ReviewPharmacoEconomics1998
The cost of treating dyslipidaemia using National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research trends in contemporary health economics: a scientometric analysis on collective content of specialty journals.Health economics review · 2024Review
- A pharmacoeconomic evaluation of statins in the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia in the primary care setting in Spain.PharmacoEconomics · 2005Article
- Rosuvastatin.Drugs · 2002Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Coronary heart disease (CHD) is a major cause of death in industrialised countries and places a large burden on society in terms of healthcare resources and lost productivity. US National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines recommend aggressive lipid-modifying therapy for individuals at highest risk for CHD. It has been estimated that more than 50 million individuals in the US (more than one-third of the total population) are candidates for some form of dietary and/or pharmacological intervention to modify their lipid profiles. Most individuals who receive lipid-lowering drug therapy do not meet target goals set by the NCEP; thus, there is a large potential for increased use of drug therapy. Pharmacoeconomic analyses applying NCEP guidelines are sparse; however, available data (using direct costs) suggest that secondary prevention is more cost effective than primary prevention, but that costs associated with primary prevention are generally in line with those of accepted medical interventions. Cost-effectiveness ratios for secondary prevention improved when indirect costs were assessed in one study. A recent randomised prospective 54-week comparative study of statins in 662 patients with hypercholesterolaemia concurrently measured medical outcomes and economic data. Atorvastatin-treated patients were significantly more likely to achieve NCEP goals (overall and at the initial dosage), and to achieve these goals more quickly than patients treated with fluvastatin, lovastatin and simvastatin. The mean cost to reach NCEP goals was consequently lowest for atorvastatin. Results from pharmacoeconomic studies of primary and secondary prevention are therefore in support of NCEP treatment guidelines for hypercholesterolaemia.
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.