CANADIAN JOURNAL OF DIABETES. 2009;33(4):363-374. COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF ATORVASTATIN IN DIABETES | 363
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIvE: To assess the clinical and economic benefits of atorvastatin for Canadian patients with type 2 diabetes from a Canadian Ministry of Health perspective. METhODS: A Markov cost-effectiveness model based on the clinical outcomes of the Collaborative Atorvastatin Diabetes Study was populated with a hypothetical cohort of patients with type 2 diabetes and no history of cardiovascular (CV) events, receiving 10 mg/day atorvastatin or placebo. Model inputs were retrieved from published literature and public data sets. The time horizon was 5 years, with additional pro-jections for 10 and 25 years. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Over 5 years, patients treated with atorvastatin experienced fewer CV events, gained 0.02 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) on a per-patient basis and had 1 % fewer deaths vs. placebo, at an additional cost of $1388 per patient. The incremental cost-effectiveness of atorvasta-tin was $70,773 (95 % CI $33,981–$195,914), $12,687 (95 % CI dominant–$66,048) and $1,362 (95 % CI domi-nant–$49,432) per QALY at 5, 10 and 25 years, respectively. The model was sensitive to variations in hazard ratios for CV events, age, systolic blood pressure and cholesterol levels. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the cost-effectiveness of atorvastatin for the primary prevention of major CV events in patients with type 2 diabetes.
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".