ReviewPharmacoEconomics2022
Integrating the Biology of Cardiovascular Disease into the Epidemiology of Economic Decision Modelling via Mendelian Randomisation.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Scoping Review of Productivity-Adjusted Life Years (PALYs): Methods, Applications and Policy Implications.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Article
- Highlights from the Manifesto on the Health Economics of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention.PharmacoEconomics · 2025Review
- Computational Biology in the Discovery of Biomarkers in the Diagnosis, Treatment and Management of Cardiovascular Diseases.Cardiology and cardiovascular medicine · 2024Article
- Celiac Disease Is a Risk Factor for Mature T and NK Cell Lymphoma: A Mendelian Randomization Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Health economic analyses are essential for health services research, providing decision-makers and payers with evidence about the value of interventions relative to their opportunity cost. However, many health economic approaches are still limited, especially regarding the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this article, we discuss some limitations to current health economic models and then outline an approach to address these via the incorporation of genomics into the design of health economic models for CVD. We propose that when a randomised clinical trial is not possible or practical, health economic models for primary prevention of CVD can be based on Mendelian randomisation analyses, a technique to assess causality in observational data. We discuss the advantages of this approach, such as integrating well-known disease biology into health economic models and how this may overcome current statistical approaches to assessing the benefits of interventions. We argue that this approach may provide the economic argument for integrating genomics into clinical practice and the efficient targeting of newer therapeutics, transforming our approach to the primary prevention of CVD, thereby moving from reactive to preventive healthcare. We end by discussing some limitations and potential pitfalls of this approach.
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.