ArticlePharmacoEconomics2004
Economic assessment of the secondary prevention of ischaemic stroke with dipyridamole plus aspirin (Aggrenox/Asasantin) in France.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The 5-year direct medical cost of neonatal and childhood stroke in a population-based cohort.Neurology · 2010Article
- [Incremental cost-effectiveness of dipyridamole + acetylsalicylic acid in secondary prevention of ischemic noncardioembolic stroke].Medizinische Klinik (Munich, Germany : 1983) · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the cost effectiveness of aspirin 25 mg plus dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily in the secondary prevention of ischaemic stroke, according to the French social security perspective, using efficacy data from the second European Stroke Prevention Study (ESPS-2). The ESPS-2 was a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial which assessed the efficacy of four secondary prevention strategies: (i) placebo; (ii) aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) 25 mg twice daily; (iii) dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily; and (iv) aspirin 25 mg plus dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily.
methodWe performed a cost-effectiveness analysis with Monte Carlo simulations to compute confidence intervals. We combined data from various sources including the Dijon Stroke Registry, Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, Etude du Coût de l'Infarctus Cérébral (Study of the Cost of Cerebral Infarction [ECIC]) study and the ESPS-2 trial.
resultsAccording to our findings, a preventive strategy with aspirin 25 mg plus dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily is associated with net benefits per avoided stroke recurrence amounting to USD 23,932 (95% CI -USD 32,609, USD 35,772) compared with aspirin 25 mg twice daily alone, and USD 31,555 (95% CI USD 4921, USD 74,515) compared with dipyridamole alone (1997 values). Sensitivity analysis demonstrated that dipyridamole plus aspirin was still cost effective when the average cost of adverse effects per episode (ignored in the original estimation of the cost-effectiveness ratios due to a lack of data) was assumed to be USD 8600 (50,000 French francs); this cost is unlikely as most of the adverse effects associated with aspirin plus dipyridamole are only slight to moderate in severity.
conclusionsIn the secondary prevention of stroke in France, this study suggests, given its underlying assumptions and data, that aspirin 25 mg plus dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily is likely to be a cost-effective strategy from the social security perspective, when compared with other relevant strategies that were evaluated in the ESPS-2 trial.
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.