Cost-effectiveness of eplerenone plus standard treatment compared with standard treatment in patients with myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure in the Netherlands.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Following the results of the EPHESUS study in patients with heart failure after myocardial infarction, a cost-effectiveness analysis was undertaken from a Dutch societal perspective to evaluate the lifetime benefits and costs of eplerenone as add-on to standard treatment. METHODS: Life-years gained in the eplerenone arm during the trial period were extrapolated to lifetime life-years gained using three sources of life expectancy data (Framingham Heart Study, Saskatchewan Health Database and Worcester Heart Attack Registry). Resource use measured included direct medical costs of hospitalisation, medications including eplerenone, outpatient diagnostic tests and procedures, and emergency room visits. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated for life-years gained and quality-adjusted life-years gained. RESULTS: Eplerenone prolonged lifetime survival by five weeks at an additional cost of €803. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was about €8000 per life-year gained, well below the only published Dutch benchmark for cost-effectiveness of €18,000. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed the results to be robust when varying the discount rate applied to benefits and costs, the hospitalisation costs, and the source of life expectancy data used. CONCLUSION: Treatment with adjunctive eplerenone is effective in preventing deaths and prolonging life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".