ArticlePharmacoEconomics2015
Cost-Effectiveness of Proton Pump Inhibitor Co-Therapy in Patients Taking Aspirin for Secondary Prevention of Ischemic Stroke.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 2015. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow-dose aspirin (ASA) is effective for secondary prevention of ischemic stroke but can increase the risks of hemorrhagic stroke, upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), and dyspepsia. Prophylactic administration of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduces the risks of these digestive symptoms. We investigated the cost effectiveness of adding a PPI to ASA therapy for ischemic stroke patients in Japan.
methodsA Markov state-transition model was developed to compare the cost effectiveness of ASA monotherapy with ASA plus PPI co-therapy in patients with histories of upper gastrointestinal ulcers and ischemic stroke. The model takes into account ASA adherence rate and adverse effects due to ASA, including hemorrhagic stroke and UGIB. The analysis was performed from the perspective of healthcare payers in 2013.
resultsIn the base case, total life-years by PPI co-therapy and monotherapy were 16.005 and 15.932, respectively. The difference in duration of no therapy (no ASA or PPI) between the therapies was 558.5 days, which would prevent 30.3 recurrences of ischemic stroke per 1000 person-years. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PPI co-therapy relative to monotherapy was ¥1,191,665 (US$11,458) per life-year gained. In a one-way sensitivity analysis, PPI co-therapy was consistently cost effective at a willingness to pay of ¥5,000,000 (US$48,077) per life-year gained. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, the probability that PPI co-therapy was cost effective was 89.74% at the willingness to pay.
conclusionsCo-therapy with ASA plus PPI appears to be cost-effective compared with ASA monotherapy. The addition of PPI also appeared to prolong the duration of ASA therapy, thereby reducing the risk of ischemic stroke.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25995130What 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.