ArticleBMC public health2024
Revisiting cost-effectiveness of folic acid supplementation in primary stroke prevention in China: considering vitamin B12 deficiency masking issue.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify the cost-effectiveness of four policy options related to folic acid supplements after considering the side effects of masking vitamin B12 (B12) deficiency in primary stroke prevention for hypertensive patients in China. STUDY
designA cost-effectiveness analysis.
methodsFour policies were considered: Policy A, Do nothing to address folate status in hypertensive patients at risk for stroke; Policy B, Folate supplementation without pre-screening for vitamin B12 deficiency; Policy C, Folate supplementation with pre-screening all patients for B12 deficiency and add B12 supplements if B12 is deficient; and Policy D, Folate supplementation only for those whose folate is deficient, pre-screen all patients for both B12 and folate deficiencies and add B12 supplements if B12 is deficient. A decision tree with a five-year period of intervention based on the China Stroke Primary Prevention Trial (CSPPT) from the Chinese healthcare system perspective estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for Policy B, Policy C and Policy D vs. Policy A.
resultsAt a willingness to pay (WTP) threshold of 3 times the national GDP per capita ($38,198), Policy B was not cost-effective compared to Policy A, with an ICER of $47,968 per QALY due to QALYs lost introduced by the delayed diagnosis of B12 deficiency and the potentially underestimated costs associated with treating neuropathy. However, Policy C and Policy D were cost-effective compared to Policy A, with an ICER of $32,615 and $20,287 per QALY, respectively. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that there would be a 72.7% and 83.5% chance that the additional cost of Policy C and Policy D, compared with Policy A, was at or below the WTP threshold.
conclusionsFolate supplementation with integrated screening for B12 and folate deficiencies is considered the most cost-effective strategy for primary stroke prevention in hypertensive elderly patients in China. Future research should focus on advancing precision medicine to assess the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of nationwide implementation across diverse sub-populations within the context of integrated screening, ensuring efficient and tailored public nutrition strategy delivery.
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.