ArticlePloS one2022
Cost-effectiveness analysis of patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy alone after cryptogenic stroke.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Outcomes and Quality of Life after Patent Foramen Ovale (PFO) Closure in Patients with Stroke/Transient Ischemic Attack of Undetermined Cause and Other PFO-Associated Clinical Conditions: A Single-Center Experience.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Patent foramen ovale closure vs. medical therapy alone after cryptogenic stroke in China: A cost-effectiveness analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
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
backgroundClosure of a patent foramen ovale reduces the risk of recurrent stroke compared with medical therapy alone in young patients with cryptogenic strokes revealed by randomized control trials. Some cost-effectiveness analyses outside Japan have shown that patent foramen ovale closure is cost-effective, but no studies have examined cost-effectiveness in Japan. The objective of this study is to assess cost-effectiveness, from the perspective of a Japanese healthcare payer, of patent foramen ovale closure versus medical therapy alone for patients with patent foramen ovale related to cryptogenic strokes.
methodsA cost-effectiveness study was conducted by developing a decision tree and a Markov model. Probabilities and a 5.9-year time horizon followed the RESPECT study. Utilities and costs were based upon published studies and assumptions. All assumptions were assessed by experts, including a cardiologist and a statistical expert. The target population comprised patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale, aged 60 years or younger. The model was discounted at 2.0% and its cycle was one month. A willingness-to-pay threshold is set at $50,000 / quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was evaluated. Then one-way sensitivity analyses as deterministic sensitivity analysis, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to assess data robustness.
resultsIncremental quality-adjusted life years, incremental costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio were 0.464, $13,562, and $29,208 per QALY gained, respectively. One-way sensitivity analysis showed that the stable state utility score difference between patent foramen ovale closure and medical therapy had the largest impact on incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Patent foramen ovale closure is cost-effective at a stable state utility score difference of >0.051, compared with medical therapy. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses demonstrated that patent foramen ovale closure was 50.3% cost-effective.
conclusionsPatent foramen ovale closure was cost-effective compared with medical therapy for Japanese patients with cryptogenic stroke who were ≤60 years.
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.