MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2225838069 · doi:10.1007/s40273-015-0366-8

Cost Effectiveness of First-Line Oral Therapies for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Modelling Study

2016· article· en· W2225838069 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kathryn Coyle, Doug Coyle, Julie Blouin, Karen Lee, Mohammed F. Jabr, Khai Tran, Lisa Mielniczuk, John R. Swiston, Mike Innes

Bibliographic record

VenuePharmacoEconomics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPulmonary Hypertension Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in HealthUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTadalafilMedicineSildenafilAmbrisentanBosentanRiociguatIntensive care medicineQuality-adjusted life yearPlaceboCost effectivenessInternal medicinePulmonary hypertensionChronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertensionAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In recent years, a significant number of costly oral therapies have become available for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Funding decisions for these therapies requires weighing up their effectiveness and costs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the cost effectiveness of monotherapy with oral PAH-specific therapies versus supportive care as initial therapy for patients with functional class (FC) II and III PAH in Canada. METHODS: A cost-utility analysis, from the perspective of a healthcare system and based on a Markov model, was designed to estimate the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) associated with bosentan, ambrisentan, riociguat, tadalafil, sildenafil and supportive care for PAH in treatment-naïve patients. Separate analyses were conducted for cohorts of patients commencing therapy at FC II and III PAH. Transition probabilities, based on the relative risk of improving and worsening in FC with treatment versus placebo, were derived from a recent network meta-analysis. Utility values and costs were obtained from published data and clinical expert opinion. Extensive sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Analysis suggests that sildenafil is the most cost-effective therapy for PAH in patients with FC II or III. Sildenafil was both the least costly and most effective therapy, thereby dominating all other treatments. Tadalafil was also less costly and more effective than supportive care in FC II and III; however, sildenafil was dominant over tadalafil. Even given the uncertainty within the clinical inputs, the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that apart from sildenafil and tadalafil, the other PAH therapies had negligible probability of being the most cost effective. CONCLUSION: The results show that initiation of therapy with sildenafil is likely the most cost-effective strategy in PAH patients with either FC II or III 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePharmacoEconomicsSame topicPulmonary Hypertension Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207