ArticleBMJ open2025
Cost-utility analysis of combination medical therapies in chronic coronary syndrome: a comparative study using real-world and patient-level data from Iran.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe main objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of various medical therapy combinations in managing chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) in Iran, based on real-world and patient-level data.
designA cost-utility analysis employing a Markov model was conducted using data from a retrospective cohort study.
settingThe study was conducted in the healthcare setting of Iran, focusing on primary and secondary care.
participantsPatients with CCS were included in the study. Numbers entering and completing the study were reported, with clear definitions of selection, entry and exclusion criteria.
interventionsAll combinations of recommended medical therapies for CCS were permitted. Ultimately, taking into account the sample size and study power, a comparison was made between the combination therapy of β-blockers (BB), long-acting nitroglycerin (LAN), aspirin (ASA) and statin versus the group receiving only BB, ASA and statin. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, along with an initial evaluation of disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) and costs related to the interventions.
resultsThe BB/LAN/ASA/statin combination was cost-saving and effective, averting 0.02 DALYs and saving $172 compared with BB/ASA/statin. This combination was cost-effective in over 97% of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis results.
conclusionsIncorporating LAN into the combination therapy of BB, ASA and statin is cost-effective in Iran. This finding provides evidence for policymakers on resource allocation in low-income countries.
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.