ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2013
Cost-effectiveness analysis of dronedarone versus other anti-arrhythmic drugs for the treatment of atrial fibrillation--results for Canada, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland.
Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2013. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cost-Effectiveness of Dronedarone and Amiodarone for the Treatment of Chinese Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ATHENA clinical trial enrolled 4,628 patients in 37 countries and evaluated the efficacy of dronedarone 400 mg twice daily versus placebo for the prevention of cardiovascular hospitalisation or death from any cause in patients with paroxysmal or persistent atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. The trial showed a statistically significant 24% reduction in the primary endpoint cardiovascular hospitalisations or all-cause death. In the current paper, parameters that drive the cost-effectiveness of dronedarone on top of standard therapy versus likely comparators, i.e. amiodarone, sotalol and flecainide, were investigated by means of a health economic model based on the ATHENA clinical trial. Dronedarone is cost-effective, and ICERs are low versus amiodarone with €5,340; €4,620; €3,850 and €5,630 per QALY gained for Canada, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland, respectively. The most significant driving factor for the cost-effectiveness of dronedarone is the increased survival rate for patients on dronedarone.
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.