ReviewClinical cardiology2018
PCSK9 inhibitor valuation: A science-based review of the two recent models.
Review in Clinical cardiology, 2018. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Design of the randomized, placebo-controlled evolocumab for early reduction of LDL-cholesterol levels in patients with acute coronary syndromes (EVOPACS) trial.Clinical cardiology · 2018Article
- PCSK9 inhibitor valuation: A science-based review of the two recent models.Clinical cardiology · 2018Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) has been extensively evaluated. Prospective cohort studies, randomized controlled trials, biology, pathophysiology, genetics, and Mendelian randomization studies, have clearly taught us that LDL-C causes atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The newest class of drugs to lower LDL-C, the proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) monoclonal antibodies, have been found to safely reduce LDL-C approximately 60% when added to high-intensity statin therapy. Because their cost is much greater than that of the currently available agents, their value has been questioned. In late August, 2017, two groups assessed the value of this class of drugs looking at cost-effectiveness; however, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review and Fonarow and colleagues found disparate results when assessing PCSK9 valuation. Herein, we review the evolution of LDL-C from hypothesis to fact, and then attempt to adjudicate the 2 models, shedding light on the complex modeling process. We find that models of cost-effectiveness are helpful adjuncts to decision making, but that their conclusions depend on many assumptions. Ultimately, clinician judgment regarding their clinical benefit, balanced by some estimation of cost, may be more productive to target the right patients for whom the benefits can be well-justified.
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.