Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27496237›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2016

Estimating the economic burden of cardiovascular events in patients receiving lipid-modifying therapy in the UK.

Mark D Danese, Michelle Gleeson, Lucie Kutikova, Robert I Griffiths, Ali Azough, Kamlesh Khunti, Sreenivasa Rao Kondapally Seshasai, Kausik K Ray

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mark D DaneseOutcomes Insights, Inc., Outcomes Research, Westlake Village, California, USA.
Michelle GleesonOutcomes Insights, Inc., Outcomes Research, Westlake Village, California, USA.
Lucie KutikovaAmgen (Europe) GmbH, Health Economics, Zug, Switzerland.
Robert I GriffithsOutcomes Insights, Inc., Outcomes Research, Westlake Village, California, USA University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Ali AzoughAmgen Ltd, Health Economics, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UK.
Kamlesh KhuntiDiabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Sreenivasa Rao Kondapally SeshasaiSt George's, University of London, London, UK.
Kausik K RayDepartment of Medicine, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo characterise the costs to the UK National Health Service of cardiovascular (CV) events among individuals receiving lipid-modifying therapy.

designRetrospective cohort study using Clinical Practice Research Datalink records from 2006 to 2012 to identify individuals with their first and second CV-related hospitalisations (first event and second event cohorts). Within-person differences were used to estimate CV-related outcomes.

settingPatients in the UK who had their first CV event between January 2006 and March 2012.

participantsPatients ≥18 years who had a CV event and received at least 2 lipid-modifying therapy prescriptions within 180 days beforehand. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Direct medical costs (2014 £) were estimated in 3 periods: baseline (pre-event), acute (6 months afterwards) and long-term (subsequent 30 months). Primary outcomes included incremental costs, resource usage and total costs per period.

resultsThere were 24 093 patients in the first event cohort of whom 5274 were included in the second event cohort. The mean incremental acute CV event costs for the first event and second event cohorts were: coronary artery bypass graft/percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (CABG/PTCA) £5635 and £5823, myocardial infarction £4275 and £4301, ischaemic stroke £3512 and £4572, heart failure £2444 and £3461, unstable angina £2179 and £2489 and transient ischaemic attack £1537 and £1814. The mean incremental long-term costs were: heart failure £848 and £2829, myocardial infarction £922 and £1385, ischaemic stroke £973 and £682, transient ischaemic attack £705 and £1692, unstable angina £328 and £677, and CABG/PTCA £-368 and £599. Hospitalisation accounted for 95% of acute and 61% of long-term incremental costs. Higher comorbidity was associated with higher long-term costs.

conclusionsRevascularisation and myocardial infarction were associated with the highest incremental costs following a CV event. On the basis of real-world data, the economic burden of CV events in the UK is substantial, particularly among those with greater comorbidity burden.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisAgedAged, 80 and overAnticholesteremic AgentsCardiovascular DiseasesFemaleHealth Care CostsHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesUnited KingdomAnticholesteremic AgentsCARDIOLOGYHEALTH ECONOMICSHEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT

Identifiers

PMID27496237
PMCPMC4985970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.