[Pharmacoeconomic analysis of the neuroprotective medicines in the treatment of ischemic stroke].

Aim: To perform a pharmacoeconomic analysis of the most frequently prescribed neuroprotective medicines for treating patients with mild ischemic stroke in the acute and early rehabilitation periods in the Russian Federation.

Material And Methods: Three medical technologies were compared: ethylmethylhydroxypyridine succinate (mexidol), inosine + nicotinamide + riboflavin + succinic acid (cytoflavin) and a deproteinized hemoderivate of the blood of calves (actovegin). Cost minimization analysis, budget impact analysis and sensitivity analysis were performed based on the indirect comparison results.

Results: Efficacy analysis shows that mentioned above medicines have the same efficacy: mean difference mexidol is 0,2 (CI min 0,25; max 0,65), cytoflavin - 0,61 (CI min 0,23; max 0,99), actovegin 0,2 (CI min 0,18; max 0,22). The cost minimization analysis for the Russian Federation shows that mexidol therapy is associated with the lowest costs, while savings are observed both in the evaluation of total costs and separate components: intravenous ampoules and tablet forms. The savings in comparison with cytoflavin and actovegin are 231 RUB and 12,872 RUB, respectively. These savings will be enough to treat five patients with ischemic stroke (IS) with mexidol. Moreover, oral mexidol therapy is cheaper than the same dosage forms of cytoflavin and actovegin by 481 RUB and 3,164 RUB, respectively. This is an advantage for the treatment of population at the outpatient stage. Budget impact analysis has shown that the budget for the medicines for treating IS at the current distribution between treatment regimens, is estimated at 1.99 BN RUB. The increase in the proportion of patients receiving mexidol by 10% reduces total costs to 1.75 BN RUB, which is 240 M RUB less than current costs. With these savings 85 thousand patients with IS could be treated. The sensitivity analysis reveals that the result of the cost minimization analysis and the budget impact analysis remain stable when both the amount of the population and the cost of 1 mg of mexidol vary from -10% to + 10%.

Conclusions: Mexidol has the same efficacy as alternatives. However mexidol is superior to cytoflavin and actovegin in terms of cost minimization analysis. The savings from one course of alternatives will cover costs of treatment of five patients with IS using mexidol. The increase in the proportion of patients receiving mexidol is associated with savings, which allows us to consider mexidol therapy of mild IS as budget-saving in the Russian Federation.