ArticlePloS one2019
Cost-effectiveness analysis of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events among patients with type 2 diabetes in China.
Article in PloS one, 2019. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with lower rates of cardiovascular events but increased risks of bleeding complications. We aimed to examine the cost-effectiveness of aspirin therapy for primary prevention of CVD in Chinese DM patients. A life-long Markov model was developed to compare aspirin therapy (100mg daily) versus no use of aspirin in DM patients with no history of CVD. Model validation was conducted by comparing the simulated event rates with data reported in a clinical trial. Direct medical costs and quality-adjusted life-years gained (QALYs) were the primary outcomes from the perspective of healthcare system in China. Sensitivity analyses were performed to examine the uncertainty of model inputs. Base-case analysis showed aspirin therapy was more costly (USD1,086 versus USD819) with higher QALYs gained (11.94 versus 11.86 QALYs) compared to no use of aspirin. The base-case results were sensitive to the odds ratio of all-cause death in aspirin therapy versus no use of aspirin. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis found that aspirin therapy gained an additional 0.066 QALYs (95% CI: -0.167 QALYs-0.286 QALYs) at higher cost by USD352 (95% CI: USD130-644)). Using 30,000 USD/QALY as willingness-to-pay threshold, aspirin therapy and no use of aspirin were the preferred option in 68.71% and 31.29% of 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations, respectively. In conclusion, aspirin therapy appears to be cost-effective compared with no use of aspirin in primary prevention of CVD in Chinese DM patients.
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.