ArticleEuropean heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes2016
Cost-effectiveness of antiplatelet drugs after percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes, 2016. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treating patients suffering from acute coronary syndrome with prasugrel, the Rotterdam experience.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2018Article
- Modelling the cost-effectiveness of PCSK9 inhibitors vs. ezetimibe through LDL-C reductions in a Norwegian setting.European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsClopidogrel has, for long time, been accepted as the standard treatment for patients who have undergone a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The introduction of prasugrel-and more recently, ticagrelor-has introduced a decision-making problem for clinicians and governments worldwide: to use the cheaper clopidogrel or the more effective, and also more expensive prasugrel or ticagrelor. We aim to give helpful contributions to this debate by analysing the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor compared with each other. METHODS AND
resultsWe modified a previously developed Markov model of cardiac disease progression. In the model, we followed up cohorts of patients who have recently had a PCI until 100 years or death. Possible events are revascularization, bleeding, acute myocardial infarction, and death. Our analysis shows that ticagrelor is cost-effective in 77% of simulations at an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €7700 compared with clopidogrel. Ticagrelor was also cost-effective against prasugrel at a cost-effectiveness ratio of €7800. Given a Norwegian cost-effectiveness threshold of €70 000, both comparisons appear to be clearly cost-effective in favour of ticagrelor.
conclusionTicagrelor is cost-effective compared with both clopidogrel and prasugrel for patients who have undergone a PCI.
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.