Mobile stroke units becoming more common despite cost effectiveness questions
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE INTERNATIONAL STROKE CONFERENCE
Waiting for more data
Despite these advances and the steady recent growth of MSUs, significant skepticism remains. “While mobile stroke units seem like a good idea and there is genuine hope that they will improve outcomes for selected stroke patients, there is not yet any evidence that this is the case,” wrote Bryan Bledsoe, DO, in a January 2017 editorial in the Journal of Emergency Medical Services. “They are expensive and financially non-sustainable. Without widespread deployment, they stand to benefit few, if any, patients. The money spent on these devices would be better spent on improving the current EMS system including paramedic education, the availability of stroke centers, and on the early recognition of ELVO [emergent large vessel occlusion] strokes,” wrote Dr. Bledsoe, professor of emergency medicine at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas.
Two other experts voiced concerns about MSUs in an editorial that accompanied a Cleveland Clinic report in March. “Even if MSUs meet an acceptable societal threshold for cost effectiveness, cost efficiency may prove a taller order to achieve return on investment for individual health systems and communities,” wrote Andrew M. Southerland, MD, and Ethan S. Brandler, MD (Neurology. 2017 March 8. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003833). They cited the Cleveland report, which noted that the group’s first 100 MSU-treated patients came from a total of 317 MSU deployments and included 217 trips that were canceled prior to the MSU’s arrival at the patient’s location. In Berlin’s initial experience, more than 2,000 MSU deployments led to 200 TPA treatments and 349 cancellations before arrival, noted Dr. Southerland, a neurologist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, and Dr. Brandler, an emergency medicine physician at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University.
“Hope remains that future trials may demonstrate the ultimate potential of mobile stroke units to improve long-term outcomes for more patients by treating them more quickly and effectively. In the meantime, ongoing efforts are needed to streamline MSU cost and efficiency,” they wrote.
Proponents of MSUs agree that what’s needed now are more data to prove efficacy and cost effectiveness, as well as better integration into EMS programs. The first opportunity for documenting the clinical impact of MSUs on larger numbers of U.S. patients may be from the BEnefits of Stroke Treatment Delivered using a Mobile Stroke Unit Compared to Standard Management by Emergency Medical Services (BEST-MSU) Study, funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. This study is collecting data from the MSU programs in Denver Houston, and Memphis. Although currently designed to enroll 697 patients, Dr. Grotta said he hopes to kick that up to 1,000 patients.
“We are following the healthcare use and its cost for every enrolled MSU and conventional patient for 1 year,” Dr. Grotta explained in an interview. He hopes these results will provide the data needed to move MSUs from investigational status to routine and reimbursable care.
Dr. Southerland and Dr. Brandler suggested that “making MSUs multipurpose vehicles might also enhance cost-effectiveness,” an option that Dr. Grotta and his colleagues embrace. The MSUs on U.S. roads already also treat patients with intracranial hemorrhages using blood pressure reduction medications. Other neurologic diagnoses considered potential targets for MSU interventions include encephalopathy, seizures, central nervous system–tumors, and infections.
Stroke is a prime example of “a disease that is extremely time sensitive, and for the first time the field of stroke is ahead of the rest of the medical world in trying to speed treatment,” Dr. Grotta said. “We could add other diagnostic equipment monitored by telemedicine specialists. The MSU concept could be expanded to make it much more cost effective” and spur wider adoption by EMS, he suggested.
Dr. Grotta is a consultant to Frazer, a company that produces mobile stroke units, and to Stryker Corporation, and he has received research support from Genentech. Dr. Saver has been a consultant to and received research support from St. Jude. Dr. Audebert has received honoraria from Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Ever Pharma. He has been a consultant to ReNeuron, and he has served as an expert witness for Pfizer and for Lundbeck. Dr. Hussain has been a consultant to Pulsar. Dr. Alexandrov has been a speaker for Genentech. Dr. Nour, Dr. Wu, Dr. Bledsoe, Dr. Southerland, and Dr. Brandler had no disclosures.
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
