ArticleClinical drug investigation2000
Cost-effectiveness analysis for statin therapies in the primary prevention of coronary heart disease in Italy.
Article in Clinical drug investigation, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacoeconomic impact of non-compliance with statins.PharmacoEconomics · 2005Review
- Comparisons of hypertension-related costs from multinational clinical studies.PharmacoEconomics · 2004Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this analysis was to compare the costs, benefits and cost effectiveness of two dosage regimens of cerivastatin (0.2 and 0.4 mg/day) with Italian National Health Service (NHS) reimbursed comparative statins in the primary prevention of coronary heart disease in Italy. This study is part of a broader analysis undertaken in five European countries. DESIGN AND
settingA cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was performed, as the interventions have the same treatment objectives but vary in terms of magnitude of effectiveness. This CEA compared alternative treatments both in the NHS and from societal perspectives. PATIENTS: A coronary heart disease risk assessment model, based on intervention study data from the Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial, was used. This was augmented with demographic, disease, life expectancy, pharmacological and economic data for patients with coronary heart disease in Italy.
resultsIn terms of average cost effectiveness, our analysis showed that cerivastatin 0.2 mg/day compared favourably with pravastatin 20 mg/day, and compared similarly with simvastatin 20 mg/day in all age groups studied. The study also demonstrated that cerivastatin 0.4 mg/day compared favourably with both simvastatin 40 mg/day and pravastatin 20 mg/day. These results were consistent for both the NHS and societal perspective.The incremental cost per life-year gained [in 1998 Italian lire (L)] of simvastatin versus cerivastatin ranged from about L40 million [or Euro (Eur)20 658] to greater than L650 million (or Eur335 697). Cerivastatin 0.2 mg/day was more cost-effective than pravastatin 20 mg/day, while the incremental cost per life-year gained for cerivastatin 0.4 mg/day versus pravastatin 20 mg/day ranged from L11.1 million (or Eur5733) to L31.8 million (or Eur16 423) in the three age groups (35 to 39 years, 50 to 54 years and 65 to 69 years) for both perspectives.
conclusionsThe results of this study showed that in primary prevention, average cost-effectiveness ratios of cerivastatin compared favourably with those of the other pharmacological interventions available on the Italian market.
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.