Cost-Effectiveness of Treating Hyperlipidemia in the Presence of Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to estimate the long-term costs and benefits of treating hyperlipidemia among diabetic patients with and without known cardiovascular disease after validating the Cardiovascular Life Expectancy Model. METHODS AND RESULTS: The model estimates were compared with the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (4S) and used to estimate the long-term costs and benefits of treatment with simvastatin. Simulations were performed for men and women, 40 to 70 years of age, having pretreatment LDL cholesterol values of 5.46, 4.34, and 3.85 mmol/L (211, 168, and 149 mg/dL). We forecasted the long-term risk of cardiovascular events, the need for medical and surgical interventions, and the associated costs in 1996 US dollars. The model validated well against the observed results of the of the 4S diabetic patients. In this validation, the model estimates fell within the 95% confidence interval of the observed results for 7 of the 8 available end points (coronary deaths, total deaths, and so forth). Treatment with simvastatin for patients with cardiovascular disease is cost-effective for men and women, with or without diabetes. Among diabetic individuals without cardiovascular disease, the benefits of primary prevention were also substantial and the cost-effectiveness ratios attractive across a wide range of assumptions ( approximately $4000 to $40 000 per year of life saved). These conclusions were robust even among diabetics with lower baseline LDL values and smaller LDL reductions as observed in the Cholesterol and Recruitment Events (CARE) trial. CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with hyperlipidemia, the presence of diabetes identifies men and women among whom lipid therapy is likely to be effective and cost-effective even in the absence of other risk factors or known cardiovascular disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".