ReviewNature reviews. Cardiology2011
Cost-effectiveness of oral antiplatelet agents--current and future perspectives.
Review in Nature reviews. Cardiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: economic considerations.PharmacoEconomics · 2013Review
- 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease is both highly prevalent and exceedingly costly to treat. Several novel antiplatelet agents have been found to be effective in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with cardiovascular disease. Understanding both the economic and the clinical implications of these novel therapies is particularly important. In this article, the results of published evaluations of the cost-effectiveness of oral antiplatelet strategies for use across a range of clinical conditions and treatment settings are reviewed. The results of these studies support the use of aspirin for primary prevention in high-risk patients and for secondary prevention in all patients with previous cardiovascular events. Although the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after an event remains uncertain, favorable cost-effectiveness estimates have been demonstrated for aspirin plus clopidogrel versus aspirin alone after a myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention. Moreover, prasugrel has been shown to be more cost-effective than clopidogrel for patients with an acute coronary syndrome and planned percutaneous coronary intervention. As novel antiplatelet agents emerge and existing agents are tested in different patient populations, the evaluation of the relative economic efficiency of these oral antiplatelet treatment strategies will continue to be instrumental to optimally inform clinical and health-policy decision-making.
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.