hankey G, Jamrozik K, Broadhurst R, Anderson C: Ten-year risk of first recurrent stroke and disability after first-ever stroke in the Perth community stroke study. Stroke 2004;35:731–735.
16.
Rivero-Arias O, Ouellet M, Gray A, Wolstenholme J, Rothwell P, Luengo-Fernandez R: Mapping the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) measurement into the generic EuroQol (EQ-5D) health outcome. Med Decis Making 2010;30:341–354.
17.
Slot K, Berge E, Dorman P, Lewis S, Dennis M, Sandercock P: Impact of functional status at six months on long term survival in patients with ischaemic stroke: prospective cohort studies. BMJ 2008;336:376–379.
18.
Christensen M, Morris S: Association between disability measures and short-term health care costs following intracerebral hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care 2008;9:313–318.
19.
Liljas B, Karlsson GS, Stalhammar NO: On future non-medical costs in economic evaluations. Health Econ 2008;17:579–591.
20.
Piccini P, Pavese N, Hagell P, Reimer J, Björklund A, Oertel W, Quinn N, Brooks D, Lindvall O: Factors affecting the clinical outcome after neural transplantation in Parkinson’s disease. Brain 2005;128:2977–2986.
21.
Lindvall O, Bjorklund A: Cell therapy in Parkinson’s disease. NeuroRx 2004;1:382–393.
22.
Lindvall O, Hagell P: Status of neural repair clinical trials in brain disease; in Selzer M, Clarke S, Cohen L, Duncun P, Gage F (eds): Textbook of Neural Repair and Rehabilitation Neural Repair and Plasticity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006, vol 1, pp 615–631.
23.
Marshall RS, Zarahn E, Alon L, Minzer B, Lazar RM, Krakauer JW: Early imaging correlates of subsequent motor recovery after stroke. Ann Neurol 2009;65:596–602.
24.
Spieler J, Lanoe J, Amarenco P: Socioeconomic aspects of postacute care for patients with brain infarction in France. Cerebrovasc Dis 2002;13:132–141.
25.
Lai S, Duncan P: Stroke recovery profile and the modified Rankin assessment. Neuroepidemiology 2001;20:26–30.
26.
Hjelmgren J, Ghatnekar O, Reimer J, Grabowski M, Lindvall O, Persson U, Hagell P: Estimating the value of novel interventions for Parkinson’s disease: an early decision-making model with application to dopamine cell replacement. Parkinsonism Relat Disord 2006;12:443–452.
27.
Johnston SC: The 2008 William M. Feinberg lecture: prioritizing stroke research. Stroke 2008;39:3431–3436.
© 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel
2012
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.