ArticleBMJ open2015
Potential economic consequences of a cardioprotective agent for patients with myocardial infarction: modelling study.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Joint Cardioprotective Effect of Vitamin C and Other Antioxidants against Reperfusion Injury in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Remote Monitoring of Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators, Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Permanent Pacemakers: A Health Technology Assessment.Ontario health technology assessment series · 2018Review
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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the cost-effectiveness of a hypothetical cardioprotective agent used to reduce infarct size in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
methods
designA cost-utility analysis using a Markov model.
settingThe National Health Service in the UK. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing PCI after anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction.
interventionsA cardioprotective agent given at the time of reperfusion compared to no cardioprotection. We assumed the cardioprotective agent (given at the time of reperfusion) would reduce the risk and severity of heart failure (HF) after PCI and the risk of mortality after PCI (with a relative risk ranging from 0.6 to 1). The costs of the cardioprotective agent were assumed to be in the range £1000-4000.
main outcome measuresThe incremental costs per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, using 95% CIs from 1000 simulations.
resultsIncremental costs ranged from £933 to £3820 and incremental QALYs from 0.04 to 0.38. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) ranged from £3311 to £63 480 per QALY gained. The results were highly dependent on the costs of a cardioprotective agent, patient age, and the relative risk of HF after PCI. The ICER was below the willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per QALY gained in 71% of the simulations.
conclusionsA cardioprotective agent that can reduce the risk of HF and mortality after PCI has a high chance of being cost-effective. This chance depends on the price of the agent, the age of the patient and the relative risk of HF after PCI.
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.