ArticlePharmacoEconomics1992
Cost-effectiveness of simvastatin versus cholestyramine: results for Sweden.
Article in PharmacoEconomics, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Systematic Review of Validity Assessments of Framingham Risk Score Results in Health Economic Modelling of Lipid-Modifying Therapies in Europe.PharmacoEconomics · 2018Pooled it
- Economic evaluation of cholesterol-related interventions in general practice. An appraisal of the evidence.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 1998Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of statins revisited: lessons learned about the value of innovation.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2012Review
- Simvastatin. A reappraisal of its cost effectiveness in dyslipidaemia and coronary heart disease.PharmacoEconomics · 1997Review
- Simvastatin. A reappraisal of its pharmacology and therapeutic efficacy in hypercholesterolaemia.Drugs · 1995Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cost-effectiveness ratios were estimated for each of 2 plasma cholesterol-lowering drug therapies, the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor simvastatin and the well established cholestyramine, in comparison with a nonpreventive drug treatment alternative. The study was confined to Swedish men (aged 37 to 64 years at start of therapy) with total serum cholesterol levels above 6.2 mmol/L who were free of coronary artery disease (CAD). Costs included expected direct costs of plasma cholesterol-lowering treatment less expected savings resulting from preventing CAD. Effects were defined as changes in life expectancy. A discount rate of 5% and Swedish kronor (SEK) 1988 prices were used. The impact on CAD risks was calculated using multivariate logistic risk estimates from the Framingham Heart Study; Swedish estimates were used to calculate intervention costs and changes in healthcare costs. Over the range of cholesterol levels examined (6.2 to 9.8 mmol/L), simvastatin was consistently more cost-effective than cholestyramine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.