ArticlePharmacoEconomics2000
Economic assessment of the secondary prevention of ischaemic events with lysine acetylsalicylate.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyse the economic benefits, in comparison with placebo, of the secondary prevention of ischaemic stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) with lysine acetylsalicylate (Kardégic) in patients with a history of ischaemic stroke, MI or stable and unstable angina pectoris. DESIGN AND
settingThis was a modelling study from the perspectives of direct medical costs, the social security system and society in France.
methodsEfficacy data for the secondary prevention of ischaemic events were derived from the Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration meta-analysis on antithrombotics. The rates and costs of ischaemic disease and of serious gastrointestinal adverse affects arising from long term aspirin treatment, as well as the costs of treatment with lysine acetylsalicylate, were taken from published sources, using French data where possible.
resultsFrom the social security perspective, the estimated cost-effectiveness ratios show that the prevention of MI in patients with a history of unstable angina (with a 1-year follow-up) is a cost-saving strategy, with net benefits ranging from $US5703 (1996 prices) per avoided MI for lysine acetylsalicylate 300 mg/day to $US5761 per avoided MI for lysine acetylsalicylate 75 mg/day. The prevention of MI and stroke is also a cost-saving strategy in patients with prior MI [net benefits in a 2-year follow-up (5% discount rate) ranging from $US15 to $US494 per avoided MI and from $US37 to $US1170 per avoided stroke]. This was also true in patients with prior ischaemic stroke (net benefits in a 3-year follow-up ranging from $US610 to $US2082 per avoided MI and from $US176 to $US599 per avoided stroke). Finally, a 4-year follow-up in patients with a history of stable angina pectoris shows that prophylactic treatment with lysine acetylsalicylate is associated with net costs per avoided MI, ranging from $US4375 to $US3608 per avoided event. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that prophylaxis with lysine acetylsalicylate in patients at high risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events results in savings in social security expenditure.
conclusionsOur results underline the high economic benefit of using lysine acetylsalicylate to prevent secondary ischaemic stroke and MI in patients at high risk of cardiovascular and/or cerebrovascular events, leading to savings for the social security system and society.
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.