ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2024
Cost-Utility Analysis of Low-Dose Pioglitazone in a Population With Prediabetes and a History of Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cost-effectiveness of implementing the National Health Service England Diabetes Prevention Programme in Canada: a modelling study.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2026Article
- Nitro-oleic acid activation of endothelial PPARγ signaling pathway alleviates neurovascular injury and improves functional outcomes in ischemic stroke.Brain pathology (Zurich, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Cost effectiveness analysis of six non insulin agents for type 2 diabetes in Iran using a patient level simulation with UKPDS OM2.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPioglitazone significantly reduces the risk of stroke in people with diabetes, and in those with prediabetes, it markedly reduces the risk of stroke/myocardial infarction and new-onset diabetes. Low-dose pioglitazone provides most of the clinical benefits of high-dose pioglitazone, with fewer adverse effects. We report an economic evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of low-dose pioglitazone versus placebo from a Canadian public payer perspective in 2023 Canadian dollars. METHODS AND
resultsA Markov model was developed at a lifetime horizon with an annual cycle length and 5 health states (event-free, myocardial infarction, stroke, new-onset diabetes, and death). Transition probabilities were extracted from the IRIS (Insulin Resistance Intervention in Stroke) trial. Health state costs and utilities were based on public sources. Annual discount rates of 1.5% were applied in the reference-case analysis. Probabilistic analyses were conducted to deal with parameter uncertainty through 5000 simulations. The costs were estimated as $24 887 (interquartile range [IQR], $14 632-$41507) for low-dose pioglitazone and $57 301 (IQR, $48 730-$67368) for placebo, resulting in a cost saving of -$30 287 (IQR, -$43 374 to -$14 587) in favor of low-dose pioglitazone. Quality-adjusted life years were estimated as 25.99 (IQR, 24.56-26.81) for the low-dose pioglitazone and 19.44 (IQR, 18.68-20.13) for placebo, resulting in a difference of 6.37 (IQR, 5.07-7.36) in favor of low-dose pioglitazone. Consistent findings were observed from scenario analyses and 1-way probability sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsHolding across a wide range of values in modeling parameters, low-dose pioglitazone is found as the dominant strategy versus a placebo.
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.