2017
DOI: 10.4103/1735-5362.202453
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Cost-effectiveness evaluation of aspirin in primary prevention of myocardial infarction amongst males with average cardiovascular risk in Iran

Abstract: Aspirin is one of the certified medicines commonly used for the secondary prevention of myocardial infarction (MI). Aspirin side effects and gastrointestinal bleeding, in particular, have arisen debates on its use for the primary prevention of MI. The present research evaluates the cost-effectiveness of the use of aspirin in the primary prevention of MI among Iranian men with average cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, using Markov modeling technique. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) estimated … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

2
5
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
2
5
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Aspirin is a cost-effective option in men with a 10-year CVD risk of 15% from payer perspective[ [ 26 ]] and simvastatin 10 mg is a cost-effective intervention in CVD-healthy men aged 45 with a 10-year CVD risk of 15% for the prevention of myocardial infarction from payer perspective [ 27 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Aspirin is a cost-effective option in men with a 10-year CVD risk of 15% from payer perspective[ [ 26 ]] and simvastatin 10 mg is a cost-effective intervention in CVD-healthy men aged 45 with a 10-year CVD risk of 15% for the prevention of myocardial infarction from payer perspective [ 27 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Overall, cost-utility analysis was most frequently used (n = 29, 58%), followed by cost-effectiveness analysis (n = 14, 28%). Six studies used both CUA and CEA [ 37 , 45 , 50 , 52 , 62 , 63 ]. There was only one cost–benefit analysis [ 27 ].…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There was only one cost–benefit analysis [ 27 ]. Overall, among the 20 studies which did CEA, life years gained/saved was the predominant benefit measure [ 23 25 , 41 , 44 , 45 , 49 , 50 , 52 , 57 , 58 , 62 , 63 ], while the rest of the studies either used drop in blood pressure [ 33 , 34 , 37 , 39 ], avoided CVD [ 24 , 44 , 61 ] or restenosis [ 60 ] event as benefit measure. Out of 38 studies that mentioned their approach to defining an intervention as cost-effective or not, 7 employed the willingness to pay threshold, while the majority (n = 31) used the WHO’s Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (CMH) threshold using the respective countries’ GDP per capita.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Markov modeling technique was performed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of type-2 diabetes screening in community pharmacies of Iran within a 30-year time horizon. For chronic diseases with recurrent events such as type-2 diabetes, particularly when the risk of the disease progression persists indefinitely, Markov modeling is generally the preferred choice( 7 ). The major complications of diabetes evaluated in the current study included blindness, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, lower extremity amputation (LEA), and death.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%