ArticlePharmacoEconomics2010
Cost effectiveness of intensive lipid-lowering treatment for patients with congestive heart failure and coronary heart disease in the US.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A Critical Systematic Review of Modelling Approaches and Methodologies used in Hyperlipidaemia Economic Evaluations.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluating Cost-Effectiveness Models for Pharmacologic Interventions in Adults with Heart Failure: A Systematic Literature Review.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Decision-analytic models to simulate health outcomes and costs in heart failure: a systematic review.PharmacoEconomics · 2011Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of empagliflozin versus weekly semaglutide as add-on therapy for Type 2 diabetes.Journal of comparative effectiveness research · 2021Article
- Validation of a Cardiovascular Disease Policy Microsimulation Model Using Both Survival and Receiver Operating Characteristic Curves.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2017Article
- Effect of DanQi Pill on PPARα, lipid disorders and arachidonic acid pathway in rat model of coronary heart disease.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2016Article
- Chinese Herbal Medicines Might Improve the Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results of a Decision-Analytic Markov Model.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2015Article
- Cost-effectiveness of heart failure therapies.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA recent study found fewer hospitalizations for congestive heart failure (CHF) patients receiving high-dose versus low-dose statin therapy.
objectiveTo examine the cost effectiveness of high-dose versus low-dose statin therapy in CHF patients.
methodsTwo scenarios (literature-based [base-case scenario] vs trial-based post-event mortality [alternative scenario]) assessed the cost effectiveness of atorvastatin 80 mg/day (A80) versus atorvastatin 10 mg/day (A10) in patients with both CHF and coronary heart disease (CHD) [CHF/CHD], using a lifetime Markov model. The model predicts treatment-specific probabilities of major and minor cardiovascular events and death, based on clinical trial data. The quality of life and costs were literature based. Measures included costs per life-year saved (LYS) and QALY gained. Health consequences and costs were discounted at 3.0% annually. Analyses were conducted from the payer perspective and valued in $US, year 2006-7 values.
resultsLiterature-based mortality estimates (base case) increased life-years and QALYs for A80 compared with A10 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios [ICERs]: $US9600 per LYS; $US13 600 per QALY). At a willingness to pay of $US100 000 per QALY, A80 was cost effective in 80% of simulations. A10 dominated A80 when using trial-based mortality estimates (alternative scenario). At a willingness to pay of $US100 000 per QALY, A80 was cost effective in 48% of simulations.
conclusionsIntensive A80 treatment may be cost effective versus A10 in cardiovascular prevention in CHF/CHD patients in the US, due to projected gains in life expectancy and health-related quality of life. However, the results are highly sensitive to assumptions about the mortality rate in the model. When using the mortality rate observed in the trial, A10 dominates A80.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20014876What 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.