SynthesisPharmacoEconomics2017
A Systematic Review of Cardiovascular Outcomes-Based Cost-Effectiveness Analyses of Lipid-Lowering Therapies.
Synthesis in PharmacoEconomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Critical Systematic Review of Modelling Approaches and Methodologies used in Hyperlipidaemia Economic Evaluations.PharmacoEconomics · 2026Pooled it
- Interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: umbrella review of systematic reviews.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Direct Cardiovascular Event Costs: An International Perspective.PharmacoEconomics · 2019Pooled it
- Comparison of Evolocumab and Ezetimibe, Both Combined with Statin Therapy, for Patients with Recent Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis from the Chinese Healthcare Perspective.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2023Article
- Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Evolocumab for the Treatment of Dyslipidemia in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2022Article
- Cost-Effectiveness of the CNIC-Polypill Strategy Compared With Separate Monocomponents in Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Disease in Portugal: The MERCURY Study.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2022Article
- Using Published Health Utilities in Cost-Utility Analyses: Discrepancies and Issues in Cardiovascular Disease.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2021Article
- Cost-effectiveness of evolocumab in treatment of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolaemia in Bulgaria: measuring health benefit by effectively treated patient-years.Journal of market access & health policy · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPrevious reviews have evaluated economic analyses of lipid-lowering therapies using lipid levels as surrogate markers for cardiovascular disease. However, drug approval and health technology assessment agencies have stressed that surrogates should only be used in the absence of clinical endpoints.
objectiveThe aim of this systematic review was to identify and summarise the methodologies, weaknesses and strengths of economic models based on atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease event rates.
methodsCost-effectiveness evaluations of lipid-lowering therapies using cardiovascular event rates in adults with hyperlipidaemia were sought in Medline, Embase, Medline In-Process, PubMed and NHS EED and conference proceedings. Search results were independently screened, extracted and quality checked by two reviewers.
resultsSearches until February 2016 retrieved 3443 records, from which 26 studies (29 publications) were selected. Twenty-two studies evaluated secondary prevention (four also assessed primary prevention), two considered only primary prevention and two included mixed primary and secondary prevention populations. Most studies (18) based treatment-effect estimates on single trials, although more recent evaluations deployed meta-analyses (5/10 over the last 10 years). Markov models (14 studies) were most commonly used and only one study employed discrete event simulation. Models varied particularly in terms of health states and treatment-effect duration. No studies used a systematic review to obtain utilities. Most studies took a healthcare perspective (21/26) and sourced resource use from key trials instead of local data. Overall, reporting quality was suboptimal.
conclusionsThis review reveals methodological changes over time, but reporting weaknesses remain, particularly with respect to transparency of model reporting.
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.