MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2727216345 · doi:10.1161/str.44.suppl_1.awp394

Abstract WP394: Insights Into The Cost-effectiveness Of Blood Pressure Management For Secondary Stroke Prevention

2013· article· en· W2727216345 on OpenAlexaff
Kate Young, Adam G. Kelly, Curtis Benesch, Oscar Benavente

Bibliographic record

VenueStroke · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Quality-adjusted life yearIntensive careBlood pressureQuality of life (healthcare)Cost effectivenessIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicineRisk analysis (engineering)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To determine the relationship between the risk of dementia, risk of recurrent stroke and other factors on the cost-effectiveness of intensive blood pressure management for secondary stroke prevention. Methods: A Markov model incorporated data from the PROGRESS trial. It included cost (2011$) and utility estimates from the literature. Intensive management was a 9mmHg reduction in systolic blood pressure compared to usual management. The cost of the additional medications was assumed to be the cost of perindopril. Relative risk terms modified the probability of adverse events with intensive treatment. Outcomes were recurrent stroke, dementia, recurrent stroke with dementia and death. Quality of life with intensive management was lower than usual treatment. Assumptions were tested with one-way and multi-way sensitivity analyses. Results: For the base case analysis, the lifetime costs of usual management were $80,200 with 5.626 quality adjusted life years (QALYs). The lifetime costs of intensive management were $85,500 with 5.627 QALYs. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was $5 million, thus the added costs of intensive management were not offset by increased quality of life. However, this conclusion was sensitive to several assumptions. Intensive management became cost-effective (ICER < $100,000) when (1) ages < 52 years were treated (base case: 64 years), (2) the quality of life with intensive management increased slightly, by 0.01, (3) the cost of BP medications was $270/year, (4) the probability of recurrent stroke was ≥ 5.4% (base case: 3.7%), or (5) the relative risk of recurrent stroke with intensive management was ≤ 0.69 (base case: 0.77). The probability of dementia or the relative risk of dementia did not influence the model. If the cost of medications to lower BP by 9 mmHg was ≤ $260/year, intensive management was dominant with lower lifetime costs and greater QALYs. Conclusion: With the base case assumptions, intensive BP management was not the cost-effective choice. Nevertheless cost-effective management can be achieved depending on the age of the cohort and the cost of maintenance medications. This analysis highlights important factors to be considered during the planned cost-effectiveness analysis of the SPS3 trial.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStroke→Same topicHealthcare Systems and Practices→French-language works237,207→